It was said that this should be a new thread, maybe smaller and simpler. So here it goes, all together, restarted. History and the reasons for doing this in the first place can all be found in this thread and the other threads linked there: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-6595.html.

I think this is an important reform, and it has dragged on for way too long. For now, I'd like to open a discussion on the basic principles again to see where we get (maybe with time and new members, new or better ideas can come about). Once we've agreed on the basic principles of the reform, we can get back to drafting.

Here is a list of changes that had been discussed and debated in the old thread(s), reformatted for better comprehension:


1. Structural Changes
1.1: The Council on Regional Security as well as the Legislator Committee will be dissolved and their duties redistributed.
1.2: A new institution called the Defense Council (DC) will be formed.
1.3: A new institution called the Council on Security and Intelligence (CSI) will be formed.
1.4: For consistency, all appointments going forward will go through a unified process wherein the Cabinet nominates and the Assembly approves.

2. Defense Council
2.1: The DC (Defense Council) consists of high-influence high-endorsement nations to serve as influence bulwark in case of an in-game attack on our region.
2.2: Requirements for membership on the DC are the mechanical requirements of the old CRS, adjusted to fit with the times (the old requirements were written at a time when the TSP Delegate held 350 endorsements)
2.3: The DC is responsible for tracking and enforcing the endorsement cap that the CSI recommends.
2.4: The DC is responsible for encouraging and promoting WA membership and endorsement sharing (in essence, they'd become the overseers of SWAN)
2.5: The DC is responsible for maintaining a line of succession for the Delegacy in case of emergencies.
2.6: The DC is chaired by a member selected amongst itself.
2.7: The DC will initially comprise existing CRS members.

3. Council on Security and Intelligence
3.1: The CSI (Council on Security and Intelligence) is formed, consisting of trusted individuals with experience and/or potential in regional security and intelligence.
3.2: The CSI is responsible for Legislator applications and other duties that require security approval.
3.3: The CSI may order the appointment of border control officers, and it may order border control actions to be taken for security reasons only.
3.4: The CSI may issue proscriptions
3.5: The CSI may declare a state of emergency (similar to how the CRS could previously)
3.6: The CSI will be chaired by a senior member selected amongst itself.
3.7: To lower the barrier of entry whilst ensuring confidentiality, the CSI consists of junior and senior ranks.
3.8: The CSI junior membership will initially comprise existing LegComm members.
3.9: The CSI senior membership will initially be Tsunamy and Glen, and they will then work on getting a solid roster of senior members.

4. Delegate
4.1: The Delegate's requirements are updated to include that they must either be a member of the DC or must otherwise be eligible for the DC.

5. Military
5.1: The SPSF's optional intelligence operation provisions will be removed entirely.


Some open questions:

• Any changes we want to make to the basic principles above before we get into drafting?
  
• Any changes we want to make to the names (DC, CSI, junior/senior CSI)?
  

Reply

I'm not keen on 1.4. One of the strengths of the current CRS system is that people can self select to apply for the org, thereby making their locked nation their choice rather than done out of commitment. I think that should remain for the DC.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

On (3.4), will Cabinet no longer have this authority?

Reply

Yay, assembly debate! \o/

I'm not keen on 1.4. One of the strengths of the current CRS system is that people can self select to apply for the org, thereby making their locked nation their choice rather than done out of commitment. I think that should remain for the DC.

I see what you're saying, but in practice, the nominations that Cabinet makes generally come through some sort of application process, be it for justices or for LegComm or what have you.

I don't feel too strongly about it, though. I'd like the general madnate for Cabinet because it makes quite a few things in our laws simpler, but we can do both, really.

On (3.4), will Cabinet no longer have this authority?

Cabinet would still have that authority as well, just as now. 3.4 basically means: In the Proscription Act, replace "CRS" with "CSI".

Reply

I remain fundamentally opposed to this on the simple basis that a security body should not be placed in charge of deciding who can and cannot be a member of the Assembly.

Splitting the existing CRS into an intelligence/security body and a regional defence force/militia is a perfectly sound idea, but it should be kept entirely separate from our democracy.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I remain fundamentally opposed to this on the simple basis that a security body should not be placed in charge of deciding who can and cannot be a member of the Assembly.

Splitting the existing CRS into an intelligence/security body and a regional defence force/militia is a perfectly sound idea, but it should be kept entirely separate from our democracy.

I agree.

Also, who would select DC members? Cabinet? LC? Delegate? Popularity Contest? Danceoff? Karaoke Contest?

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

Reply

I remain fundamentally opposed to this on the simple basis that a security body should not be placed in charge of deciding who can and cannot be a member of the Assembly.

Splitting the existing CRS into an intelligence/security body and a regional defence force/militia is a perfectly sound idea, but it should be kept entirely separate from our democracy.

I believe the intention behind this, and Roavin should correct me if I'm wrong, is to essentially give the Legislator Committee more security expertise rather than to give an intelligence branch a foothold into the Assembly.

...

Also, who would select DC members? Cabinet? LC? Delegate? Popularity Contest? Danceoff? Karaoke Contest?

Given that the proposed DC Act does not specify this process, I imagine it would function in a manner similar to the one currently in use with the CRS; where prospective members would submit an application with the Cabinet who shall then deliberate before coming to a decision as to whether to recommend that applicant to the Assembly for their approval to join the Council.

(This post was last modified: 12-13-2019, 11:36 PM by Amerion. Edit Reason: Grammar )

Reply

I remain fundamentally opposed to this on the simple basis that a security body should not be placed in charge of deciding who can and cannot be a member of the Assembly.

Splitting the existing CRS into an intelligence/security body and a regional defence force/militia is a perfectly sound idea, but it should be kept entirely separate from our democracy.

As I explained in the old thread, (1) it's not an impediment to democracy (2) we already have de facto this kind of thing (3) and as Amerion stated, this isn't about making the security body the arbiter of who gets to be and doesn't get to be in the assembly, but rather making the security-part of the application process part of the body that actually does it (and simplifying by having them do the other menial tasks as well). This was one of several motivations to have junior and senior CSI as well.

Also, who would select DC members? Cabinet? LC? Delegate? Popularity Contest? Danceoff? Karaoke Contest?

It would be cabinet nomination + assembly approval, as for everything else. Though having thought a bit about what Tsu said, maybe there's something to be said about applications. I have some ideas but I'll have to think about them a bit more.

Reply

It would be cabinet nominon + assembly approval, as for everything else. Though having thought a bit about what Tsu said, maybe there's something to be said about applications. I have some ideas but I'll have to think about them a bit more.

We all want large DC, but, that will just cause it to shrink, and fall into inactivity. Even appointing 10 new DC members is a pain in the rear for the cabinet, as all appointments are.

This would also limit the pool of delegate candidates, subverting our democracy, and will cause an establishment of influential TSPers which can run for delegate.

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

Reply

It would be cabinet nominon + assembly approval, as for everything else. Though having thought a bit about what Tsu said, maybe there's something to be said about applications. I have some ideas but I'll have to think about them a bit more.

We all want large DC, but, that will just cause it to shrink, and fall into inactivity. Even appointing 10 new DC members is a pain in the rear for the cabinet, as all appointments are.

This would also limit the pool of delegate candidates, subverting our democracy, and will cause an establishment of influential TSPers which can run for delegate.

How active do you envisage this DC being? In my mind, it would operate similarly if not the same as the CRS which is to say that while the members are active, the institution itself is a largely reactive one.

Reply