Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 12-16-2019, 09:58 AM

(12-16-2019, 06:04 AM)Roavin Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 10:48 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: 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.

(12-15-2019, 10:48 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: 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.

Yes — I mean, unless I'm misreading the argument/legislation, the two are already working together, this would just make it a closer working relationship.

And ... could/would it work if the CSI formed a "committee" for legislator apps from their ranks?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 12-16-2019, 04:14 PM

How about this really simple idea; we split the CRS into two as suggested, but don’t scrap the Leg Com.

If the objective of this is to have a more flexible security system that splits the intelligence and regional security functions this would achieve exactly that, without putting an intelligence body in charge of overseeing Assembly membership.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 12-16-2019, 04:15 PM by Belschaft.)

**Amerion** · 12-17-2019, 02:56 AM

(12-16-2019, 04:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about this really simple idea; we split the CRS into two as suggested, but don’t scrap the Leg Com.

If the objective of this is to have a more flexible security system that splits the intelligence and regional security functions this would achieve exactly that, without putting an intelligence body in charge of overseeing Assembly membership.

I think the end result would be a body which otherwise would currently be advising the CRS which I'm not yet sure is necessarily a strong case for reform.

**Belschaft** · 12-17-2019, 02:40 PM

(12-17-2019, 02:56 AM)Amerion Wrote:
(12-16-2019, 04:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about this really simple idea; we split the CRS into two as suggested, but don’t scrap the Leg Com.

If the objective of this is to have a more flexible security system that splits the intelligence and regional security functions this would achieve exactly that, without putting an intelligence body in charge of overseeing Assembly membership.

I think the end result would be a body which otherwise would currently be advising the CRS which I'm not yet sure is necessarily a strong case for reform.

But I thought the split between an intelligence body and security body was the whole point of this?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 12-17-2019, 03:06 PM

(12-16-2019, 04:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about this really simple idea; we split the CRS into two as suggested, but don’t scrap the Leg Com.

If the objective of this is to have a more flexible security system that splits the intelligence and regional security functions this would achieve exactly that, without putting an intelligence body in charge of overseeing Assembly membership.

I wouldn't personally be opposed. Could we make the CSI in charge of appointing LegComm people?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 12-17-2019, 08:21 PM

(12-17-2019, 03:06 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(12-16-2019, 04:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about this really simple idea; we split the CRS into two as suggested, but don’t scrap the Leg Com.

If the objective of this is to have a more flexible security system that splits the intelligence and regional security functions this would achieve exactly that, without putting an intelligence body in charge of overseeing Assembly membership.

I wouldn't personally be opposed. Could we make the CSI in charge of appointing LegComm people?

Why?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 12-18-2019, 09:40 AM

(12-17-2019, 08:21 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(12-17-2019, 03:06 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(12-16-2019, 04:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about this really simple idea; we split the CRS into two as suggested, but don’t scrap the Leg Com.

If the objective of this is to have a more flexible security system that splits the intelligence and regional security functions this would achieve exactly that, without putting an intelligence body in charge of overseeing Assembly membership.

I wouldn't personally be opposed. Could we make the CSI in charge of appointing LegComm people?

Why?

In keeping with the spirit of the original proposal.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 12-18-2019, 01:36 PM

(12-18-2019, 09:40 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(12-17-2019, 08:21 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(12-17-2019, 03:06 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(12-16-2019, 04:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about this really simple idea; we split the CRS into two as suggested, but don’t scrap the Leg Com.

If the objective of this is to have a more flexible security system that splits the intelligence and regional security functions this would achieve exactly that, without putting an intelligence body in charge of overseeing Assembly membership.

I wouldn't personally be opposed. Could we make the CSI in charge of appointing LegComm people?

Why?

In keeping with the spirit of the original proposal.

But why is that necessary? Is the LegCom not functioning? Can anyone point to someone they have approved for Assembly membership that the shouldn't have?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Amerion** · 12-19-2019, 12:34 AM

(12-17-2019, 02:40 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(12-17-2019, 02:56 AM)Amerion Wrote:
(12-16-2019, 04:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about this really simple idea; we split the CRS into two as suggested, but don’t scrap the Leg Com.

If the objective of this is to have a more flexible security system that splits the intelligence and regional security functions this would achieve exactly that, without putting an intelligence body in charge of overseeing Assembly membership.

I think the end result would be a body which otherwise would currently be advising the CRS which I'm not yet sure is necessarily a strong case for reform.

But I thought the split between an intelligence body and security body was the whole point of this?

I believe it is.

Forgive my indecision. I'm still evaluating the merits of this reform.

***Roavin*** · 12-21-2019, 06:08 AM

(12-16-2019, 04:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about this really simple idea; we split the CRS into two as suggested, but don’t scrap the Leg Com.

This is what I was going to propose as a compromise if the original idea didn't go anywhere.