Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Exactly. Plus I think we already gave him the Delegacy without an election once before.* Some people didn't care for it.Lord Lore:
*Or twice depending on the calendar of events you choose to believe.
Proposal: Amended Line of Succession
- Thread starter bootsie
- Start date
*Or twice depending on the calendar of events you choose to believe.
I can't support this as is without more supporting policies surrounding it. We establish a line-of-succession, great, but nations increase and decrease in endorsements, activity, and more fairly regularly. In 6 months or a year's time this order that we've officially approved this time will be out-of-date and there may be a great deal of complaint about the official order at that time. Will there be an entirely new list put to vote every 6 months? Who may suggest the order then? Anybody? Only the delegate? Only the Security Council as a whole?
Though we seem to have determined that including the AG and Speaker in the succession are not ideal, the nice thing about them being included is that they're part of a list that then needs never be updated, there will always a clear AG, speaker, etc, and they will always be one after the other and that will make sense as it occurs, whereas specific individuals inevitably fluctuate in a great deal of ways and creating an order based on something that specific will quickly be obsolete.
We cannot only establish a line of succession without some procedure for maintaining it, keeping it up-to-date. From what I can tell, very little thought has been given to that very significant part of making this idea successful. Despite the fact that I approve of this specific list for this specific time, I have no idea whether I may be able to say the same in 6 months time. It will be a no from me until such a time as reasonable thought has been given to maintaining this list.
Though we seem to have determined that including the AG and Speaker in the succession are not ideal, the nice thing about them being included is that they're part of a list that then needs never be updated, there will always a clear AG, speaker, etc, and they will always be one after the other and that will make sense as it occurs, whereas specific individuals inevitably fluctuate in a great deal of ways and creating an order based on something that specific will quickly be obsolete.
We cannot only establish a line of succession without some procedure for maintaining it, keeping it up-to-date. From what I can tell, very little thought has been given to that very significant part of making this idea successful. Despite the fact that I approve of this specific list for this specific time, I have no idea whether I may be able to say the same in 6 months time. It will be a no from me until such a time as reasonable thought has been given to maintaining this list.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
While I can see your points, I am not wholly sure that the succession line is a real concern.Yrkidding:
The RA last voted on altering the succession in March 2014. Between then and now, new nations added to the SC were simply placed on the bottom, while those leaving the SC were removed from the line.
How does this vote nearly 30 months later present a crisis in legislation that requires amendment to the Constitution?
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Has it been that long?Gracius Maximus:
In any case I agree with you. Even if we did have to vote every 6 months to reassess the SC's endorsements and activity level that is fine with me. It would be different if we had to vote every few weeks, but we don't.
The issue remains that most elected officials in TNP are unlikely to be able to enforce the recall of a Delegate unless they have the requisite endorsements and influence. The SC exists for this exact purpose and the line of succession simply provides a framework for it to happen. Thankfully we have not had to consider enforcing a recall of a delegate for at least some years, but the line of succession is still important in preparing for such an eventuality.
falapatorius
TNPer
That reinforces my point against the RA voting in 'any' list that flies in the face of established (albeit ignored) guidelines. I'll quote the OP:Yrkidding:
This proposed LoS was force-fed to the RA for assent (imo). It sidesteps constitutional guidelines in favor of political convenience at best (cronyism at worst). It does line up nicely with the Executive Reform Bill though..:Bootsie:
This makes the LoS more important.. doesn't it? Mind you, I think that particular bill wasn't well thought out and I would vote against it again (but I digress).Section 7.2: Regional Officers:
tl;dr.. well said YK.
There is no crisis. Your own statement sums it up:Gracius Maximus:
Gracius Maximus:
I find this interesting. According to Zyvetskistaahn's Post in the Delegate Question Time thread, GBM, Plembobria, Bootsie, and McM all had been granted border control powers. When Zyvet brought up this question, Border control was removed from all except GBM (which is understandable since, as Zyvet said, she was third in the Line of Succession), without comment from the Delegate.falapatorius:
Now, a few days later, we get a bill which proposes to, in effect, legally give border control powers to Plemby and McM. To me, it seems like this updated LoS isn't so much about activity and endos as it is about certain people being granted border control powers. I'm changing my vote to nay. Call me crazy.
D
Deleted User (Guest)
Guest
You are for the most part, on the money: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8304560&t=7590185 with one major difference, that being those certain people are all active security councillors. The list is based on their activity, their endorsement counts and their availability.quak1234:
Zyvet is aware of the extraordinary circumstances that currently effect me which is why he has not pushed for an answer to his question, as I am still not at home. But so far it appears I've got to post from holiday before someone decides this was a grand conspiracy.
The edited SC roster was meant to have been passed by the RA prior to my holiday - of which I've had over 10 days of no internet minus one bar 4G - but it wasn't presented, which I was unaware of until Zyvet told me. (This was the NS matter I mentioned in the linked post and it caused a lot of panic.)
The aim was to ensure TNP had people covering it 24/7 to deter would be problematic elements since my limitations at the moment mean I am out of reach for the moment - while I now have internet access I am not available as I would be at home. Tomorrow through the 1st I'll be home and from the 1st to the 4th I'll be away again.
At the end of it all, I'm hitting the end of eight months as Delegate and sought to ensure that TNP was securely covered by Security Councillors in the first and only multiple day absence I've had without internet access, conversely, this is the first time I've been away from home for longer than two nights for three years. So, not a conspiracy just me being over cautious and not realising the Vice Delegate hadn't done their side.
There seems to be some confusion about the process of establishing the LOS. Any RA member can propose a new LOS at any time. I encourage anyone with strong feelings on the subject to submit their proposal.
IMO the LOS and who within the SC gets Border Control powers are incidental matters. EVERYONE in the SC can be trusted with in-game duties. It's our job to step up in times of need.
RL circumstances must be taken into consideration. It doesn't make sense to assign border control to 3 players who are going off on a camping trip for the week, does it?
With respect to the LOS, if there is ever an emergency, the SC member who is in the best position to win the Delegacy is going to be the one we want, LOS be damned. I'm all in favor of "political convenience," except I call it practicality. Things that look good on paper might not be entirely workable when situations arise in-game in real time. Not so long as NS is run by the people who show up.
IMO the LOS and who within the SC gets Border Control powers are incidental matters. EVERYONE in the SC can be trusted with in-game duties. It's our job to step up in times of need.
RL circumstances must be taken into consideration. It doesn't make sense to assign border control to 3 players who are going off on a camping trip for the week, does it?
With respect to the LOS, if there is ever an emergency, the SC member who is in the best position to win the Delegacy is going to be the one we want, LOS be damned. I'm all in favor of "political convenience," except I call it practicality. Things that look good on paper might not be entirely workable when situations arise in-game in real time. Not so long as NS is run by the people who show up.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- Zyvet#9958
As GBM notes in the post above this, it is open to any member of the Assembly to put forward a motion to establish a new Line of Succession at any time (they would, of course, require a second as it follows the non-legislative procedures). Traditionally, however, motions to establish Lines of Succession have been put forward by the person who, at the time, was Vice Delegate and, to my understanding, they have consulted with the Security Council to decide the precise ordering of those in the Line that is put forward.Yrkidding:
I should note, by the by, that I reject the suggestion of falapatorius that the Assembly can only vote on a single Line of Succession, that being one ordered by seniority alone. To accept this construction of the clause, in my view, reduces the power of this Assembly and renders its power to establish a Line of Succession meaningless. I say this because, if there can only be one Line of Succession which is constitutionally proper, then the Assembly would never have need to be given the power vote on it, for it would be able only to approve one Line of Succession, which would be the Line of Succession that existed prior to the vote anyway. It would also render the ability of the Assembly to vote against an establishment motion without effect, for the current Line of Succession would, logically, continue if a new one was not established. Under this construction it makes no difference as to whether the Assembly votes for or against a motion to establish (and, therefore, it makes no difference as to whether such a motion is even proposed) and that is an absurdity which can be easily avoided by accepting that the Assembly has the power to vary the Line of Succession and that the provisions as to automatic removals and additions are there merely to allow for the Line to be summarily amended to reflect the extant membership of the Security Council without requiring constant new votes of this Assembly to do so.
The Delegate has already addressed this, however, I will do so myself also. Two days after asking that question in the thread, I asked the Delegate privately whether he had seen it, as I was aware that some (like I was myself) may be on holiday and, therefore, have only limited access to NS and I did not want to unnecessarily escalate matters. As it happened, the Delegate was on holiday and he and I discussed, briefly, this matter.
He informed me, as he has informed the Assembly in this thread, that he had expected the Line of Succession to have been passed prior to his absence but that, as he then realised, the Vice Delegate had yet to present it. He assured me that the powers would be removed on his return.
I, as I believe was right, informed him that I was of the view that the Assembly should be more promptly given an opportunity to vote on those who were granted powers being granted those powers (this could be done, as it was intended to be done, by the Line of Succession, or it could have been done by an express motion to grant border control powers as set out in the Codified Law)[note] Codified Law of The North Pacific, Section 7.2, clause 8 "8. In the event of a Delegate Emergency or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any members of the Security Council."[/note] and that I believed that what was then the state of affairs preempted the decision of the Assembly as to the prospective Line of Succession and was contrary to the controls the Assembly had established on the use of the border control power.
As the Delegate mentions, I did not press to have the question answered publicly until such a time as he was returned home and had proper means to post and engage with the Assembly, but he did, nonetheless, remove Border Control powers from those who had been granted it (save for GBM, as has been mentioned). That removal, in my estimation, remedied the legal quandary and removed the need for any further action prior to the Delegate's return. I should say also, that I entirely accept that this was merely the Delegate being over cautious and endeavouring ensure the security of the region and that I do not think that it was in aid of some conspiracy to breach the law.
Why?Pasargad:
falapatorius
TNPer
I didn't suggest that. The RA can vote on any LoS, provided it adheres to constitutional provisions. Seniority only applies to those who have maintained their membership (which is a good thing). Not only that, the constitution makes no provisions regarding experience, activity levels, etc. That was a tack taken by the authors of this proposal. I would remind them:Zyvet:
We can disagree on whether or not this proposal passes muster, but the constitution prevails in any event. I don't think clauses in the same paragraph are exclusive of each other.TNP Constitution:
Well, to follow that logic, any RA member can propose a new LoS. That could require constant new votes. Furthermore, to say the qualifying clauses are there merely for housekeeping purposes is shortsighted imo. I will reiterate that guidelines regarding new/re-admitted members are moot if the RA can just override them. Couple that with the Executive Reform Bill's provisions regarding BCOs, then I suggest you're courting disaster.Zyvet:
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- Zyvet#9958
That is a distinction without meaning. By the logic you apply there is only one Line that adheres to constitutional provisions, which is that ordered by seniority, for no other quality is mentioned.
No member of the Council (save, perhaps, Romanoffia, though I do not know from memory precisely when he joined the Council) has maintained continuous membership for the whole time of the Constitution being in force and no members were admitted simultaneously (if only due to differences in the times at which they took the oath of office). There is, therefore, no room to vary beyond seniority, for no members have equal seniority, and, consequently, there would be only one Line which could be constitutional.
As I have said, on a proper construction of the clause, it is not contradictory to say that the Assembly may vote on any Line, as the provisions as to automatic additions and removals from the Line are not strictures that affect that power but, instead, are provisions to mean that the Assembly does not have to vote on a new Line after every addition or removal of a member of the Security Council. If you consider that construction unconstitutional then bring the matter to the Court, request a review of my supposed unconstitutional action in opening a vote and have this supposed unconstitutional Line struck.
Indeed, as I have stated, any member can propose a new Line and, notionally, that could require constant new votes (though, Eluvatar, in the post above, notes that any member can also propose new laws, but that we are not constantly voting on such). I fail to see how the recognition that the power of the Assembly to establish a Line of succession has some purpose and is not a pointless piece of extraneous text is shortsighted. The automatic additions and removals to the Line are not moot when used for the purpose I have demonstrated, in terms of avoiding the necessity of new votes after each addition and removal from the Security Council.
On the matter of the provisions on Border Control powers, I am not sure that I follow how disaster is being courted, as all members of the Security Council can, on the construction you adopt, notionally come into the top three merely by logging in once a fortnight and not being removed by recall or sentence of the court; if it is so great a risk, in your view, for certain members of the Security Council to be possess such powers, then might I suggest you make that argument and remove them from the Council, lest they one day do possess them by mere longevity or do, by happenstance, come into the Delegacy itself?
It doesn't.Pasargad:Why should RA elect TNP delegate ?SillyString:Why?Pasargad:
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
SillyString:It doesn't.Pasargad:Why should RA elect TNP delegate ?SillyString:Why?Pasargad:
Constitution 3.12
You're not Pasargad! Stop ruining my fun.Gracius Maximus:SillyString:It doesn't.Pasargad:Why should RA elect TNP delegate ?SillyString:Why?Pasargad:
Constitution 3.12
(I was hoping to discover some kind of insight as to how popular election of the delegate has anything to do with proper security measures during a delegacy crisis, which is still, unfortunately, opaque.)