Security Council Reform Bill

Ash

Ash

TNPer
I believe the current minimum requirements for Security Council endorsements should be raised. As the current law stands, only 300 endorsements are required for membership. Every current member of the Security Council has over 500 endorsements and an SPDR exceeding 200,000.

The following is the Security Council Reform Bill:

Security Council Reform Bill:
1. Section 5.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows:

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 182,500, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower.
5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 500 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 result will be rounded down to the nearest integer.
8. The serving Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.
9. The Security Council may exempt nations that have expended their influence in service to the region from any influence requirements to join the Council or to remain a member; approval will require a two-thirds majority. Exemptions granted in such a manner remain valid until the exempted nation regains the required influence level.
Click to expand...

2. Section 5.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows:

11. Whenever any Council member fails to meet any requirements to maintain their position without being granted an exemption, the Vice Delegate must promptly warn them. If the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.
12. The Vice Delegate must remove members of the Council whose member nation no longer exists, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or resigns from the World Assembly outside the needs of a NPA sanctioned mission.
13. The Vice Delegate must report any suspension or removal of a member of the Council to the Regional Assembly.
14. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate must promptly reinstate them.
15. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a member poses a security risk to The North Pacific and request approval from the Regional Assembly to remove the member from the Council.
16. The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will submit any such request to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval will require a two-thirds majority.
17. The Council may task a member with taking actions required under this chapter when the Vice Delegate is not available.
18. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate.
19. If the Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, resigns from the World Assembly, or fails to maintain an endorsement level within the range required of Council members for more than eight days, the Vice Delegate will be removed from office.
Click to expand...

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 109,500 182,500, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower.
5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 300 500 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 result shall will be rounded down to the nearest integer.
8. The serving Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.
9. The Security Council may exempt nations that have expended their influence in service to the region from any influence requirements to join the Council or to remain a member; approval will require a two-thirds majority. Exemptions granted in such a manner remain valid until the exempted nation regains the required influence level.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Section 5.3: Enforcement:
11. Whenever any Council member fails to meet any requirements to maintain their position without being granted an exemption, the Vice Delegate must promptly warn them, and. iIf the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.
12. The Vice Delegate must remove members of the Council whose member nation no longer exists, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or resigns from the World Assembly outside the needs of a NPA sanctioned mission.
13. The Vice Delegate must report any suspension or removal of a member of the Council to the Regional Assembly.
14. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will must promptly reinstate them.
15. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a member poses a security risk to The North Pacific and request approval from the Regional Assembly to remove the member from the Council.
16. The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will submit the any such request to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval will require a two-thirds majority.
17. The Council may task a member with taking actions required under this chapter when the Vice Delegate is not available.
18. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate.
19. If the Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, resigns from the World Assembly, or fails to maintain an endorsement level within the range required of Council members for more than eight days, the Vice Delegate will be removed from office.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Security Council Reform Bill:
1. Clause 4 of Section 5.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read:

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 109,500 146,000, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower.
Click to expand...

2. Clause 5 of Section 5.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read:

5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 300 400 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
Click to expand...

3. Clause 11 of Section 5.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read:

11. Except in cases where a Council member must expend influence for the security of the region, Wwhenever any Council member fails to meet any requirements to maintain their position, the Vice Delegate must warn them, and if the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Security Council Reform Bill:
1. Clause 4 of Section 5.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read:

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 109,500 182,500, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower.
Click to expand...

2. Clause 5 of Section 5.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read:

5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 300 500 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Security Council Reform Bill:
1. Clause 5 of Section 5.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read:

5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 300 500 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It is worth remembering that, while the current Delegate and myself as Vice Delegate have maintained a thousand endorsements, this is the first time it has been the case at least within the last 12 years, if ever.

There is currently no guarantee that this will repeat next term should there be a new Delegate and Vice Delegate. We do currently have 1600 WA members though, but there is also no guarantee that number will stay constant.

Hm, personally I think 400 would be suitable.
 
What's important to remember is the second part of that clause:

"...or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower." [emphasis added]

Should the serving Delegate fall below 1000 endorsements, then legally the Security Council is already protected from being penalized in such a situation.

However, NationStates as a game has been growing. When Lord Ravenclaw reached over 1000 endorsements during his Delegacy, it was seen as a milestone. As of this writing, our current Delegate Plembobria is at 1273 endorsements.

For reference, there are 1,638 WA member nations in TNP as of this writing.
 
Question: Is the purpose of the change to increase the difficulty of meeting SC requirements or maintaining SC requirements?

I concur with Praetor that 500 is not a difficult number of endorsements to reach, and 400 is real easy. Just see this graph of the past three WADP rising star champs and who I think will be next. In all four cases, 400 endorsements was reached within two weeks of a massive endotarting campaign.
 
The purpose of the change is to maintain high standards for meeting SC requirements. The point of the Security Council is to have a group of trusted high-influence nations that will be able to keep TNP secure in the event of a Delegate emergency.

As you pointed out, the success of the World Assembly Development Program has increased the number of nations with endorsements that are far above the current minimum endorsement requirements for our Security Council. I think it makes sense to take the success of WADP into account when planning for the future of our region and bump up the minimum SC endorsement requirement.
 
I'd prefer this be revisited in a few months to see if endorsement counts continue to hold at present levels.

That said, I'll support this if it goes to vote.
 
I'll support this, considering that I, who have never cared to endotart, am in the 300s, close to 400, and that the Delegate has over ONE THOUSAND endorsements. :P
 
I believe the minimum influence requirement is proportional to the minimum endocount. If we are to change one we ought to to change both.
 
I think maybe we should look into a requirement that scales to different situations, rather than a number that stays the same no matter what. Then we won't have to keep changing it based on the size and activity level of the region. Perhaps a percentage of WA nations in the region?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I think maybe we should look into a requirement that scales to different situations, rather than a number that stays the same no matter what. Then we won't have to keep changing it based on the size and activity level of the region. Perhaps a percentage of WA nations in the region?
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I think maybe we should look into a requirement that scales to different situations, rather than a number that stays the same no matter what. Then we won't have to keep changing it based on the size and activity level of the region. Perhaps a percentage of WA nations in the region?
Click to expand...
Excellent suggestion. The current minimum SC requirement of 300 endorsements equates to 18.3% of total WA nations in TNP. For reference, the Delegate currently has 77.9% and the Vice Delegate has 65.5% of the total WA nations.

The current proposal, changing the minimum to 500 endorsements, equates to 30.5% of total WA nations in TNP. For simplicity, we can round that down to 30%.

Would that be acceptable?
 
Why only 500 endorsements (30%)? Why not, say, 600 endorsements (36%)?

I like COE's WA nation percentage idea.

Flemingovia:
Won't raising the requirement for joining discourage involvement?

:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
Click to expand...
How? As mentioned earlier in the thread, 500 endorsements isn't hard to achieve.
 
Eyes that do not Lie:
How? As mentioned earlier in the thread, 500 endorsements isn't hard to achieve.
Click to expand...
Flem's just making a sarcastic reference to something.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I think maybe we should look into a requirement that scales to different situations, rather than a number that stays the same no matter what. Then we won't have to keep changing it based on the size and activity level of the region. Perhaps a percentage of WA nations in the region?
Click to expand...
If we are to do this we probably need to make sure the minimum influence count is dynamic as well.
 
Oh God no, not a percentage. You're making my brain hurt. What is it that needs fixing with the SC? Are we saying that nations with fewer than 500 endorsements cannot apply? Do we want SC members with fewer than 500 endos to be suspended?

Regarding new applicants, the SC isn't being inundated with requests from young nations. If we had a backlog of applications to review, then I could see raising the minimum requirement. Practically speaking though. when I am considering an applicant, the number of endorsements is not the most significant factor in my decision. I look at trustworthiness and level of commitment to the region. Everyone on the team has a proven record of service to TNP. Their actual endo count at any given time is incidental.

Looking at creating a higher standard for the existing members to avoid suspension, I can see at least one nation who is not too far above the 500 mark. Is there a benefit to suspending those members, or is it just additional red tape for everyone involved? For the most part, members of the SC are in it for the long haul. We have made a commitment to keep our WA nation here for the benefit of the region. Over the course of years, everyone has occasional lapses, myself included. It doesn't mean we aren't going to be there if TNP is in trouble.
 
I support the move to 500, hell at the present state of things 600 or 700 would be perfectly reasonable. Tarting isn't hard, it just takes time.

In my professional opinion the required influence level is fine where it is, 109k is a lot of influence, a bump to 150k wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it's much of a concern.

However.

It is worth remembering that, while the current Delegate and myself as Vice Delegate have maintained a thousand endorsements, this is the first time it has been the case at least within the last 12 years, if ever.

There is currently no guarantee that this will repeat next term should there be a new Delegate and Vice Delegate. We do currently have 1600 WA members though, but there is also no guarantee that number will stay constant.
Click to expand...

LR has a point here. Fun Fact for the class, 10000 Islands used to be even more dominant in the WA than TNP is now, that's in terms of percentages of course, as far as I know Plembobria holds the record for the absolute most delegate endorsements. But I'm getting away from the point, the point is that a region that used to have over 1000 delegate endorsements of their own (10ki) has fallen to less than half of that and the same thing could easily happen to TNP.

Concerns being noted, if we see a decline in regional WA power it should be a simple enough matter to re-amend the law to something lower.
 
For the endorsement count, why not make the requirement in terms of endorsement rate, i.e., the percentage of the regional WA population that endorses the applicant?

It would help us avoid having to amend this law every time there is an imgur event or a huge decline or whatever.
 
plembobria:
I believe the minimum influence requirement is proportional to the minimum endocount. If we are to change one we ought to to change both.
Click to expand...
I support this. I myself reach 500 endorsement within 2months and almost 46300spdr. So has a security member you need to higher the influence and endorsements.

I support.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
It's like r3n read my mind... instead of my post. :P
Click to expand...
I'm getting lazier in RA debates.

Another possibility would be to remove the endocount requirement altogether, and go just by influence. Maintaining influence above a certain level requires also maintaining a high endocount, and it gives us some flexibility when it comes to suspending inactive SCers etc.

It also better reflects the post-WADP reality that being in the SC is no longer about having the most endorsements - it's about being trusted with the delegacy, and having a consistently high (i.e., high influence) endocount, even if it's not the highest overall.

The influence requirement itself could be either absolute or proportional.
 
If we use influence as a requirement, that would make sense. But we should not remove the endo requirement altogether. For example, during the Z-day event, my influence dropped like a rock because I was ejecting hoarders. However, my endo count was still over 800. In certain instances, SC members may be called upon to spend their influence. We wouldn't want that to adversely affect their status on the council.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Another possibility would be to remove the endocount requirement altogether, and go just by influence. Maintaining influence above a certain level requires also maintaining a high endocount, and it gives us some flexibility when it comes to suspending inactive SCers etc.

It also better reflects the post-WADP reality that being in the SC is no longer about having the most endorsements - it's about being trusted with the delegacy, and having a consistently high (i.e., high influence) endocount, even if it's not the highest overall.

The influence requirement itself could be either absolute or proportional.
Click to expand...
It's because of the success of the WADP that I thought it would be prudent to have this debate. The current minimum requirement is a SPDR of 109,500 or Apprentice rank, whichever is lower. If we were to use influence as the benchmark for SC membership which requirement would you recommend, absolute or proportional?
Great Bights Mum:
If we use influence as a requirement, that would make sense. But we should not remove the endo requirement altogether. For example, during the Z-day event, my influence dropped like a rock because I was ejecting hoarders. However, my endo count was still over 800. In certain instances, SC members may be called upon to spend their influence. We wouldn't want that to adversely affect their status on the council.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with your position on that, GBM. Security Councillors should not be penalized for using their influence to eject nations.
 
Ash:
r3naissanc3r:
Another possibility would be to remove the endocount requirement altogether, and go just by influence. Maintaining influence above a certain level requires also maintaining a high endocount, and it gives us some flexibility when it comes to suspending inactive SCers etc.

It also better reflects the post-WADP reality that being in the SC is no longer about having the most endorsements - it's about being trusted with the delegacy, and having a consistently high (i.e., high influence) endocount, even if it's not the highest overall.

The influence requirement itself could be either absolute or proportional.
Click to expand...
It's because of the success of the WADP that I thought it would be prudent to have this debate. The current minimum requirement is a SPDR of 109,500 or Apprentice rank, whichever is lower. If we were to use influence as the benchmark for SC membership which requirement would you recommend, absolute or proportional?
Great Bights Mum:
If we use influence as a requirement, that would make sense. But we should not remove the endo requirement altogether. For example, during the Z-day event, my influence dropped like a rock because I was ejecting hoarders. However, my endo count was still over 800. In certain instances, SC members may be called upon to spend their influence. We wouldn't want that to adversely affect their status on the council.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with your position on that, GBM. Security Councillors should not be penalized for using their influence to eject nations.
Click to expand...
Remember the current minimum influence level is 300 (the minimum endocount) multiplied by 365. Influence grows by your endocount once an update. So the minimum influence count is designed to take six months to reach at the minimum endo count.
 
I think having an influence requirement to join the council, but an endorsement requirement to stay in office is the way to go, precisely because there are perfectly valid reasons to have a low SPDR, but not so much with endorsements.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I think having an influence requirement to join the council, but an endorsement requirement to stay in office is the way to go, precisely because there are perfectly valid reasons to have a low SPDR, but not so much with endorsements.
Click to expand...
This seems like the correct solution. Combined with the percentage based endorsement requirements and it should become a lot more difficult to invade the region in the case that something catastrophic happens.
 
I have taken into account the suggestions to the proposed legislation and updated the OP.

Edit:

Great Bights Mum:
If we use influence as a requirement, that would make sense. But we should not remove the endo requirement altogether. For example, during the Z-day event, my influence dropped like a rock because I was ejecting hoarders. However, my endo count was still over 800. In certain instances, SC members may be called upon to spend their influence. We wouldn't want that to adversely affect their status on the council.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that Security Councillors are not protected from suspension for exercising their duties under current law?
 
I know there are litigious propensities in TNP, whereby if there is a case to be made, some will make it. Like NS issues, our laws can sometimes have unintended consequences if we overlook the "what ifs."
 
Great Bights Mum:
I know there are litigious propensities in TNP, whereby if there is a case to be made, some will make it. Like NS issues, our laws can sometimes have unintended consequences if we overlook the "what ifs."
Click to expand...
As Attorney General, I would consider that to be a frivolous complaint. In my opinion that would be against the spirit of the law, as there are scenarios where one or more Security Councillors would have to expend their hard-earned influence for the security of the region I call home. But I understand where you're coming from, and I won't be Attorney General forever.

I didn't intend this to be an omnibus bill, but legislative sausage-making sometimes demands it. Security Councillors should be held to a high influence standard for the security of our region, but they should also have explicit legal protection should they be required to expend that influence to fulfill their duties. I'll take a look at the relevant portions of the law and include language that provides explicit protection during those circumstances.
 
I don't believe a higher influence requirement is necessary for application nor for maintaining membership of the SC.

We aren't having a flood of applicants for the Security Council so a higher influence level isn't needed in order to reduce the number of applicants. I would argue that it already serves as a barrier to qualified applicants to the Security Council--McMasterdonia a while back or hypothetically Eluvatar if he returned--as between the SC and the RA anyone unqualified will be weeded out.
 
I have included a clause to protect Council members from suspension in the event that they must expend their influence. Upon further reflection, and taking into account the suggestions made thus far, I believe 400 endorsements and an influence requirement matching six months' worth of accumulated influence at that endo count would be the best option.

The OP has been edited to include the latest draft of the bill.
 
A couple things.

First of all, I don't think 400 endorsements is high enough. It's true that the SC is not *just* about holding the most endorsements in the region, but... that's kind of a key part of it. If a delegate goes rogue with over a thousand endorsements, any SC member who's only hovering at 400 is going to lag far behind what we need in fighting back. It really doesn't matter how trusted someone would be with the delegacy if they can't get to it.

I would support switching to a percentage-based model - see below for more.

Second, I have some concerns about the language used in clause 11. Grammatically, it's a little awkward, and in terms of functional effect it leaves some... wide open loopholes. What defines "cases where a council member must expend influence for the security of the region"? Is it any use of influence? Any legal use? Anything sanctioned by the SC? Sanctioned by the RA? Not challenged in court? And how long is such an exception valid for, or does it persist indefinitely?

I actually have a bill that I drafted a few months ago that I'd like to propose as an alternative to the current draft. I will grant that it is a bit larger than yours - I intended it as a more comprehensive reform to the broader law, including endorsment/influence issues, but also reorganizing/rewriting some things for clarity. It also introduces some more reasonable language on VD/Del endorsement counts.

I would provide a marked up version, but.. the changes are pretty radical, and I moved a bunch of stuff around, so almost the whole thing would be red or blue. I have tried to add some notes for more, ah, noteworthy changes.

Chapter 5: Regional Security Law

1. Any laws regulating the Security Council or its activities must be listed in this chapter.
2. In this chapter, "Council" means the Security Council.
3. In this Chapter, the serving Delegate means the person holding the constitutionally-mandated elected office of Delegate or, in the case of a vacancy in that office, the person who has assumed the duties of that office.
4. Whenever any computation results in fractions, the count will be rounded down to the nearest whole integer.

Section 5.1: Requirements and Admission
5. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply to join the Council, as long as their nation satisfies any influence and endorsement requirements for membership. Any applicant who does not meet the appropriate requirements, or who ceases to meet them, is automatically rejected.
6. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements during their tenure on the Council as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.
7. The influence requirement is a Soft Power Disbursement Rating within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 182,500, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower. The endorsement requirement is at least 500, or 50 percent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.[note]Super not sure about these numbers - someone should try math. Also not sure about Apprentice rank; that may need to go up. I do think current requirements are too low.[/note]
8. By a two-thirds majority vote, the Security Council may exempt nations who have expended their influence in service to the region from any influence requirements to join the Council or to remain a member. Exemptions granted in such a manner remain valid until the exempted nation regains the required influence level.[note]This is one of the major changes - under current law, SC members who use too much influence must be suspended. Note that I've added in a requirement that it be granted only by vote of the SC, which should deny protection from anyone who uses their influence poorly. It does leave the result up to some discretion, though, and not all possible valid uses might be considered exempted.[/note]

Section 5.2: The Delegate and Vice Delegate
9. The serving Delegate is responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in The North Pacific.
10. The Vice Delegate is responsible for maintaining a minimum endorsement count at least that of the WA Delegate's endorsement count, minus one-tenth of the total number of WA nations in the region.[note]We currently set the VD's minimum at 75%, which is currently 960 endorsements. However, this calculation doesn't always scale well - at very low endorsement levels, the VD can wind up too close to the delegate, and at very high ones, they can wind up too far apart (960 is 320 less than the delegate's current count; a sizeable gap to cover in an emergency). This new approach, on the other hand, should scale pretty well - at 100% endorsement rates, the VD would need to maintain 90% of the delegate's endorsement count, but that's an impossible maximum (currently: 1182). More realistically, at 75% endorsement rates, the VD would need 85% of the delegate's count (1088), and at 50%, the VD would need 80% (1024). Right now, with the Vice Delegate's required minimum would be about 1100 - slightly higher than the VD's current count, but not by much, and both within striking distance of the delegate if necessary, but outside of most plausible renegade military maneuvers. It would also be reasonable to tweak the relevant numbers; one-fifth instead of one-tenth would probably not be too terrible, for example; currently it would set the minimum at about 950.[/note]
11. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate is below this level, they must promptly act to gather sufficient endorsements to meet or exceed the requirement.
12. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate fails to meet their required endorsement level for fifteen days, or fails to meet the required endorsement level for Council members for eight days, their office will be considered vacant.
13. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or resigns from the World Assembly, their office will be considered vacant.[note]The three clauses here are other major changes - up until now, there's been very little guidance on how long newly elected officials have to actually attain their endo counts, leading to plausible interpretations of "zero time" to "indefinite". This change will give then 8 days to get to 500 (or whatever the minimum for SC members is set at), and then a further week to take their actual places. Would be fine with changing the days, if that's considered too long or not long enough. Also note that due to prior changes, the VD would not need to take *second* place outright - they would only need to get to their required minimum count. So it would not be a problem if there were still SC members above them, or if SC members sometimes exceeded their count during the VD's tenure in office.[/note]
14. If the Vice Delegate is temporarily unavailable, the Council may task one of its members with performing the duties required under this chapter. The Council may hold a confirmation vote, but is not required to do so.
15. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate.

Section 5.3: Suspension and Removal
16. Whenever any Council member fails to meet the influence or endorsement count requirements to maintain their position without being granted an exemption[note]Implementation of the exemption clause. So, someone who just stops tarting and logging in will be subject to suspension, but someone who uses their influence for TNP almost certainly won't.[/note], the Vice Delegate must promptly warn them. If the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.
17. The Vice Delegate must promptly remove members of the Council whose member nations no longer exist, voluntarily depart The North Pacific, or resign from the World Assembly outside the needs of a NPA sanctioned mission.
18. The Vice Delegate must report any suspension or removal of a member of the Council to the Regional Assembly.
19. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate must promptly reinstate them.
20. If a Councilor's continued membership in the Council poses a security risk to The North Pacific, the Council may, by majority vote, request that the Regional Assembly vote on removing that Council member.
21. The Speaker's Office must submit any such request from the Council to an immediate two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.[note]This and prior clause also newly added, in case of any SC member who turns out to be a security threat. Flexible on "immediate" - thought being that presumption should be in favor of the SC's recommendation as to its own makeup, and also if the SC is ever making use of this clause it's probably going to be an emergency where speed is of the essence. If a (short) required debate period is desired instead, that should still be okay.[/note]

Section 5.4: Reckless Endorsement Gathering
22. The serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:
  • It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
  • It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
  • It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
  • It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.[note]I added "required minimum" to avoid letting people be banned for REG when the VD has a very low endocount, such as when they are newly elected. I have not changed these numbers at all from their current form, but given the suggested changes to the VD's endocount, I think that the 75% at least would need to go up.[/note]
21. The serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count.
22. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
23. Unless a delegacy emergency is in effect, any Council member who exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count while the Vice Delegate is above the required minimum for their position must stop seeking endorsements until they have fewer than the Vice Delegate.
 
I've been rather busy this past week with finals. I will update the OP soon. If anyone else has any suggestions, I would appreciate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top