Security Council Adjustment Act

[Sil Dorsett]

I think it's clear that the Frontiers/Strongholds update has, albeit slowly, had an effect on our ability to hold a strong total population. By consequence, WA endorsements are down, and we've reached the point where our Security Councilors are suffering. It's time for an adjustment.

Section 5.1 of the Legal Code is amended to read as follows:

Section 5.1: Requirements and Admission
4. 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.
5. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.
6. The influence requirement is a Soft Power Disbursement Rating within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 144,000, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower. The endorsement requirement is at least 400, or 50 percent of the Serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
7. 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.

Spoiler: Markup

Section 5.1: Requirements and Admission
4. 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.
5. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.
6. The influence requirement is a Soft Power Disbursement Rating within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 182,500144,000, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower. The endorsement requirement is at least 5400, or 50 percent of the Serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
7. 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.

(144,000 Influence points is 400 endorsements for 180 days.)

 

[El Fiji Grande]

Can we make this a mathematical equation as a percentage of regional WAs rounded to the next lowest integer so we don't have to change the law as the population shifts?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Can we make this a mathematical equation as a percentage of regional WAs rounded to the next lowest integer so we don't have to change the law as the population shifts?

You show me the math and I'll consider it.

 

[Meteturan]

How many WA members do we currently have? Can we see the number of members, or is it an estimate?

For example;
WA members: 1000
Endorsement requirement is at least (now): 400

Rate for the law: (400/1000) x 100 = %40

 

[Halsoni]

Full support

 

[Voopmont]

You show me the math and I'll consider it.

I think it makes sense to go off total number of WAs in the region, there is little point in a fixed number as this can either improve or worsen over time. This is currently 776, so 400 is approximately 51.5% of our total WA count. However, setting such a high static percentage of WA count as the requirement makes it obsolete because delegate endorsements will always be lower than total WA count. Alternatively, the requirement as measured by delegate endorsement count can be a higher percentage. If you set it at 62.5% the two (WA population times 50%) are equal at 80% delegate endorsement percentage, which from what I've seen anecdotally is pretty good for a GCR, Ruben is currently at 81% and for reference Sporaltryus is at 77%.

With regards to the influence requirement, you can basically just set your resulting endorsement count from the first equation times 360. However, I think in any case this will be a more strenuous requirement than either endorsement requirement because it effectively requires someone maintain that for 180 days.

Ultimately it's up to you, and you know what would be reasonable better than I do.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

After thinking about this some more, the problem with a floating requirement is the possibility of a Drew Durnil-style uptick in NationStates activity causing SCers to suddenly no longer qualify for membership due to increased attention from a YouTube or TikTok video. That completely ruins my intention. My intent is solely to acknowledge that getting to and maintaining 500 / 182,500 is incredibly tough now because of the F/S update.

I think setting a static value is the correct approach. So, I'm sticking with what I've got for now, though I'm willing to entertain alternative static values.

 

[Gorundu]

A while ago, I proposed a floating requirement based on the Delegate's influence rather than the region's WA count, which would negate Sil's concern of a sudden uptick in WA members rendering SCers ineligible. In such an event, the Delegate's influence would gradually increase, as should each SCer's at the same time.

Here's the entire thread of the discussion:

Establishing a reasonable influence requirement to join the Security Council

A few months ago @Sil Dorsett made this observation in his Vice Delegate's report: Fun Fact: Did you know that The North Pacific has zero nations that qualify for the alternative influence requirement to apply for the Security Council? That's right! The influence requirement to apply to the...

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Here's the specific section about the maths I was thinking of:

I believe a new influence requirement is needed, ideally one that is flexible and not a hard number like it currently is. Lowering the influence rank down to Squire could be an option, although we do currently have in excess of 100 of those, which might be too many for some people's liking. Otherwise the most sensible solution I could think of it a percentage of the most influential nation in the region (usually either the Delegate or a long-serving Security Councillor). Right now, 50% of that would be 125,000, making almost 100 nations eligible, 60% would be 150,000, making 30-ish nations eligible, and 70% would be 175,000 making only about 5 nations eligible. Obviously 60% looks like a good middle ground as it stands, though future WA activity changes could change that balance.

I still think this is a better solution than a static value. Using the 60% value and adjusting for the Delegate's influence now, we get a requirement of 146,935, which is very similar to the 144,000 value that Sil is proposing. So it looks like this value is holding up well over time.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I'm glad we are discussing this. I think either a percentage or a fixed number will work. The only drawback I see for a percentage is the extra step it will take to calculate it.

 

[Lord Dominator]

I would generally agree with Gorundu, a floating requirement tied to a position would seem to resolve the problem of both declines like this bill seeks to solve and any potential increases (both short and long term). I would note that it would make sense to tie both, but each separately & similarly that the basis include the Delegate/VD/SC as targets. That is, something like “60% of the influence of the most influential of that group and 60% the endorsements of the most endorsed.” That keeps a solid target and also accounts for sudden delegacy changes or low endorsed new delegates.

 

[Gorundu]

I would note that it would make sense to tie both, but each separately & similarly that the basis include the Delegate/VD/SC as targets. That is, something like “60% of the influence of the most influential of that group and 60% the endorsements of the most endorsed.” That keeps a solid target and also accounts for sudden delegacy changes or low endorsed new delegates.

The endorsment count requirement is already tied to the "Serving Delegate", i.e. the elected Delegate, but you're right it probably makes more sense to tie it to the in-game Delegate to keep the count stable during transitions. It's been at 50% for a long time, and I don't know if it needs moving up since the influence requirement seems to be the harder one to hit anyway, but I guess aligning both requirements at 60% would look neater.

 

[Lord Dominator]

The endorsment count requirement is already tied to the "Serving Delegate", i.e. the elected Delegate, but you're right it probably makes more sense to tie it to the in-game Delegate to keep the count stable during transitions. It's been at 50% for a long time, and I don't know if it needs moving up since the influence requirement seems to be the harder one to hit anyway, but I guess aligning both requirements at 60% would look neater.

I will 100% say that I just forgot that it was like that, so the % part of my suggestion can probably be ignored