Alright, I took a closer look at the Voting Act, and really, in comparison with extant law, we have to look at the combination of Voting Act and Assembly Act.
In total, I like it. Ironically, despite splitting Legislator into two separate things (Voter and Legislator), it makes it simpler. I’m, in a way, the father of LegComm, but I never liked it, because it was meant to compromise on a few things that are nearly impossible to compromise on. I’m actually pleased to see it broken up, with Legislator management back in the Chair but the actual security checks only with SecC where they, strictly, belong.
There are a few things that are problematic and, imho, need to change, which I’ll address in the point-by-point below, but overall, once again, I like it.
That all being said, let me propose a somewhat radical idea that makes things even simpler. What if we got rid of Legislators altogether? By that I mean anybody that is a registered voter is automatically a legislator, no extra effort needed, and removals are only done as part of Voter removals once every forum election. As it is, almost everything TSP does is out in the open anyway where any TSP member can participate, registered or not, so it seems to me like the security implications are basically none (wrt LegLounge and Private Halls), and it massively reduces bureaucracy for counting votes and whatnot.
Just an idea.
Anyway, some specifics:
This … is problematic. I see where you’re coming from in one sense, as parts of a security check may sometimes involve things beyond the mere confines of a game being played by anonymous players, but that doesn’t mean we can give SecC a pass for parts of a security check that may very well be within the confines of the game. SecC can mess up, or be corrupt, or whatever (though hopefully it isn’t), and there must be an avenue to address that.
Apart from that, I generally believe that our Court should be able to review anything within its jurisdiction, and this is no exception.
See above, but here even more so because in this case, there isn’t even the PII justification like the previous one has. This has to go, in my humble opinion.
I suppose this means there could be a LegComm but ideally, there wouldn’t be and it’d just be SecC doing it. At the same time, I do think CRS could use a few fresh faces.