Security Council (Amendment) Bill 2013

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
Current Proposal:

Security Council (Amendment) Bill 2013

1. Article 3, Clause 8 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

8. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
Click to expand...

1. Chapter 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby renamed to “Regional Security Law”

2. Chapter 5, Section 5.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Section 5.1: Council Requirements
4. The influence requirement for members of the Council consists of an influence score (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 270, though when a nation's influence score within The North Pacific is unknown as the displayed score may include significant influence within other regions, an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Vassal may be substituted.
5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 200 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
6. The Vice Delegate must maintain an endorsement level of at least 75 per cent of the Delegates endorsement count.
7. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
8. The serving Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.
Click to expand...

3. The following is hereby inserted after Section 5.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific,

Section 5.4: Endorsement Gathering
20. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which meets all of the following criteria:
21. It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
22. It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
23. It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
24. It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.
25. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
26. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

4. The existing Section 5.4 will be renumbered to 5.5, and the existing clause 20 of Chapter 5 will be renumbered to 27.
Click to expand...

Security Council (Amendment) Bill 2013

1. Article 3, Clause 8 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
8. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
Click to expand...

2. Chapter 5, Section 5.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
Section 5.1: Endorsement and Influence Requirements
4. The influence requirement for members of the Security Council consists of an influence score (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 250, though when a nation's influence score within The North Pacific is unknown as the displayed score may include significant influence within other regions, an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Vassal may be substituted.
5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 200 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
6. The maximum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as equal to the Vice Delegate's endorsement count, or 75 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
7. The maximum endorsement count for anyone not serving as Vice Delegate or as member of the Council is defined as 60 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count.
8. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
9. The serving Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.
Click to expand...

3. Clauses 9 - 20 of Chapter 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are hereby renumbered 10 - 21 respectively.
Click to expand...
 
I have introduced this proposal as I consider this change to be a necessary one. This proposal is introduced with the approval of my cabinet and I submit it for your consideration.

We have lowered the SPDR requirement to join the Security Council from 300 to 250. This is a modest drop and is necessary in order to allow us to admit more trustworthy members to the Security Council. Naturally, this should be considered to be a temporary measure. In 6 months time we will be able to determine where the influence level will level off and will be able to perfect the requirements on that basis.

Currently this would allow nations to gain 276 endorsements. This is still very, very reasonable. It would keep our strong culture of tarting and endorsing in the region. I have included the word "may" for obvious reasons, it should not be an obligation on the part of the Delegate. The Security Council and the Delegate have always handled such matters on a consultative basis and I would want to see that continue.

The Sanity clause will help during election season when the endorsement levels fluctuate a bit.
 
At the current maximum endorsement level (276), it would take a new nation a little less than 4 months to become eligible for SC membership. It would take me a little less than 3.

Over 6 months, a nation would have to maintain a minimum endocount of 171 to be eligible for SC membership. I suggest making this the minimum endorsement count for council members, as that is the number of endorsements that will let them preserve the minimum influence requirement to remain on the council.

There are five nations currently not on the SC who have endorsement counts higher than 276. I think they should have a grace period to come into compliance with this, should it be passed - perhaps an implementation date a month or so after this passes?
 
I cannot support this because of #7. The general public in TNP has never been subjected to an endorsement cap. There are those who like caps, but I find them an abomination. The SC is perfectly capable of policing the region and reigning in endotarters as necessary. We do not have to draw a line in the sand.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I cannot support this because of #7. The general public in TNP has never been subjected to an endorsement cap. There are those who like caps, but I find them an abomination. The SC is perfectly capable of policing the region and reigning in endotarters as necessary. We do not have to draw a line in the sand.
Click to expand...
The general public of TNP is already subject to an endorsement cap, which is the Vice Delegates endorsement level.

The problem with this is that nations can deliberately push the limit and in the case of unforeseen Delegacy issues such as resignations or even accidental mod ejections unknown nations can be too close to the Delegacy. This is still a floating cap and allows for consultation and it would be best of the SC continued doing that.

We need to consider the rates of influence growth. It would be best if non-sc nations are at a lower threshold to keep SC nations within that higher threshold. It will still require more work on the part of SC members. The proposed endorsement is far from draconian.

@COE An implementation date makes sense and is definitely a good idea. As to the minimum, wouldn't that depend on the circumstances of the region at the time, such as endo levels of other nations? 200 is not a lot higher in any case.
 
No, Mcm, influence gain on a nation is based only on their endorsement count, and not anything else in the region. It does not make sense to have a minimum endorsement count and a minimum influence level which do not result from one another - if the minimum endorsement count is 200, then SC members should need a minimum of 270 SPDR, and if a minimum of 250 SPDR is set, then SC members should need a minimum of 171 endorsements.

I am with GBM, as well - I do not support the imposition of an endorsement cap on the rest of the region beyond the current requirement not to pass the vice delegate.
 
Okay, I am on a phone right now and will make some amendments tomorrow.

I admit, that some opposition to an endorsement cap was expected, but I did not expect it from you. Could you explain your position on the issue?

As I see it, we want the Security Council to remain in the strongest position to secure the Delegacy of required. If there influence and endos are higher and other nations are limited, it will make this easier. Non-sc nations will still be able to maintain a high level of endorsements and influence.
 
I am hesitant to support an endorsement cap. I am concerned that it may violate a provision of clause 4 of the Bill of Rights, the provision that "The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member." An endorsement cap essentially denies nations the right to add an endorsement to a nation with 276 endorsements (more or less, depending on the delegate's endocount).

I think that the requirement to stay below the Vice Delegate's count is an acceptable curtailment of this right, in the interest of regional security. I don't know if it makes much sense to lower the count past that - after all, as Mum points out, a major job of the Security Council is the control endotarters, and it stands to reason that no one can exceed the delegate's count without first exceeding the Vice Delegate's count.

I am confident that the current endocap and the efforts of the Security Council are keeping us safe. Lowering the endocap further excessively curtails a nation's sovereign right to add endorsements, I think.
 
I would support this measure with a cap of 171 for a minimum of 250 SPDR, and I find it appalling that some of the same people who are supporting the loosening of restrictions on Security Council membership are opposing a common sense endorsement cap, which is still quite high, in order to enhance regional security.

The situation in GCRs has changed with influence decay. What was possible and practical prior to influence decay may not be the best idea after influence decay. Letting random nations as near to the Delegacy as the Vice Delegate's endo count is asking for trouble, and we don't need to be asking for trouble when it is now much more possible for a rogue Delegate to sustain a coup. Some were in favor of influence decay precisely because it makes it easier to coup GCRs and they believe more frequent GCR coups would be beneficial to the game, but that doesn't mean The North Pacific needs to accommodate that view by making coups easy. We can and should adjust our security requirements to the changing circumstances presented by influence decay.
 
I don't think we should derogate from the bill of rights.

I admit there is a risk of coupers getting ahead of the SC, but this is what the SC is there for, to defend us from rogue delegates, and don't forget we have the Regional Guard to aid security also.

They need to fulfill their roles. We don't need to curtail the efforts of innocent nations who want to collect high numbers of endorsements. A while back I spoke to a nation in another region which has a cap, and he obeys the cap begrudgingly, and would be better off in TNP where there is no cap but the Vice Delegate's.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I am hesitant to support an endorsement cap. I am concerned that it may violate a provision of clause 4 of the Bill of Rights, the provision that "The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member." An endorsement cap essentially denies nations the right to add an endorsement to a nation with 276 endorsements (more or less, depending on the delegate's endocount).

I think that the requirement to stay below the Vice Delegate's count is an acceptable curtailment of this right, in the interest of regional security. I don't know if it makes much sense to lower the count past that - after all, as Mum points out, a major job of the Security Council is the control endotarters, and it stands to reason that no one can exceed the delegate's count without first exceeding the Vice Delegate's count.

I am confident that the current endocap and the efforts of the Security Council are keeping us safe. Lowering the endocap further excessively curtails a nation's sovereign right to add endorsements, I think.
Click to expand...
Thank you for mentioning the Bill of Rights first, because I was about to do so.

I have never supported general positively stated endo caps within TNP and still don't. GBM and I have both opposed such attempts in the past and I'm sure we'll continue to do so.

An endo cap that is inferred from other provisions is a different matter because those do not infringe on the protected right of any nation in TNP to endorse or not endorse. If, in their act of tendering or receiving an endorsements they come into conflict with the requirements of regional security, then we have to have a balanced approach on the topic which is why our current system of inferred endo and influence limits come into play. Since a player chooses to be Delegate or Vice Delegate or a member of the Security Council, we can legally take that choice to be a voluntary binding agreement to observe specific limits on endorsements and influence. Being a WA member in TNP in and of itself is not such a voluntary endorsement, and that is why IMHO, an endo cap would violate the Bill of Rights as to any other WA member.

Adjusting the numbers in our current system as a temporary solution while we monitor the actual effect of the recent changes in the SPDR is one thing, and in fact I would have supported a system where the SC could report a recommendation to modify those imits during this transitional period until we have a clearer handle on those effects. We had that model in place, in fact, in the early days of the influence system (we initially didn't even have knowledge of a SPDR in those days but that logic still applies.)

So to modify current limits as such is fine with me, imposing a direct endo cap on those who are not the Delegate, Vice Delegate or SC member is not,
 
Cormac Stark:
I would support this measure with a cap of 171 for a minimum of 250 SPDR
Click to expand...
Erm Cormac, are you suggesting a maximum cap of 171 endorsements on SC members? :unsure: Or are you supporting a minimum required count of 171 instead?

(The use of 'cap' has me confused.)
 
SillyString:
Cormac Stark:
I would support this measure with a cap of 171 for a minimum of 250 SPDR
Click to expand...
Erm Cormac, are you suggesting a maximum cap of 171 endorsements on SC members? :unsure: Or are you supporting a minimum required count of 171 instead?

(The use of 'cap' has me confused.)
Click to expand...
Minimum, sorry for being unclear.
 
In consultation with mcmasterdonia, taking into account the previous discussion of endorsement caps, and with the assistance of r3n, we have come up with a new bill:
Regional Security Bill of 2013

1. Chapter 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby renamed to “Regional Security Law”

2. Chapter 5, Section 5.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
Section 5.1: Council Requirements
4. The influence requirement for members of the Council consists of an influence score (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 250, though when a nation's influence score within The North Pacific is unknown as the displayed score may include significant influence within other regions, an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Vassal may be substituted.
5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 200 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
6. The maximum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as equal to the Vice Delegate's endorsement count, or 85 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is greater.
7. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
8. The serving Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.
Click to expand...

3. The following is hereby inserted after Section 5.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific,
Section 5.4: Endorsement Gathering
20. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which meets all of the following criteria:
21. It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
22. It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
23. It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
24. It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate or 75 per cent of the Delegate’s endorsement level, whichever is least.
25. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which exceeds the Vice Delegate’s endorsement count.
26. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

4. The existing Section 5.4 will be renumbered to 5.5, and the existing clause 20 of Chapter 5 will be renumbered to 27.
Click to expand...

For the sake of clarity, the changes from current law in the new 5.1 are:

Section 5.1: Council Requirements
4. The influence requirement will consist for members of a TNP the Council consists of an influence score (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 300 250, though when a nation's influence score within TNP The North Pacific is unknown as the displayed score may include significant influence within other regions, a TNP an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Vassal may be substituted.
5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 100 200 endorsements, or fifty 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is least lower.
6. The maximum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 40 fewer endorsements than equal to the serving Vice Delegate's endorsement count, or eighty-five percent 85 per cent of said the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is greatest greater.
7. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
8. The serving Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.
Click to expand...
 
I think Chaper 5, Clause 6 may violate the provision of the constitution that states:
7. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region.
Click to expand...
It allows SC members to exceed the Vice Delegate's endocount when he holds fewer that 85% of the number of endorsements on the Delegate. I think it should be whichever is lower, or simply remove it entirely, enforcing the same maximum that applies to everyone else: the Vice Delegate's endocount.
 
Can we have a way of authorizing temporary adjustments in the requirements in response to the in-game changes until the impact becomes clear after those first six months?
Trying to use the normal legislative process if it is found that the levels need to be raised or lower based on the impact of the ingame changes could be problematic; I'm not advocating that this be available indefinitely, but for a suffcient period of time to allow us to have a handle on the actual effect of the changes.
 
Fair enough. I don't think we should give the SC the power to actually change these numbers though.

Nothing stops it from asking for a change, however.
 
And yes, the part regarding maximum SC endorsement level is... odd. It probably needs more discussion. I'll note that the current law says:
6. The maximum endorsement count is defined as 40 fewer endorsements than the serving Delegate's endorsement count, or eighty-five percent of said count, whichever is greatest.
Click to expand...

This makes no accounting for the Vice Delegate's endorsement level. It's a mess caused by, I believe, fear of an irresponsibly low-endorsement Vice Delegate when that text was being drafted, however long ago. I could be wrong though.
 
Isn't influence based on time in the region as well as endo count? Why can't we just eject and allow back in anyone who peaks SPDR?
 
Don't really like.

4. The influence requirement for members of the Council consists of an influence score (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 250, though when a nation's influence score within The North Pacific is unknown as the displayed score may include significant influence within other regions, an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Vassal may be substituted.

5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 200 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
Click to expand...

No. The minimum endorsement count ought to work out to the minimum SPDR over six months, and vice versa. It is nonsensical to have two minimums but have one not satisfy the minimum demands of the other, and I will oppose legislation that does that.

Moreover, the way you have it now, it would be possible for it to be legally impossible for anyone to sit on the SC, should a dropoff in WA endorsements occur.

Given that influence will equalize over a period of six months, and given that SC members are generally on it for a term of years, I honestly see no reason why there ought to be a minimum SPDR count to join or retain membership - not only does it do nothing more than impose a sitting period, it also very much risks penalizing any SC member who finds it necessary to take the delegacy and banject a threat to the region with a great deal of accumulated influence.

Plus the wording on the numerical stuff is awkward and confusing. Very Eluvian.
 
Well the minimum endorsement count is necessary as it provides two options depending on the number of WA nations in the region. So I consider that necessary or more important than the SPDR requirement.

That said. The whole purpose of this proposal was for it to be a temporary change and for us to pursue a further change once the influence change does level out. On balance though, I could see merit in removing the SPDR section in favour of keeping the endorsement level requirement.
 
To clarify, McM, are you still supporting the draft in the OP rather than the draft submitted by Eluvatar? I note that the draft in the OP still contains an endo cap whereas Eluvatar's draft does not, and I support an endo cap given the influence decay change.

I agree that there should be consistency between the SPDR requirement and the endo count requirement or that one, probably the SPDR requirement, should be scrapped if they can't be kept consistent for some reason.
 
C.S., there is a lot of built in opposition to a hard endo cap, not to mention that it would be a violation of the Bill of Rights to do so.

If you haven't already, please look at my earlier topic on the point which lays out the reasoning that allows an indirect form of limitation for general application, and a direct set of requirements for those who choose to become Delegate, Vice Delegate, or a member of the Security Council.

And this discussion about whether to temporarily drop the SPDR or not, or the levels for SPDR or influence rank or endorsements required for SC membership still leads me to think we need some sort of mechanism in the law that allows a faster way of making adjustments that the normal legislative process while we continue to monitor the implications of the change in the influence system in game.
 
Do we still have a clause about allowing for VD transitions? The idea that nations could be banned because a newly elected VD doesn't have many endos does not reflect how we operate.
 
Perhaps we should consider a law that grants the powers of the Vice Delegate to a Vice-delegate elect, but provide that he doesn't actually take office until he has the second most endorsements in the region.
 
Grosse, we don't actually need to wait to see how the influence changes will play out. We know exactly the relationship of endorsements and time to SPDR - 171 endorsements over six months will result in 250 SPDR. 200 endorsements over six months will result in 270 SPDR. The changes will be fully phased in on March 30th, 2014 (six months from when they began, September 30th of 2013).
 
Can you show us where the relationship was derived?

It's good to know that 171 endorsements over six months will lead to 250 SPDR, but we need to know whether that still holds true if the region doubles in size or shrinks.

Or, if we are not worried about demographic changes at all then we could just set a flat minimum of 200 endorsements and a minimum of 270 SPDR, instead of a variable one.

I totally agree that there shouldn't be any direct cap on the general populace.

Ideally I think the whole SC should be on just slightly less than the Vice Delegate so as to keep high influence. That way if you have 10 unknown nations who are also hovering around the Vice Delegate's mark, the SC will have more collective influence at its disposal if those do all break loose at once.

I can see how it's going to be harder for the future SC than it was in the past, because every nation that keeps a very high endorsement level will gain an influence level to practically match an SC member.

I think keep the constitution as it was, the Vice Delegate has the second highest and those above that can be ejected. As long as the new Vice Delegate has high endorsements during an election, and doesn't drop WA unexpectedly, it should be fine.

And I agree with COE's point there definitely should not be a 'lower' maximum for SC members if the Vice Delegate goes over 75% of the delegate's endorsement count, that would hinder the SC. But nor should there be a lower maximum for the general populace either, it should just be the vice delegate's count for everyone.

Sorry, I know I've never been on the Security Council, just saying what I think.
 
SillyString:
Grosse, we don't actually need to wait to see how the influence changes will play out. We know exactly the relationship of endorsements and time to SPDR - 171 endorsements over six months will result in 250 SPDR. 200 endorsements over six months will result in 270 SPDR. The changes will be fully phased in on March 30th, 2014 (six months from when they began, September 30th of 2013).
Click to expand...
Chasmanthe makes my point for me. Among other things while there is a probably generally accepted guess as to how the algorithm works to calculate the SPDR, it is a dangerous to assume how the changes are working, other than in general that past SPDR levels for long standing resident WA members will see their level drop, how that happens depends on the level of endorsements they have had, and have going forward until the six month implementation period has passed.

That is why I suggested that there be a temporary mechanism to allow adjustments temporarily after this bill is enacted until the six month period, and any reasonable time after wards so a final set of changes can be made at that point.
 
Chas, influence gain has no relationship with size of the region, or influence levels of anyone else. It is solely a function of how many endorsements someone has.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Chas, influence gain has no relationship with size of the region, or influence levels of anyone else. It is solely a function of how many endorsements someone has.
Click to expand...

Then how come it's not strictly linear?
 
I'm confused by it as well. How come I can gain 400 influence in the North Pacific with the same level of endorsements as someone in the South Pacific, who would gain a significantly smaller amount of spdr?
 
Chas: Because it's implemented non-linearly.

Mcm: That's... actually false. The same number of endorsements over the same amount of time will lead to an identical SPDR, regardless of the region.

It's not a guess, Grosse. The exact formula has been made public. And we know pretty exactly how the changes will affect that - the only really open question is how it will interact with normal influence decay when moving regions or CTEing. But so long as you don't move and don't CTE, influence is quite precisely understood.
 
SillyString:
Chas: Because it's implemented non-linearly.

Mcm: That's... actually false. The same number of endorsements over the same amount of time will lead to an identical SPDR, regardless of the region.

It's not a guess, Grosse. The exact formula has been made public. And we know pretty exactly how the changes will affect that - the only really open question is how it will interact with normal influence decay when moving regions or CTEing. But so long as you don't move and don't CTE, influence is quite precisely understood.
Click to expand...
Link, please.

If it has been released by [violet] and the game mods, I would be surprised, as even in announcing these most recent changes at the NS forums, it was clear that the actual method of implementation was not being disclosed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top