As a point of information, is there currently an established line of succession for the Delegate seat? I’m not aware of one but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We’ve been fortunate enough to not need it lately, but it’s the kind of thing that’s good to keep around and check it every year or so.
1 Like
Well, that’s an easy one; we don’t need one because I need y’all disorganized and infighting trying to figure out who should take over after I coup.
We as a region should be very grateful that we have not needed to overly worry about who is getting into the Delegate seat and who should replace them in the event of a rouge one. I am not currently aware of a plan existing, and I definitely think we should at least have a rough plan for succession in the event of such an occasion arising. I imagine now that the question has been asked, the ball will likely start rolling.
I always figured it would be the highest crs member we would rally around 
I mean…that’s what I assume it or, or rather how I think it should work. But in the event of a vacancy, the first in the line of succession becomes Delegate. Do we have written down who that’ll be?
We could put the #2 endo holder in the immediate succession seat since they:
- Are closest to the delegacy anyway
- Are CG and are trusted to hold high numbers of endos
- Assuming the Delegacy becomes vacant via WA resignation/ban of the Delegate, the #2 becomes Delegate at the next update
not sure we would want to let the game mod crazy girl be the number two 
Isn’t that the point of the Coral Guard?
They are trusted to hold a higher number of endorsements, but their suitability or trustworthiness to succeed to the delegacy aren’t something that was considered. I’m not saying the Coral Guard can’t be trusted, I’m just saying that “do we trust them to succeed to the delegacy” wasn’t a factor that was considered when discussing and voting on their appointment.
Exactly what Kris says, which makes me think the Delegate, PM, and CRS should have a little chat about the line of succession 
Has that been started yet and, if so, what’s the progress on it?
I realise nothing has been posted on this matter for some time but for the record, yes, these discussions are ongoing in the relevant Discord channels.
Figured I’d check in around the one-month mark
Is there any news on this? If there are structural or procedural obstacles that are getting in the way of this which could be addressed by legislation, that seems like a discussion worth having…
The CRS is currently continuing to engage in their internal discussions, which the Prime Minister and I learned this past evening.
Can we ask which CRS members have been active in those discussions and which have not?
Are there two conversations happening here? One on Discord and another in this thread?
I think perhaps the best way to move forward with certainty is for us to consider a list of those in the LoS (as defined in the Discord chat), the CRS will take an informal vote on it (I’ll ping people) and we can consider that as the definitive list until the next period it’s thought of as necessary to revise one (i.e. four months or so). Thoughts?
Re your question, HS, it’s Penguin and myself at the moment. I believe Kris, Tsu, and Em may have an awareness of the discussions as well.
There’s a private conversation between PM/Delegate/CRS in a channel that the Cabinet also has access to, but this was always a public thread to raise a point related to regional security, and the public is reasonably allowed to request answers.
That’s a concerning lack of participation. Is that lack of participation perhaps why it’s taken the CRS a month to not-actually-decide on this?
Either way, this level of inaction and lack of engagement by the CRS should raise serious questions about whether its current composition is “OK” or not. Unlike the Assembly, the CRS isn’t subject to regular “activity checks”. Maybe it should be…
I’m not comfortable with being thrown under the bus like this. You all know that I have participated in the discussions being had in #joint-security-room and have actively engaged with others about my views on how the line of succession should be set.
I haven’t been trying to throw you under the bus. You’re right–I did see you comment in #joint-security-room and didn’t correct Amerion that you had participated, that’s my bad.
I do think it’s important for people to then follow through on the JSR discussions. I’m guessing (hoping?) there’s been a private CRS discussion, I hope more people are participating in that (and participating again, that way some kind of CRS consensus-test can happen, as required by the law).
Beyond you personally, I think it’s more than fair to ask who in the CRS is actually, ya know, active and participating in CRS discussions.
My comment was in response to being relegated to just having “an awareness” of things. If I don’t set the record straight then the narrative will be completely contrary to reality, and I don’t think that’s fair to me or to the public.
My understanding is the PM and Delegate are available to collaborate on this with the CRS and already posted initial proposals.
Has the CRS sent a response to the PM and Delegate’s latest ideas for this?
And, to clarify, I mean did the CRS as a collective entity send a response. Not “did individual members of the CRS provide commentary to the Delegate/PM that they didn’t know how to interpret because it wasn’t flagged as a CRS opinion”.
Is there a CRS internal discussion on the line of succession? How close is it to reaching a solid proposal for the Delegate/PM to review? Who on the Council has commented in this discussion?
Specifically, I am asking who has commented on the internal CRS discussion on this. It is one thing to have commented in the joint security room—a joint venue with the Delegate/PM. Active participation in the Council’s internal processes, and reasonably timely efforts to address Council business through Council deliberations, is a critical part of the Council maintaining trust and confidence in its deliberations as well as the Council actually fulfilling its fairly minimal job requirements.
If the Council isn’t active enough to issue a collective response–any collective response, not even one that results in resolution of the question–within over five weeks of a public question being asked about something, why on earth should the public consider the Council credible and capable to its function of maintaining regional security in times of crisis?
Does the Council have any plans to fix the dysfunction that is obviously present in its institutions?
I hope the CRS can issue a collective response to these questions about the CRS’ institutional capacity to do its job. A response from individual members of the CRS is wildly insufficient because it doesn’t demonstrate consideration by the CRS as an institution, or that CRS members are participating in the CRS as an institution. It only would demonstrate that people check the forum when people start getting cranky, which is grossly insufficient for the CRS to do its job.
Just because we haven’t put out some official letterhead memo about this doesn’t mean the CRS is dysfunctional. This is a purely hypothetical discussion and not actually urgent.
1 Like