Reconsideration of Proposed law on "Endorsement Cap"

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
Following a clarification issued by the Court, the Delegate vetoed the following proposal:

TNP LAW 33: Endorsement Cap Law

Section I. Definitions.
1. "Endorsement Cap" -- A number of endorsements which may not be exceeded by any nation, unless exempted under this Act.

2. "Changeover" -- A period of time after an election where the incumbent Delegate or Vice Delegate was not reelected but before the first update after the new Delegate and/or Vice Delegate attain first and second most endorsements in the region.

3. "Update" -- The period of time when nations have issues created and applied, and the WA Delegacy is decided. As applied to the North Pacific, this indicates the end of the period when all of the North Pacific's nations experience the update and the WA Delegacy is decided. As applied to an individual nation this indicates the time during which the nation's issues are created and applied, and its endorsements verified and counted.

Section II. Endorsement Cap.

In order to maintain the security of the region and the World Assembly (WA) Delegacy, The North Pacific hereby establishes an endorsement cap.

1. The nations holding the following positions shall be exempted from the endorsement cap:
a. The duly elected (or appointed) WA Delegate and Vice Delegate.
b. Members of the Security Council.
c. Nation that have declared candidacy for the position of WA Delegate or Vice Delegate during an election. Such nations must instead maintain endorsement levels as are expected of a member of the Security Council.

2. The limit for WA endorsements received shall be set by the Security Council.
a. The Endorsement Cap must be advertised on the Regional Message Board at least once per month, on the World Factbook Entry of the region, and kept up-to-date in the Security Council section of the North Pacific regional forum.
b. It shall be the duty of the WA Delegate to advertise immediately any change in the Endorsement Cap on the Regional Message Board, the World Factbook Entry, and in the Security Council section of the North Pacific regional forum.
C. The Endorsement Cap must be no lower than 60% of the Delegate's endorsement level and must not be set higher than the Vice Delegate's endorsement level.
D. During a Changeover, the Endorsement Cap must be no lower than 60% of the endorsement level of the nation in the Delegate seat, and must not be set higher than the maximum of the endorsement level of the incumbent Vice Delegate and the endorsement level of the Vice Delegate-elect.
E. Failure of the Vice Delegate to maintain an endorsement level above a reasonable Endorsement Cap may be grounds for a Recall election.

3. The Security Council is responsible for keeping track of the endorsement counts in the region and informing the WA Delegate of any necessary action to be taken.
a. Any nation that exceeds the endorsement cap shall be advised by telegram and/or Private Message by the WA Delegate or Vice Delegate that the limit has been exceeded, and that it is requested that the nation come into compliance.
b. Nations that have been advised of their violation of the Endorsement Cap shall have 48 hours to come into compliance. If a nation so advised remains in violation of this law without making any evident and ongoing attempt to come into compliance, the WA Delegate may eject, and temporarily ban the nation until the next update has passed.
c. Should a banned nation be found to be avoiding the update to keep their endorsements, their ban must not be lifted until such time as the banned nation has clearly updated and its endorsements have been deleted, and its WA "Soft Power Disbursement Rating" (Influence points) fallen below 50.
Click to expand...

While I opposed this bill on its original consideration, and still do, at least in this form, I think it's only fair to at least let the R.A. discuss whether to attempt to pass an amended version of the bill or let the topic drop.
 
Great Bights Mum:
This got passed??? Oh hell no! Just NO. I will have a more cohesive argument once I've collected myself... but NO!
Click to expand...
Not by a veto-proof majority it didn't. And then Blue Wolf II effectively vetoed it by doing nothing, and then I vetoed it as signing it 2-3 months later would be ridiculous.

I believe Blue Wolf II declined to sign it because it involved the Security Council.
 
Also I might have been under the impression it did achieve a veto proof majority when it, if fact, did not. Fold that tactic under your hat and thank me later.
 
I'd like to thank you now. Thanks, BW!

The way we have always dealt with tarters who are getting too close for comfort is to TALK TO THEM. 95% of the time all that's needed is a friendly little chat with the Delegate. Currently the SC has resources (thanks to Elu) for determining any nation's endorsement patterns, making it easier to spot nations who might be actively trying to overtake the delegacy. All this can and does happen informally. Pretty simple, right?

There is no need to subject every single WA nation in the region to a posted limitation on their endorsement-gathering. I believe it is unconstitutional. The 4th amendment provides that: "The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member." We cannot pass a law abridging this basic national right.

No endorsement caps in TNP - It is one of the basic freedoms we have fought for time and again. I can recall a dictator imposing a cap of 90. 90! You will agree that is extreme, but any cap is a burden and is contrary to the ideal of a FREE TNP.
 
Presumably as you voted for it originally Eluvatar, you don't have any objections to the bill itself, just the legislative lag that goes with it?

In which case, is there a need to reconsider? The RA passed it, the delegate doesn't object to the content, stick it straight back up for voting.
 
I did vote in favour, but I'd be fine with there being no endorsement cap law per se as well.

That said I was okay with this legislation. The lowest an endocap could permissibly be set under it would be 60% of the Delegate's endorsements-- Right now that would be 186. I would prefer not to have a formal endorsement cap at all, but if we must have one, a law with limits like this one seemed the way to go.

I do think that some kind of clear formal procedure with regard to reckless endorsement gatherers may be in order, as it's unclear what authority the Delegate has to deal with them right now. It seems that every such endorsement gatherer who ends up requiring ejection ends up being a Clause 11 (of the bill of rights) issue, which seems like a terrible way to govern to me.

Whether that procedure is an endorsement cap or some kind of rule on reckless endorsement gathering despite N warnings, I do not care particularly strongly. The latter would seem to be more in line with TNP traditions, but I haven't seen it formulated very clearly.
 
Well, I'm the one who proposed the idea. So I suppose I will have to defend it.

The way we have always dealt with tarters who are getting too close for comfort is to TALK TO THEM. 95% of the time all that's needed is a friendly little chat with the Delegate. Currently the SC has resources (thanks to Elu) for determining any nation's endorsement patterns, making it easier to spot nations who might be actively trying to overtake the delegacy. All this can and does happen informally. Pretty simple, right?
Click to expand...

As Elu have said, the Delegate currently have no authority to deal with this matter besides from exercising Clause 11 of the bill of rights. While I agreed that it's usually the friendly talk that gets the cooperation, I would still prefer a written guideline that apply equally to everyone as the Delegate that is not as "sensible" as Elu may abuse his authority if none of this is written.

There is no need to subject every single WA nation in the region to a posted limitation on their endorsement-gathering. I believe it is unconstitutional. The 4th amendment provides that: "The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member." We cannot pass a law abridging this basic national right.
Click to expand...

The right is for each nation to give or withdraw endorsement. I believe that it shouldn't be interpreted as the right to gather endorsement into a level that is threatening the security of the region.

No endorsement caps in TNP - It is one of the basic freedoms we have fought for time and again. I can recall a dictator imposing a cap of 90. 90! You will agree that is extreme, but any cap is a burden and is contrary to the ideal of a FREE TNP.
Click to expand...

This law specifically state that the cap must be at least 60% of the Delegate which is quiet plenty in TNP. (150 something, I believe) I don't think of this law as just a creation of cap against every nation, but also a guideline that will prevent future delegate from simply setting the cap at 10 just because nothing forbid it.

I support further discussion on this though as the Regional Assembly now is far more open and active then before which is a great thing to have when you are throwing in this kind of idea that may make some peoples uncomfortable with more restriction. Although, it is still a pretty weird reason to veto the bill.
 
If reconsideration is what we're going for, I tend to agree slightly more with GBM's view. My worry would be that under a strictly defined endo-cap policy, the first contact some non-forum nations would have with us would end up being a telegram telling them to drop endos or else.

The SC is already tasked with identifying security threats, personally I'd prefer a body with discretion and freedom in doing this, rather than overly codify a procedure.

However, I do agree with Felasia's point about preventing delegates from imposing arbitrary endo caps and can see some benefits of this.



edit - has the issue of legislation sitting in awaiting veto/sign off limbo been addressed in the constitution/legal code revamps?
 
I agree with GBM.

Behavior of a nation engaging in endo-swapping is more telling of their intentions than simply passing a semi-arbitrary line in the sand in terms of endorsements.
 
Namyeknom:
edit - has the issue of legislation sitting in awaiting veto/sign off limbo been addressed in the constitution/legal code revamps?
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that the base draft of the constitutional revision provides for a one week period for the Delegate to veto.
If that gets sidetracked, then we'll put something up to fix the current constitution.
This bill is one of the few laws that has passed the RA with less than 60 per cent approval, so the current procedure has been rarely even used. In fact, I believe this is the first veto ever.
 
I believe that a set endorsement cap is necessary for Regional security albeit it isn't popular but it is necessary. I do believe however that if if the endorsement cap were raised slightly higher than 60% of the delegates, This law would have more support and would have a better chance of passing in the RA with a veto proof majority.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I'd like to thank you now. Thanks, BW!

The way we have always dealt with tarters who are getting too close for comfort is to TALK TO THEM. 95% of the time all that's needed is a friendly little chat with the Delegate. Currently the SC has resources (thanks to Elu) for determining any nation's endorsement patterns, making it easier to spot nations who might be actively trying to overtake the delegacy. All this can and does happen informally. Pretty simple, right?

There is no need to subject every single WA nation in the region to a posted limitation on their endorsement-gathering. I believe it is unconstitutional. The 4th amendment provides that: "The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member." We cannot pass a law abridging this basic national right.

No endorsement caps in TNP - It is one of the basic freedoms we have fought for time and again. I can recall a dictator imposing a cap of 90. 90! You will agree that is extreme, but any cap is a burden and is contrary to the ideal of a FREE TNP.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Perhaps if we're interested in making it a bill which limits, rather than a bill which prohibits certain endolevels, we could make a law that:

1. Permits the Delegate to eject nations which meet all of the below conditions:
A) Been reported to the Delegate as a threat by the SC
B) Continued gathering endorsements after 2 warnings at least 2 days apart
C) Have more endorsements than 75% of the Delegate's endorsement level / Have more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's endorsement level / ???
2. Prohibits the Delegate from ejecting nations for gathering endorsements if they have fewer endorsements than (C)
 
You should add an additional 'catch all' item that covers one specific situation in which the Delegate may act immediately:

3.) The Delegate may eject any nation that has attained more endorsements than the Delegate prior to an nationStates update.

Not sure how to exactly word it, but in a situation where a nation by some means has enough endorsements that when the region updates said nation would take the Delegacy from the legitimate delegate, the Delegate should be allowed to boot the nation prior to the update (obviously) to protect the Delegacy without prior consultation (as asking someone to lower their endo count an hour before an update would be like piddling into a fan).

Does that make sense?
 
Eluvatar:
Perhaps if we're interested in making it a bill which limits, rather than a bill which prohibits certain endolevels, we could make a law that:

1. Permits the Delegate to eject nations which meet all of the below conditions:
A) Been reported to the Delegate as a threat by the SC
B) Continued gathering endorsements after 2 warnings at least 2 days apart
C) Have more endorsements than 75% of the Delegate's endorsement level / Have more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's endorsement level / ???
2. Prohibits the Delegate from ejecting nations for gathering endorsements if they have fewer endorsements than (C)
Click to expand...
:agree: with this and would support such a bill.
 
I agree with GBM - I'm generally against endorsement caps. It's always been something that's set TNP apart, and I wouldn't want to lose that.
 
Great Bights Mum:
The RA is not a static body. Those who comprise the current RA may care to discuss the issue.
Click to expand...
The RA tends to do as it is told. get a few high-profile players to vote a particular way, at the others will generally follow.
 
flemingovia:
Great Bights Mum:
The RA is not a static body. Those who comprise the current RA may care to discuss the issue.
Click to expand...
The RA tends to do as it is told. get a few high-profile players to vote a particular way, at the others will generally follow.
Click to expand...
And that's when democracy crosses the line into mob rule. It's part of the political process in which one generally has three choices: 1.) go along with it; 2.) resist it out of hand; or, 3.) figure out how to manipulate it to promote an agenda. :P
 
flemingovia:
Great Bights Mum:
The RA is not a static body. Those who comprise the current RA may care to discuss the issue.
Click to expand...
The RA tends to do as it is told. get a few high-profile players to vote a particular way, at the others will generally follow.
Click to expand...
:agree: and unfortunately that is a definite problem in the RA.
 
That may be the case. But little can be done to encourage those who vote simply based on "how the influential voted" to actually think about things, and vote based on their opinions, not how others vote.
 
IF there is a way of drafting a process that avoids actual or implied endorsement cap provisions beyond that which currently exists in current law, and which avoids any mechanism that amounts to a hard endorsement cap, then I might be able to support it; but I would have to see how it was drafted.
No guarantees of support, but I'll be wiling to consider it.
 
peoples empire:
Eluvatar:
Perhaps if we're interested in making it a bill which limits, rather than a bill which prohibits certain endolevels, we could make a law that:

1. Permits the Delegate to eject nations which meet all of the below conditions:
A) Been reported to the Delegate as a threat by the SC
B) Continued gathering endorsements after 2 warnings at least 2 days apart
C) Have more endorsements than 75% of the Delegate's endorsement level / Have more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's endorsement level / ???
2. Prohibits the Delegate from ejecting nations for gathering endorsements if they have fewer endorsements than (C)
Click to expand...
:agree: with this and would support such a bill.
Click to expand...
Bump.

Could a poll be held on what (C) should be?
 
Eluvatar:
peoples empire:
Eluvatar:
Perhaps if we're interested in making it a bill which limits, rather than a bill which prohibits certain endolevels, we could make a law that:

1. Permits the Delegate to eject nations which meet all of the below conditions:
A) Been reported to the Delegate as a threat by the SC
B) Continued gathering endorsements after 2 warnings at least 2 days apart
C) Have more endorsements than 75% of the Delegate's endorsement level / Have more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's endorsement level / ???
2. Prohibits the Delegate from ejecting nations for gathering endorsements if they have fewer endorsements than (C)
Click to expand...
:agree: with this and would support such a bill.
Click to expand...
Bump.

Could a poll be held on what (C) should be?
Click to expand...
Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

This is in no way meant to be a comment or an expression of opinion on the SC, its members or as in institution, but let's look at a couple of issues this brings:

Item 1/A is arbitrary given that it permits the SC to effectively define who is and is not a 'security threat' in a possibly arbitrary and capricious fashion, or for politically motivated reasons and without recourse to the law thus possibly resulting in damage to a nation that may pose no threat at all. And we all know how easy it is for an arbitrary determination of 'Security Threat' to be handed down by the SC.

This is a dangerous tool should the wrong people get it in their hands as as such is subject to the law of unintended consequences (or intended, as it were, in the wrong situation.

A security threat should be defined as someone who is either intentionally or accidentally is in the position of unseating the Delegate should they go unchecked prior to an approaching update.

[addendum on editing]

Also, having a unique set of conditions as per endo caps gives usurpers, invaders, etc.,,, a mechanical set of rules upon which to base any scheme of unseating a Delegate. In fact, it tells any usurper or invader exactly how much their activities will be tolerated and what level of organization and the needed forces for accomplishing their task.

A more logical approach might be to have less than everyone available endorsing the Delegate, thus giving the Delegate a reserve 'bump' in endorsements, the quantity of which would be unknown by any usurper.

Here's how this would work:

Say it is tolerable for someone to be within 50 endorsements of the Delegate before being warned. This means any usurper knows that he can safely hang out at that level and organize forces in a specific quantity to overtake a sitting Delegate. What the Usurper doesn't know is that there is another 25 nations out there on call to bumb the Delegate's endo count up should the offending nation refuse to comply - this gives the Delegate and the SC absolute evidence in a safe way to suss out the the intention of a suspect nation.

In fact, we already have this capability in all too un-obvious ways, but have never thought of using it should the need arise.

"Fluid" endorsement tolerances are much better because it prevents any usurper or invader from knowing exactly how much their activities will be tolerated, thus giving an even higher element of uncertainty to the success of any such invasion or usurpation.

Next item:

In the event of 'accidental' Delegates, we need a specific and automatic means of handing the Delegacy back to the elected Delegate as part of any RA oath or requirements of citizenship, non-citizens being afforded an even stricter tolerance of endorsement levels.
 
As it currently stands I can only ever ban people under Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights.

This seems just a bit unsatisfactory to me.
 
True.

This is what I think deserves banning/ejecting:

People trying to coup the region.
Invaders/usurpers
Those committing particularly heinous criminal acts
Ex-dictators/usurpers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top