Executive Officers

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
News:
Over the next few days, regions will gain the ability to appoint nations as Regional Officers, with authority over specific areas. For example, a Diplomacy Officer can be given the authority to establish embassies with other regions, and a Communications Officer to recruit and manage welcome telegrams. The name and authority of each office is up to you.

To identify the power a nation holds in its region, you'll begin seeing new icons on nation pages beneath the region, signifying their authority: Executive, World Assembly, Appearance, Border Control, Embassies, Communications, and Polls.

This feature has come from much community discussion over a long time: thank you very much to everyone who contributed! It's a big change (affecting over 5,000 lines of code) and could make a big difference to regional dynamics.

Summary
  • Regions may appoint up to 12 Regional Officers.
  • Executive authority is required to appoint, dismiss, or modify Regional Officers. Only Founders and Delegates can have Executive authority.
  • Apart from Executive authority, Regional Officers can be granted the ability to do anything a Founder or Delegate does.
  • No Influence is required to appoint, dismiss, or modify a Regional Officer.
  • Influence costs are doubled for Regional Officers. That is, most functions can be used freely, but some Border Controls, such as ejecting nations, are harder to use.
  • Regional Officers retain power until dismissed.
  • The Delegacy can be given a specific set of powers, rather than (as is the case today) being either powerless or fully executive. For example, a region could set their Delegacy to grant authority over Border Control but not Appearance.
Click to expand...

This change will certainly have enormous effects on the ability of regions, particularly large ones like ours, to govern themselves. We will be able to more continuously moderate or Regional Message Board, be more flexible with embassies and dispatches, and so on.

All of the powers besides Border Control, I would consider to fall under the kind of powers we allow our Delegate to assign freely to Executive Officers.

If, however, Border Control powers are assigned to many nations, potentially even one of them could use them to stage a coup of the region, seizing power by force from the legal Delegate either by ejecting them or by ejecting enough of their endorsers. The dangers of a coup may also be increased if a WA Delegate can immediately and freely appoint their choice of Regional Officers with Border Control powers.

Our current statutes contain this section:
Chapter 7: Emergency Situations:
Section 7.4: WA Delegacy
13. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
14. Delegacy emergencies that fall outside the scope of the above clause may be declared by majority vote of the RA only with the recommendation of the legal or acting Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council.
15. During a delegacy emergency, the legal or acting Delegate may authorize any individual in the Line of Succession to hold the delegacy and to take any actions related to that position, including, but not limited to, voting in the World Assembly, moderating the Regional Message Board, and ejecting and banning nations from the region.
16. The in-game Delegate must follow any instructions from the legal or acting Delegate as to the execution of their powers.
Click to expand...

This clearly allows for the assignment of Border Control powers to Security Council members during a 'Delegacy emergency' the definition of which is above, including certain specifically defined circumstances and when the Regional Assembly declares such a state on the recommendation of the Vice Delegate.

I strongly believe we should prohibit the Delegate from giving out Border Control powers except as explicitly allowed under our laws (as we do with ejection and banning itself), and consider what other circumstances assigning those powers should generally be allowed in.

One example of a non-emergency situation when I believe it would be appropriate to permit, or even mandate, the assignment of Border Control powers is during a delegacy transition to the Delegate-Elect.

Other than that, I think it clear that it should always be illegal to give Border Control powers to any nation that is not in the Line of Succession (Security Council or Vice Delegate).
 
This will be very useful in the in-game governing of TNP. I don't, however, think that the update's effects on R/D were entirely thought out.
 
I think we need to also give the Delegate some freedom. We elect them to govern the region and should reasonably trust them to make good appointments. Some minor requirements that say SC members should be the only ones given banning powers might be appropriate. That said, some of the laws will need reviewing. Especially where the law only provides that the Delegate may ban nations, not officers.

Interesting to see what happens with these changes though.
 
I suspect we are going to have to think through how the devolved functions are assigned under our system for use in game....that goes beyond border controls. And how to specify in our laws which in game function is going to be held by what office or position.
I do see a problem, though in the statute quoted by Elu in the case where a rogue delegate had occupied the in-game Delegacy before any assignment of border control authority can be assigned to others in the line of succession; for example, how many of the line of succession should be included in the emergency transfer of border control powers while the legal Delegate has that power, and how does the in game region controls prevent a rogue delegate from revoking the transfer of in game border control to others permitted to have it?

It also again raises my concern over the element of trustworthiness for approving members of the Security Council. I'm in the process of finalizing a proposal that addresses three concerns in the Regional Security Law, of which the trustworthiness matter is one. I want to show the three topics for change in the proposal separately, but include a complete text for all three matters that need changes so if the consensus is not to move forward with any one of them, or have the final version be three separate bills, it would be possible. This newest development may constitute a fourth element that may be appropriate in this proposal when I introduce it to the R.A.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I think we need to also give the Delegate some freedom. We elect them to govern the region and should reasonably trust them to make good appointments. Some minor requirements that say SC members should be the only ones given banning powers might be appropriate. That said, some of the laws will need reviewing. Especially where the law only provides that the Delegate may ban nations, not officers.

Interesting to see what happens with these changes though.
Click to expand...
I agree with McM.

These changes are very interesting and useful.
 
We already have ministries for this. Communications/Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs. The Ministers of those ministries should get officer positions.

As for border control, I believe it should stay in the hands of the Delegate, and to a lesser extent the SC.

EDIT: Oop, NS is down.
 
Border control is already in the hands of the Delegate. The idea of regional officers is being able to allow some of those tasks to be performed by trustworthy individuals when necessary. For example - should someone tart close to the Delegacy, a member of the SC could then ban that individual (using their influence if the Delegate didn't have enough, or had very little) to remove the threat. Likewise if the Delegate was away for a while due to unforeseen circumstances, the officers could maintain the region and use the WFE to direct a delegacy transition should it be required (removal for inactivity or successful recall vote).

I believe in allowing the Delegate some discretion surrounding officers, but my preference would certainly be for SC members to be the officers rather than allowing Ministers to have wide-ranging in game powers, which could include being able to ban the Delegate themselves should their be an issue between them.
 
I would support, as Elu said, making it illegal for anyone outside of the Delegate, VD or SC at a stretch, having the ability to eject/banject nations.

In fact, I agree with him entirely.
 
Yes, when the proposed game changes were mentioned years ago, this was the one I couldn't wait for.

YES!!!
 
As far as I am concerned, I do not see good reason for Border Control powers to be given to anyone besides the Delegate, at least when the latter is active (they can maybe appoint a temporary BC RO when on a LoA).

We rarely, if ever, have to use ejections for reasons of regional security, thanks to the endocount gap between the Delegate+SC vs other endotarters. Because of this, handing out BC powers to nations other than the Delegate does not really help with regional security.

To the contrary, I would argue that appointing BC ROs makes the region much less secure. The main danger to our government comes from high-ranking officials going rogue - this is the event that we have been planning our security policy around for years. Without BC ROs, the only such official that matters is the in-game Delegate. With BC ROs, besides the in-game Delegate, there are additional risks from the ROs going rogue. In other words, by appointing BC-ROs, we increase the likelihood of a dangerous rogue occurrence.

Putting the above together, I would conclude that creating BC-ROs has overall a strongly detrimental effect to regional security, and we should avoid it completely.

Other powers, such as WFE, and polls, would be really helpful for Ministries. For example, Culture runs several events that require updating the WFE or creating new polls - it'd be great if those actions could be taken by Culture staff instead of having to rely on the delegate.

Telegramming would be another useful one, as there are several Ministries that need to send gameside mass telegrams. We already have the mass-TG page that somewhat ameliorates the need for this power. But the in-game region telegramming function is way faster, and should be preferred when it is necessary to telegram the entire region. The mass-TG page is still of use, when one needs to telegram only a small subset of nations (WAs, RMB posters, NPA members, etc.).

RMB suppression would also be useful, were it not for the fact that it's tied to BC for some odd reason...
 
I agree more with r3n than McMasterdonia. I think giving out Border Control powers should be tightly limited to when it is necessary, at least until we fully understand the risks it introduces.
 
I concur with r3n and Eluvatar. Border Control should be handed out sparingly and only when necessary, otherwise we will be making the Vice Delegacy and Security Council even more enticing ways for would-be tyrants to perpetrate coups. We've already seen on numerous occasions how much damage can be done when someone infiltrates a Delegacy in a Feeder or Sinker; let's not broaden the scope of what offices they can infiltrate in order to carry out a coup.
 
r3n:
To the contrary, I would argue that appointing BC ROs makes the region much less secure.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It would require a significant amount of Constibillicode revision as well. Bad idea all around.

Cormac:
we will be making the Vice Delegacy and Security Council even more enticing ways for would-be tyrants to perpetrate coups.
Click to expand...
Reading posts in NS Gameplay from would-be coupers, infiltrating these positions are pretty much the only way to coup a large GCR like ours anyway (other than the Delegate going rogue). So I'm not sure it would be more enticing than it already is.

Appointing a border control officer would just strengthen a tyrant and prolong a coup (particularly with the WADP allowing high endo, high influence nations to flourish and potentially support said tyrant). A rogue Delegate would disregard the Law and appoint whomever they pleased as BC Officer (and switch them out when they expend their influence purging). This gameside development certainly emphasizes careful scrutiny of those we choose to elect/confirm as Delegate, Vice Delegate, and Security Councillor.

If we do decide to allow border control officers (I hope not), I think we'd have to consider some kind of debate and confirmation of appointee(s) by the RA (2/3 majority). But that's a later discussion..

*edit*

I can see the benefit of a BC Officer acting as an 'influence bank' for the sitting Delegate, but the potential security risk cannot be ignored imo. From a security standpoint, I prefer the 'plan for the worst, hope for the best' approach. :shrug:
 
It be nice if some of you would have read my earlier post.

I did point out some of the exact same concerns others raised in subsequent posts. And it doesn't change the need to respond to how the SC admission process works in the future; and the other concerns I mentioned about how to retrieve the BC functions from a usurper rouge delegate.
 
WFE editing powers and the like would be useful too for the SC should there be a need to replace an inactive Delegate. Has come up from time to time. Ejection powers as necessary, I guess. For instance it might be helpful for Zombie Day where the Delegate is probably unlikely to be available for the full event and obviously in cases of emergency.
 
After talking to McM a bit about it, I could see how it would be a good idea to give the top three or so SC members at the top of the Line of Succession access to Border Control. It would be nice to have someone else with Border Control if the Delegate goes inactive or gets abruptly deleted, ejected from the WA, etc. If we can't trust the people at the very top of the LoS, who can we trust?

The Vice Delegate shouldn't have access to Border Control though. People at the top of the LoS have been trusted citizens with their nations committed to TNP for years. The Vice Delegate could be anyone voters think seems like a good idea at the time.
 
Cormac:
The Vice Delegate could be anyone voters think seems like a good idea at the time.
Click to expand...

So could be the Delegate :P

In all seriousness though, I think a general allowance to grant Border Control powers to the top three in the LoS after the Vice Delegate may be sensible.

I would suggest, however, that the law permit granting Border Control powers to the Vice Delegate in the case of unavailability of the Delegate.
 
I assume You mean in situations where it is known in advance that the Delegate will be absent. Unless regional officers can also appoint regional officers? In the case of disappearances it would fall to the regional officers to amend the WFE and appropriately protect the region until the delegate returns, resigns, or is recalled.
 
mcmasterdonia:
WFE editing powers and the like would be useful too for the SC should there be a need to replace an inactive Delegate. Has come up from time to time. Ejection powers as necessary, I guess. For instance it might be helpful for Zombie Day where the Delegate is probably unlikely to be available for the full event and obviously in cases of emergency.
Click to expand...
I believe only those with Executive authority can appoint ROs and in the feeders that is defaulted to only the Delegate.
 
So just to clarify: what about the OTHER positions? Ones not involved with border control? Would those be given to their respective Cabinet Ministers, so they could contribute ingame as well? That'd be sweet!
 
I'm noticing that the changes have started to be implemented in places like Lazarus and the Pacific.

I'm also noticing that every single position is held by The Empire of Syrixia.

Bit glitchy.
 
I for one wish that they would have separated RMB post suppression from border control (I think it was this one of all things). As an RMB guardian who at least reads through the RMB frequently enough, this would make the task of getting rid of spam and such much faster and easier.

Re: Syrixia, I've never seen that one, but there's a bug report thread on NS' technical forum for things like this.
 
Foreign Affairs Minister: Diplomacy Officer
Culture Officer: Appearance Officer
Home Affairs Officer: Research Officer & Communications Officer
WA Affairs Minister: Research Officer
 
It seems as though we might run into some problems as there can only be 12 regional officers overall. For most regions this is plenty or even grossly excessive, but for huge regions like TNP, with our (perhaps overly) large and intricate government, we'll have to chose carefully as to who exactly can be a regional officer because of the strict arbitrary limit.
 
I personally think this makes sense:

- Vice Delegate: Appearance, Communications, Embassies, Polls
- 3 Security Councillors: Border Control, Appearance, Communications, Embassies, Polls
- All Ministers: Communications (maybe + Embassies for MoFA)
- Speaker: Communications

That brings us to twelve. The reason for so many people in Communications is so that each Minister and the Speaker can send region-wide TGs related to their offices.

I don't think anyone but the Delegate or people who may need to serve as acting Delegate need access to Appearance or Polls. We don't want a bunch of people messing with the WFE, and only one poll can run at a time anyway.
 
What Cormac says makes a lot of sense. I think it'd be brilliant for our Delegate to experiment with ideas like it to see what works -- so long as they remain prudent with Border Controls.
 
The issue with having each Minister maintain access to Communications is the potential of having upwards of 8-10 mass messages being sent out at the same time (or within close proximity) which I think could possibly turn quite a few nations away from the offsite altogether, which I doubt is the aim.

Perhaps one nation that is designated as the 'mouthpiece' of the Cabinet which would be limited to one mass message per week?

Also, having those with Border Control test their authority and the functionality on one of their own puppets seems like the easiest method without causing concerns within the region.
 
I think only Appearance and Communications should be devolved, the WFE is (or should be) constantly edited and bothering the WAD every other day is a pain in the arse, even though she must be entitled to revert any changes at any time.

I think TNP WADs appoint good Communications Ministers who would never abuse the system. And if they do, I trust any TNP WAD would deal with them, quickly, easily and nicely.
 
Lennart:
I think only Appearance and Communications should be devolved, the WFE is (or should be) constantly edited and bothering the WAD every other day is a pain in the arse, even though she must be entitled to revert any changes at any time.

I think TNP WADs appoint good Communications Ministers who would never abuse the system. And if they do, I trust any TNP WAD would deal with them, quickly, easily and nicely.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about a single nation 'abusing the system', I'm talking about 8 Ministers sending out normal periodic reports to the whole region and thus flooding nation's Inboxes.
 
I think it makes little sense to not give the Vice Delegate Border Control responsibility and instead give it to the SC.

I agree that some of our VD's have not always been the most trusted, but I see with these powers that changing. A rogue delegate in this new system is the most dangerous weapon against the stability of the region. I'm going to say this and think I'm right, if we turn back the clock to the NPD and TheMinister had the ability to appoint regional officers. All else being equal, we'd probably living under the ancestor of that regime than the one we currently enjoy today.

We need to take a look at our present system and really consider how a rogue delegate can be effectively removed. That's the biggest concern I have with the changes.
 
punk d:
I think it makes little sense to not give the Vice Delegate Border Control responsibility and instead give it to the SC.

I agree that some of our VD's have not always been the most trusted, but I see with these powers that changing. A rogue delegate in this new system is the most dangerous weapon against the stability of the region. I'm going to say this and think I'm right, if we turn back the clock to the NPD and TheMinister had the ability to appoint regional officers. All else being equal, we'd probably living under the ancestor of that regime than the one we currently enjoy today.

We need to take a look at our present system and really consider how a rogue delegate can be effectively removed. That's the biggest concern I have with the changes.
Click to expand...
This is accurate. If I had not gotten bored and could have shared some of the drudgery among a few other nations without giving up control TNP could very well still be under the NPD.

Of course, I am of the opinion that if I had willed it the NPD would still be in control with or without such changes.
 
Obviously, I asume the devolved powers will adapt to the ministry system, and only the Minister of Communications must be able to use that power, besides the WAD
 
Lennart:
Obviously, I asume the devolved powers will adapt to the ministry system, and only the Minister of Communications must be able to use that power, besides the WAD
Click to expand...
My initial comment, to which it seems you replied, was in response to the outline drawn up by Cormac that involves giving each of the Ministers access to Communications. Eluvatar voiced support for this system and I spoke up that it could be problematic for each Minister to have the ability to mass-TG the entire region.

I believe you and I are in agreement but are speaking about different things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top