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.

I disagree with that assessment. DC appointments wouldn't be as difficult as, say, LegComm or judicial appointments, and I'm quite sure Cabinet can dish those out quite quickly (I've been in it in some capacity more than not in my TSP career ).

I don't see the DC shrinking. If we take the CRS as comparison, it has lost 2 and gained 3 members during my time here, and the DC would rather be filled up (including by gamesiders) than lose members.

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.

First, before anything else, let's please get rid of this notion that Delegate should be some career achievement thing in our region. We got rid of that in 2016 for very, very good reasons.

Second, it would not limit the pool of candidates, because in the old discussions (which are reflected in the recap above) it was already agreed upon as a compromise that DC membership is not necessary for being Delegate, only the requirements for DC membership.

Reply

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.

There'd be some proactive activity too, because in the current recap above, the DC would also look after endocap enforcement and SWAN and such.

Reply

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.

There'd be some proactive activity too, because in the current recap above, the DC would also look after endocap enforcement and SWAN and such.  

Why don't we just appoint more CRS members, and leave them without RO slots?

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

(This post was last modified: 12-14-2019, 02:00 PM by Aga.)

Reply

The same reason that motivated this reform in the first place — separating one side of the coin, which is being entrusted to hold high-endo high-influence nations as a bulwark against in-game attacks, and the other side, which is having experience in security and intelligence.

Reply

The same reason that motivated this reform in the first place — separating one side of the coin, which is being entrusted to hold high-endo high-influence nations as a bulwark against in-game attacks, and the other side, which is having experience in security and intelligence.

Second, it would not limit the pool of candidates, because in the old discussions (which are reflected in the recap above) it was already agreed upon as a compromise that DC membership is not necessary for being Delegate, only the requirements for DC membership. 

Quite. This is beginning to make sense. I can agree with the security reforms now

So, I presume that requirements for a DC member would be to have endos above a certain amount etc. ?

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

Reply

Yup.

Reply

I believe I may have mentioned this in an earlier thread but I am concerned that with a much larger pool of individuals who will essentially serve in what is an evolved version of the CRS, we will face the possibility that a person may inadvertently secure the Delegacy. I expect that there will be an internal cap for the DC?

On a similar note, may I assume that any nominee for the DC will be either a Legislator or, if a member of gameside, vetted by the CSI?

Reply

To Belschaft’s post... The CRS (and the CSS before it) has been able to issue proscriptions and has had a role in Assembly membership for years and years now.

Thinking about it, I don’t think it’s ever been the case (at least since I joined) that the security org played no role at all. Even when the Vice Delegate handled citizenship apps, they were the Chair of the CSS too.

(This post was last modified: 12-15-2019, 09:43 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

To Belschaft’s post... The CRS (and the CSS before it) has been able to issue proscriptions and has had a role in Assembly membership for years and years now.

Thinking about it, I don’t think it’s ever been the case (at least since I joined) that the security org played no role at all. Even when the Vice Delegate handled citizenship apps, they were the Chair of the CSS too.

To be clear: I see and understand Bel's hesitation even if I'm somewhat indifferent to the argument.

But, essentially this would be little more than renaming of the LegComm, no?

Or, if we want to have more disbursed power, what if we made the "junior" members the LegComm (and responsible for citizen apps) and the senior members have the power for proscriptions and what not? That would seem better structured than having a host of people trying to approve all applications.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I believe I may have mentioned this in an earlier thread but I am concerned that with a much larger pool of individuals who will essentially serve in what is an evolved version of the CRS, we will face the possibility that a person may inadvertently secure the Delegacy. I expect that there will be an internal cap for the DC?

TNP has something like Delegate Endos - 50 or such. Something along those lines would probably be helpful here too, though in practice this'd only happen for an inactive Delegate anyway as the person in the regional seat has an advantage in terms of the endorsements they get either way (just based on history here and elsewhere).

On a similar note, may I assume that any nominee for the DC will be either a Legislator or, if a member of gameside, vetted by the CSI?

The latter. I wouldn't require Legislatorship as it would exclude gamesiders that we'd absolutely want to have on board with this kind of thing (BCP, PS2, etc.).

But, essentially this would be little more than renaming of the LegComm, no?

I suppose in practice it'd be basically like CRS and LegComm sharing a room.

Or, if we want to have more disbursed power, what if we made the "junior" members the LegComm (and responsible for citizen apps) and the senior members have the power for proscriptions and what not? That would seem better structured than having a host of people trying to approve all applications.

That means that promoting somebody from junior to senior won't be possible if they're still accepting apps and whatnot. Kinda weird and counterproductive.

Reply