Recently, the CRS lost two members due to resignations, decreasing membership to 7. While this isn't an historic low by any means, I do think the reasons for Jay's and Seraph's resignations are warning signs that the way we've set up the CRS might need to be changed. Jay resigned because CRS membership requires maintaining World Assembly status within TSP. In other words, you can't be active in the SPSF and the CRS. Seraph resigned in part due to feeling like they didn't belong in a security-focused body because of their security knowledge/influence relative to other members.

Over the past couple years, the CRS mitigated the issues of endorsement saturation in the region and lack of viable candidates for CRS membership by creating the Coral Guard. That's definitely been a success, with Coral Guard members maintaining high endorsement levels in line with the cap. I do think the Coral Guard remains a viable solution to ensuring we have a lot of high-influence nations that can't be ejected in the event of a coup.

But the other issue, a lack of viable candidates for CRS membership, isn't solved by the Coral Guard. As TSP continues growing with a defender focus, SPSF membership is going to be a large attractor for active and trusted players. Jay resigning so he can defend with the SPSF shows that requiring CRS members to lock down their WA status in the region will be a hindrance to maintaining or growing CRS ranks. Of the current generation of players I would consider voting to admit, all of them are active in the military (and have been military-focused for a long time, even before TSP). The likelihood of them giving up defending to join the CRS, which day-to-day doesn't involve doing much by design, is very low. This poses a long-term existential problem. While all current CRS members are highly trusted and can be available when needed, most of us aren't as active as those prospective members if we're being completely honest. CRS ranks are mostly older names in the region, some older than others.

This has been discussed before, but I think we need to remove the WA requirement for CRS membership. Doing this would allow trusted TSPers to be in the CRS and also be active in the SPSF. This wouldn't lower the security knowledge requirements, nor would it open the floodgates to a ton of people joining. But it would prevent the SPSF from being a hurdle to the CRS maintaining and growing its ranks with trusted, experienced, and knowledgable people.

The last time this was proposed, there was opposition because it was Roavin proposing it and he made clear he wanted to apply for the CRS in the event the WA requirement was removed. I think that was a mistake. The CRS took parts of his idea when creating the Coral Guard. But the rest wasn't considered on the merits, but on whether or not CRS members felt Roavin was being self-interested. It baffled me at the time and still does, because somebody like Roavin is exactly the kind of person who should be in our region's security institution. It's no secret that even with him not being a member, TSP has benefited from his security knowledge and influence. There are more people like Roavin in the region now, and there will probably be more in the future too. I don't see the benefit in preventing them from being in the CRS.

This proposal would be to rewrite sections 2, 3, and 6 of Article IX of the Charter, removing hard-coded references to endorsements and influence. Those would be replaced with qualitative requirements: trustworthiness, dedicated and loyalty to the Coalition, and knowledge of regional security. This would have a side benefit of clarifying a recurring issue with membership applications, too, where people don't understand why they'd be rejected when they meet the endorsement and influence requirements. I also think we should add the Coral Guard to the Charter as well, as a body beneath the CRS, so that new players do know it exists and is an option they can work towards.

(This post was last modified: 11-19-2021, 05:35 AM by anjo.)

Reply

This idea has my full-throated support. Tying regional security to WA membership is a good idea in theory, especially due to our nature as a GCR, but there are some aspects of regional security where being WA-locked actively hinders the flexibility of such a body, especially as concerns intelligence operations. Ideally (in my opinion, at least) the CRS would contain a balance of high-influence, high-endorsement nations as well as those who are WA mobile.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

Reply

If I may add my two shillings;

When you eliminate the endorsement/influence requirements on CRS you may have other CRS members who split their duties with SPSF. This will undermine some of the key deterrents to an outside agency (or even an internal coup by the delegate).

The CG endocap is too low and you will need those CG members who can hold WA and float around 550. Right now there is little difference between a high endo non-CG and a CG that is capped out. In fact you might want to increase the minimum threshold that CG members must maintain (>450 on some sort of sliding scale).

CRS can hold that trusted position with the magical keys to the kingdom of border control but they are going to need to quickly grant border control authority to CG members on a temporary basis if a legitimate threat is actively engaged.

It's like missile control officers in a silo; They are apolitical and technicians who can prep and launch missiles but they are not making the decisions. The president or queen or delegate is acting through those individuals and directing their responses.  (maybe a poor analogy but I hope you grasp my underlying concepts).

The missiles are useless unless the codes are given.

---
CG members are making the same sacrifice as CRS members right now. They cannot join the SPSF, yet they get no recognition and are treated like members of the national guard by the full-time (fully trusted) army of CRS.

Tisha
Minister of Engagement
Legislator
Coral Guard
Ambassador to South Pacific region
OWL senior staff

Tishers ?☢ [Nyxonia]

LEDA #1             June, July, August, September 2021
COB #10            April, May 2021
Wingspan #10     August, September 2021

"I am an endorsin fool"

(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021, 11:46 PM by Tishers [Nyxonia].)

Reply

I may be mis-remembering, but I think the larger issue that was raised was about the concentration of power in the proposal previously, not about Roavin applying for membership. I think keeping LegComm outside of the CRS/CG should sufficiently solve that concern as I remember it being raised.

For my part, I think this makes a lot of sense based on what we've been expecting the CRS to accomplish as of late. Whereas the idea — way back when — was that the Cabinet was responsible for the protection of the region, we've certainly have been expecting the CRS to do that. And, as such, it makes sense for people to have GP and SPSF experience involved.

The one thing I'd suggest is that if we're going to turn toward qualitative traits — as Glen suggested — I think we should also return to being nominated by the prime minister or cabinet or delegate or someone. Asking someone to determine how others are qualitatively perceiving them isn't going to work well.

I also think it makes sense to codify the Coral Guard. It will also take care of the issues of CRS having high influence and endorsement counts.

Following Tisha (who responded while I was writing): I think we could make it so the CG also has some board control power. Right now the endorsements of CG are lower than the CRS, but that wouldn't be an issue under the reworking.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021, 11:51 PM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

Tsu is correct that the objections to Roavin’s proposal was not about changing the structure of the CRS and it’s membership requirements, but about the powers he was proposing to invest the new security/intelligence body with.

The simplest and most logical approach to this issue would probably be to add a new clause to Article IX along the lines of “The Delegate and Generals Corps will serve as members of the CRS ex-officio.” as that seems to achieve what is being sought without needing to completely restructure the CRS.

_{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 generally support this proposal. Most of these ideas/components are relatively half-baked and are more for discussion than something I'm committed to, but I want to get them out there. 

I do think it should require either WA membership in the region or SPSF membership. I wouldn't want the CRS to have members who aren't dedicating their WA to TSP in one way or the other.

Re: Border Control RO slots -- these are set by the Regional Officers Act and not by the Charter, and I could see the RO Act being amended to say "all spare RO slots shall be allocated by the CRS as they see fit" instead of "all spare RO slots should be allocated to the CRS". This would enable the CRS to put together a team of BC ROs with diverse skillsets (i.e. it might be good to have one BC RO with good ban speeds, another 1-2 BC ROs who are active on the RMB and can deal with spammers, another 1-2 BC ROs who have the highest endorsement/influence and can handle any potentially more costly banjections, etc.).
 

The CG endocap is too low and you will need those CG members who can hold WA and float around 550. Right now there is little difference between a high endo non-CG and a CG that is capped out. In fact you might want to increase the minimum threshold that CG members must maintain (>450 on some sort of sliding scale).

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.

Perhaps another way to make the Coral Guard less of a robotic influence accumulation/banjection team working for the CRS would be to give it some of its own autonomous authority in terms of promoting endorsement culture and engagement (while still allowing CRS to override these decisions where they may conflict with regional security). 

Truthfully, when I posed a question in #legislators-lounge yesterday about declining CRS membership, I was referring more to this concern about having enough influence in the region as part of the regional security apparatus. 
 

The simplest and most logical approach to this issue would probably be to add a new clause to Article IX along the lines of “The Delegate and Generals Corps will serve as members of the CRS ex-officio.” as that seems to achieve what is being sought without needing to completely restructure the CRS.

Not really.

For starters, the Delegate arguably should not be on the CRS, since the Delegate is the most powerful potential security threat to the region at any given time. While if the Delegate is already a member of the CRS then I think it's reasonable for them to stay on the CRS, I don't think by law all Delegates should be CRS Members ex officio. 

Additionally, Generals are selected to help build activity, member engagement, oversee operations and promotions, etc. in the SPSF. Many Generals have security-related knowledge but they aren't selected for the purpose of having the kind of knowledge necessary to maintain the security of TSP itself or for performing those specific duties.

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?

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

When you eliminate the endorsement/influence requirements on CRS you may have other CRS members who split their duties with SPSF. This will undermine some of the key deterrents to an outside agency (or even an internal coup by the delegate).

Can you expand on that? The CRS would still have ~7 members, as it does now, who are WA locked. But even in the event that every single CRS member decides to join the SPSF and go WA-mobile, I'm not sure what deterrents are being lost, as long as the Coral Guard has enough members itself. I do think it's very unlikely that the CRS would be entirely WA-mobile. If that time does come, then we can reassess how we organize regional security for that reality.

The CG endocap is too low and you will need those CG members who can hold WA and float around 550. Right now there is little difference between a high endo non-CG and a CG that is capped out. In fact you might want to increase the minimum threshold that CG members must maintain (>450 on some sort of sliding scale).

I don't think the Coral Guard endocap needs to be changed right now, as it's already dynamic. What's important is that members maintain their endorsements, so that they're consistently building influence. In the event of a coup, the goal is that the rogue Delegate/ROs would deplete their influence reserve after banning a couple CRS/CG members. The Coral Guard isn't our first line of attack in a counter-coup. We'd want to target a CRS member, the one with the highest endorsements, in a pile op. The Coral Guard is a back-up plan primarily, and has all these secondary benefits of increasing WA membership, endorsements, and influence region-wide, because becoming a member is an achievable long-term goal for a lot of TSPers.

CG members are making the same sacrifice as CRS members right now. They cannot join the SPSF, yet they get no recognition and are treated like members of the national guard by the full-time (fully trusted) army of CRS.

Well, not to offend anyone, but that's exactly what the Coral Guard is. Being admitted to the Coral Guard doesn't require any security knowledge, gameplay skills, etc., just gaining and maintaining endorsements and being loyal to the Coalition. If somebody has those other skills, and has shown long-term loyalty and dedicated to TSP, they should apply for the CRS. I'm proposing getting rid of the WA requirement because there's a value-add in doing it so that our highly skilled and loyal TSPers in the SPSF can be admitted to the CRS. That same value-add doesn't exist for prospective Coral Guard members, because there aren't the same skill or knowledge requirements.
 

I may be mis-remembering, but I think the larger issue that was raised was about the concentration of power in the proposal previously, not about Roavin applying for membership. I think keeping LegComm outside of the CRS/CG should sufficiently solve that concern as I remember it being raised.

I'm not trying to re-litigate the past, but the CRS's general opposition to being "split" into a Coral Guard-esque WA-locked body and then the security decision-making body rested on a) the suggestion that current CRS members should be reassessed for which body they should be on, and b) Roavin's goal was to join the new decision-making body, because he could still have a mobile WA for defending. Opinions on the specific policies proposed through all the different debates varied, but those were really the major roadblocks in getting the CRS to buy in.

For my part, I think this makes a lot of sense based on what we've been expecting the CRS to accomplish as of late. Whereas the idea — way back when — was that the Cabinet was responsible for the protection of the region, we've certainly have been expecting the CRS to do that. And, as such, it makes sense for people to have GP and SPSF experience involved.

The one thing I'd suggest is that if we're going to turn toward qualitative traits — as Glen suggested — I think we should also return to being nominated by the prime minister or cabinet or delegate or someone. Asking someone to determine how others are qualitatively perceiving them isn't going to work well.

I don't agree with changing how applications are handled. Applicants are already judged primarily on those qualitative aspects, the endorsement and influence requirements are just boxes that get checked off before the CRS debates an applicant's loyalty, skill, knowledge, etc.

Following Tisha (who responded while I was writing): I think we could make it so the CG also has some board control power. Right now the endorsements of CG are lower than the CRS, but that wouldn't be an issue under the reworking.

Roavin's DC Act proposal included some powers for the Coral Guard-esque DC. They would've been the ones primarily responsible for enforcing the endocap, for example. I'm open to the idea of adding that, not sure it belongs in the Charter though. My assumption here is that the CRS will continue to be the one that defines the CG's requirements. Adding powers might require spelling it out in a law, though.

Reply

Apologies, I'm not in a mood to mess with our quoting rn. But, in response to Glen:

1) I really agree with this assessment, but I want to make it clear, I don't think anyone thought Roavin was being duplicitous or self-serving in the proposals to the detriment of the region.

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. 

3) I'm fine the whatever we want the CG to be/what responsibilities we want it to have, but the biggest security obstacle I'm seeing to all this is that the influence nations need to have border control powers and, if those nations happen to be in the CG, that needs to be OK too.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

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.

Reply