Perhaps, we should spell out what those subjective requirements are more clearly.

Dedication: have you worked in the executive or led a ministry?
Loyalty: have you ever participated or engaged in an unlawful coup or other subversive activity against our region or its allies?
Knowledge: do you know what you're signing up for?

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

Dedication: have you worked in the executive or led a ministry?

I'm sure there are more ways to show dedication than just through a ministry.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

2) I strongly disagree with having these qualitative attributes and also letting people self-nominate. It doesn't matter how we judge the applications, the issue is whether or not a random person from the region could read this and thing "Hey, I feel these qualifications" and apply. The current requirements were created to make sure people were in the region a particular length of time as well as having these qualifications. Making the qualification even more subjective and allowing everyone to apply for them is a recipe for hurt feelings and potentially putting an onus on the CRS to reject applications. 

I'm confused about this because we currently require all applicants to explain why they should be admitted to the CRS, and we expect that explanation to be more than meeting the stats requirements. The instructions for the application say that meeting the influence/endo requirements is not the only thing being looked at. And in how the CRS has handled applications since being created, all of the debate and questions for applicants is about those qualitative things. Meeting the stats requirements is just the first step, and the CRS literally just goes, "Okay, before we start, do they even have enough endos/influence? They do? Okay, now we can debate their app."

I guess I'm not seeing how what you're saying we can't do.. is different from what we've already been doing all along? It's not a lot to ask someone to explain how they've demonstrated loyalty, how they're knowledgable, etc.

I'm not talking about what the CRS does or takes into account when considering application or even what we're asking applicants to do; I'm talking about the nations who would ultimately apply for membership.

As intended, the endorsements and influence requirements require nations to be in the region for a specific amount of time and either be a legislator or LC member for some time. If we move from those standards to all squishy characteristics you're talking about (which, I'm not against, fwiw), I think we need some check to limit the nations who are considered. It's really easy for someone to move here after defending elsewhere and go "I fit this bill!" but we'd never consider them because they haven't been in the region very long, we don't know them, etc. etc. 

Essentially, what I'm saying is that I think having all subjective qualities is a recipe for (a) hurting the feelings of people who shouldn't yet apply and/or (b) overloading the CRS with applicants from people who we wouldn't seriously consider.

Looking back, I suggested nominations, but my intention was not to suggest nominations as we had in the past. Rather, I'm thinking "nominations" by someone (delegate, PM, other CRS members maybe) for the person to apply to the CRS — with the same vetting process we have now. May be a better comparison would be the nomination process the LC for election candidates, e.g. you can't nominate yourself, but obviously the nomination isn't a slam dunk, either.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 09-19-2021, 09:56 AM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

I want to re-tweet this. I think conceptually there aren't any issues with the proposal but in status quo practice the Coral Guard cap is simply too low if the CRS wishes the CG to start taking on more of the burden of maintaining high endorsements and influence. For this to work, (a) the Coral Guard will need to be advertised for endorsements at the same level as the CRS to increase their rate of accumulation beyond what it is now, and/or (b) their cap will need to be raised significantly.

As a CG member, want to second this. 

I'm very happy to be in the CG and think it is serving its function as a line of defense.  As a low activity and minimal time member of TSP, the CG is the perfect spot for me to support TSP without committing to anything else.  My main frustration has been the struggle to raise my endos relative to the main population.  I daily endorse the new WAs, but even with that, it's been a slog to get to even where I am now.  I definitely think CG members need to be advertised for endorsements to bump them up to where they need to be.

Land Without Shrimp

Reply

So ... bump?

I didn't mean to kill this and think we should proceed with it ....

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I want to re-tweet this. I think conceptually there aren't any issues with the proposal but in status quo practice the Coral Guard cap is simply too low if the CRS wishes the CG to start taking on more of the burden of maintaining high endorsements and influence. For this to work, (a) the Coral Guard will need to be advertised for endorsements at the same level as the CRS to increase their rate of accumulation beyond what it is now, and/or (b) their cap will need to be raised significantly.

As a CG member, want to second this. 

I'm very happy to be in the CG and think it is serving its function as a line of defense.  As a low activity and minimal time member of TSP, the CG is the perfect spot for me to support TSP without committing to anything else.  My main frustration has been the struggle to raise my endos relative to the main population.  I daily endorse the new WAs, but even with that, it's been a slog to get to even where I am now.  I definitely think CG members need to be advertised for endorsements to bump them up to where they need to be.

As one of the original members of the Coral Guard, there are some ways to help with this. I think I also fit the bill to be in this organization as opposed to the CRS. I've never served in the military, don't have much knowledge of security, and like to endorse everyone I come across. A good idea would be to use the discord bot to find out all the nations who are not endorsing you, then telegram all of them. That's what I did a while ago at least. It is a bit difficult though with such a low cap. Currently, the cap for normal nations is 489 while the cap for CG members is 510. That's only a 21 endorsement difference, and many normal nations go over the cap as they endorse every nation. I think if we're to be taken seriously and be a distinct line of defense, the cap should be raised.

Concrete Slab
Coral Guard Member
5x Local Councillor 
TSP Legislator and Citizen
Ambassador to the League 
Author of GAR #471, #479, and SCR #271
Co-author of SCR #300
Founded 1/25/18

(This post was last modified: 09-30-2021, 11:57 AM by Concrete Slab.)

Reply

Personally, I'm not seeing too much need to change the current nomination/application processes. As I understand it, the concern is that no quantitative requirements will result in a large influx of applications which are not able to be entertained in terms of qualitative expectations. If that happens, the CRS can simply dismiss those applications and I see fairly little issue with that. Is this a large problem now? After all, plenty of nations meet the CRS endorsement guidelines but would never satisfy CRS qualitative guidelines, so I'm not sure if I see where the new issue is coming from. Not to mention, the CRS would still have the 6 months Legislator/2-term Local Council requirement to check against any been-here-one-week applications.

I want to underline that I continue to agree with the idea the CG endocap will need to be raised in this case. However, that's a logistical detail the CRS will need to figure out rather than something that should be codified into the law. 

In broad concept, I remain supportive of this

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Let me see if I understand this...

We want the CRS with the high endo's and influence but we also want the CRS to be mobile and do the R/D thing...

We can make a mobile unit but would we want to NAME the peeps in it? or make them Spies?

  I have been reading through this but just want to post this again as it got... overlooked.... Yes let's say overlooked as even though I have other thoughts on the matter, it would be wonderful to get this answered :-)

This is Penguin!!
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Penguins shall one day rule the pie!
And by "pie", I mean "World"!!
Goddess Empress Queen Princess Lady of TSP 
Lilium Inter Spinas // Non timebo mala
I have done a lot of things in the Region in my History.
There's a list somewhere if you wanna go looking. 

Reply

Personally, I'm not seeing too much need to change the current nomination/application processes. As I understand it, the concern is that no quantitative requirements will result in a large influx of applications which are not able to be entertained in terms of qualitative expectations. If that happens, the CRS can simply dismiss those applications and I see fairly little issue with that. Is this a large problem now? After all, plenty of nations meet the CRS endorsement guidelines but would never satisfy CRS qualitative guidelines, so I'm not sure if I see where the new issue is coming from. Not to mention, the CRS would still have the 6 months Legislator/2-term Local Council requirement to check against any been-here-one-week applications.

I want to underline that I continue to agree with the idea the CG endocap will need to be raised in this case. However, that's a logistical detail the CRS will need to figure out rather than something that should be codified into the law. 

In broad concept, I remain supportive of this

I'd be satisfied if we're keeping the 6-month 2 term requirement; that's not how I read Glen's original proposal.

Let me see if I understand this...

We want the CRS with the high endo's and influence but we also want the CRS to be mobile and do the R/D thing...

We can make a mobile unit but would we want to NAME the peeps in it? or make them Spies?

  I have been reading through this but just want to post this again as it got... overlooked.... Yes let's say overlooked as even though I have other thoughts on the matter, it would be wonderful to get this answered :-)

So, I think the answer to your first question is essentially, yes. We'd want to balance people with high endo and influence with people who can participate in missions and use the CG for buttress endos and influence.

I'm not thinking the idea is to have spies, per se, but rather have people more engaged outside of the region and CRS members can generally be now.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I'd be satisfied if we're keeping the 6-month 2 term requirement; that's not how I read Glen's original proposal.

If we can agree on that as a compromise, that seems more than reasonable to me.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply