Border Control Adjustment

Great Bights Mum

Great Bights Mum

Grande Dame
-
-
-
-
Currently Border Control powers are linked to the Security Council's Line of Succession. This can result in situations where those with BC may not have enough influence to be effective. It can also be constraining with respect to having coverage over multiple time zones. We can fix this:

Border Control Adjustment
1. Section 7.2 of the Legal Code shall be amended as follows:
Section 7.2: Regional Officers
9. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any three members of the Security Council.

The following clause shall be stricken:
10. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
Click to expand...

Here is the mark-up:
9. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.

By uncoupling BC from the LoS, it will allow for greater flexibility in utilizing the SC's influence points. I feel it will make us better able to more efficiently meet our security needs.
 
Last edited:
Full support. A good and necessary change that suits the Security Council’s needs for flexibility when it comes to protecting our region.
 
Perhaps a compromise with Elu's point is to allow border control to be assigned to up to three members within the top five positions. Idea being that we should have up to four border control members total -- the Delegate and three Security Councilors. Let's say we set a new Line of Succession and someone in the top three becomes Delegate, the Delegate is now taking up two of those four spots. We'd have to do another LoS adjustment to fix that. Another scenario would be if someone in the top three became Vice Delegate, now you're risking that theoretical rogue SCer being able to seize the Delegacy for themselves if you give them Border Control.

Expanding to the top five ensures four border control officers, mitigates the risk of a rogue VD/SCer, and makes repeated changes to the LoS to compensate unnecessary.
 
Here we go complicating things again. Elu is referring to a very different time. We have years of experience with expanding BC beyond the delegate, so spreading it around isn’t an issue. And GBM’s proposal handles everything you’re concerned with Sil - the delegate can simply reassign BC to eliminate the overlap. We have seen over the last few years times where to have decent coverage we did allow the VD to have BC, and if we found a scenario where that would make sense that would be permissible under GBM’s proposal.

Given Elu’s reminder I’m actually wondering if the bill should contemplate the emergency portion of the law. That includes a provision allowing the delegate to assign BC to anyone on the LoS, which is what this bill would do. So either we’d eliminate that redundant provision, or replace it with some equivalent which I guess would be allowing assignment outside of the LoS (not recommended) or eliminating the three member cap to BC. I think right now I lean toward simply eliminating the redundancy.
 
When the law was first written, BC was a relatively new feature. We weren't at all sure how its use would play out. We were more wary of possible misuse of the ban button. We can see throughout the last 10 years this hasn't happened. And it isn't going to happen. Over time, the SC's influence points have become so high, that a banning spree by a rogue or would-be couper would be mathematically unworkable.
 
Just wanted to highlight my question again @Great Bights Mum

Specifically, it’s not actually the emergency section of the code, it’s the very next clause from the one you’re seeking to amend:

10. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
Click to expand...

Would we amend this or remove it entirely?
 
Pallaith:
Just wanted to highlight my question again @Great Bights Mum

Specifically, it’s not actually the emergency section of the code, it’s the very next clause from the one you’re seeking to amend:



Would we amend this or remove it entirely?
Click to expand...

I think we can remove it entirely. Have we ever used it? I can't recall the RA ever voting on the assignment on BC powers.
OP updated.
 
Last edited:
Great Bights Mum:
I think we can remove it entirely. Have we ever used it? I can't recall the RA ever voting on the assignment on BC powers.
OP updated.
Click to expand...
We’ve done it at least once before, when the RA approved BC for Nessie, utilizing the non-emergency aspect. Emergency or not, however, the delegate picking 3 BC officers among all SC members by default does eliminate this clause as a consideration I would think. The only way to escalate from this change is to remove the 3 member cap, so that’s the only way I’d keep the second clause I think.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I think the allowable number is game-limited. You are in a position to test that!
Click to expand...
Sort of. There are 12 available regional officer slots, so some ministers would have to be dismissed to make way, but it could be done. The additional limitation is that the delegate can only appoint one delegate every 26 hours, but that stacks, so after 26 hrs * 12 slots = 312 hours or 13 days in the seat, the delegate could appoint 12 BC officers all at once. (If they lost the seat, though, the timer resets.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top