Delegate's duties during handover

Mr.Gaunt

Mr.Gaunt

TNPer
Since there will be elections some time in the future, the Allied Huggable Fluffies of Kitabo would like to present a proposal to ensure regional security. It still needs to be worked out properly, but that will happen after discussion.

I'm not sure if it needs to be included in the Constitution, maybe it's enough to have it in the Legal Code. If we add something to the constitution, it could be a short clause like:

"The UN Delegate and the elected successor are obliged to ensure a secure handover after elections. The handover activities must not restrict any nation's rights."
Everything else can be organised in the Legal Code.

Contents for the Legal Code could be:
- Delegate must ensure a xxx endo (or xx%, to be defined) distance from fellow nations is kept during the handover.
- Do not force a nation to drop its endos
- Give nations the possibility to maintain an endorsement level (+/- xx endos)
- Give the delegate / future delegate the ability to officially commit a nation to stop increasing (not giving or receiving!) endos until completion of the handover.
- Reasonable + tolerance should be allowed because of endo receipt backlog.
- If the handover goes wrong, there should be no right to take actions against a nation.

Advantages
- easy but official request for a stop possible
- no involvement of the SC needed
- no nations bothered because of an unsecure handover

I'm aware this sounds slightly egoistic, but if I had been a well hidden security threat TNP could be in trouble today. On the other hand, it is very odd (and even a little disturbing) to see my nation becoming a SC topic just because it stayed where it was before. :ermm:
Looking forward to receiving some feedback.
 
I would support something along these lines but would also be cautious about being too lenient.

- If the handover goes wrong, there should be no right to take actions against a nation.
Click to expand...

I don't like that one.
 
Yeah, having the clause Fedele highlighted could cause problems. If a nation refused to stop gathering endos after instructed to stop by the other clauses, they could not be tried for denying the order. And we'd be stuck with another rouge Delegate, and I think we've had enough of those.

That clause needs to be removed. It has the potential to do far more harm than good.
 
It is better to damn one person in order to save thousands than to save one person and damn the thousands.
 
Fedele:
..but would also be cautious about being too lenient.
Click to expand...
Well, hmm, you're right, this is the sentence where I had difficulties with the wording. But how can you ensure no nations are kicked when there is not enough attention paid during handover and it's not some nation's fault?
(Of course technically you can't do this anyway, but I am talking about the law)
 
My main concern with this is that it assumes a certain level of communication with the nation involved. It's not necessarily true that the nation of concern will be an RV, RA, or even registered on this forum. If they choose not to respond to telegrams, then any legal code is meaningless to them.

Mr.Gaunt:
Constitution could be:
"The UN Delegate and the elected successor are obliged to ensure a secure handover after elections. The handover activities must not restrict any nation's rights."
Click to expand...
The handover *will* restrict a nation's rights if they make a bid for the delegacy countering the newly elected delegate. Just as if someone was opposing the delegate's endo count, opposing the new delegate could result in a restriction/penalty.
Everything else can be organised in the Legal Code.
Legal Code could be:
- Delegate must ensure a xxx endo (or xx%, to be defined) distance from fellow nations is kept during the handover.
- Do not force a nation to drop its endos
- Give nations the possibility to maintain an endorsement level (+/- xx endos)
- Give the delegate / future delegate the ability to officially commit a nation to stop increasing (not giving or receiving!) endos until completion of the handover.
- Reasonable + tolerance should be allowed because of endo receipt backlog.
- If the handover goes wrong, there should be no right to take actions against a nation.
Click to expand...
Of the Legal Code guidelines, I would like to keep 2 of them (with a bit of change...).
- Do not force a nation to drop its endos
- Give the delegate / future delegate the ability to officially commit a nation to stop increasing (not giving or receiving!) endos until completion of the handover.
Click to expand...
For the 2nd one... I think the delegate should be able to ask a nation to stop handing out endorsements for a limited period, like a week.

As to the others.... I think a lot of them should be left up to the judgement of the incumbent and incoming delegate. In this previous situation, Kitabo was a fairly known quantity, so Flem let the counts get fairly close, assuming there wouldn't be a last minute bid for the delegacy. But if something goes wrong (with no incompetency on the part of the new delegate and incumbent), then the nation that caused the problem should help to rectify it as soon as possible.

Basically, handover is a bit tricky or nervewracking on the night of, but it can be done with a minimal amount of fuss. If you assume no ill will on the part of other nations, then a brief stay of endoing shouldn't be a problem.

Personally, I think it would be nice if candidates would have to get to within a third - half the delegate's endorsements before they can run. That would ensure a bit of a smoother transfer. A little hard to actually do, but nicer.
 
I think this proposal is designed to make usurping the Delegacy easier and to deflect any action against the usurping nation!! It disturbs me that the nation that was closest to intercepting the Delegacy this time is looking to make legislation that removes blame from the usurper and places total responsibility on the incumbent Delegate and the newly elected Delegate!!

I see no reason for this to be part of the legal code or Constitution!! What I do feel needs adding are clauses that put the responsibility on the individual nation for complying with the regional election processes including the changeover of Delegate!!

With regards to the SC discussion of your activities at the time of the Delegate changeover, I believe it would have been negligent of the government not to look into the matter!! Secondly, Stars of Sky used the exact same reasoning for her high endorsement count during the NPD reign and we all know her intentions!!

Essentially, the government and the security council have an obligation to protect the processes of the government from people seeking to usurp them and will continue to do so regardless of who the nation in question is, where they are from or whether they are popular in OOC!!
 
Poltsamaa:
I think this proposal is designed to make usurping the Delegacy easier and to deflect any action against the usurping nation!! It disturbs me that the nation that was closest to intercepting the Delegacy this time is looking to make legislation that removes blame from the usurper and places total responsibility on the incumbent Delegate and the newly elected Delegate!!
Click to expand...
Excuse me, Mr. Prime Minister, but my nation was not "usurping". It stayed where it was during the delegacy handover and only handed out a few endos to maintain the achieved level. Nothing else. No tarting. There is a god damn duty for the delegate to watch what is happening! :angry: What if the delegate is losing endos faster than another nation althoug it stopped gathering endos? Ban this nation? Very unfair.

My proposal includes two points of view as you probably have not seen:
- Protecting nation's rights
- Giving the delegate the possibility to take actions

There is a split responsibility of the delegate/future delegate duo and all other nations.

Poltsamaa:
With regards to the SC discussion of your activities at the time of the Delegate changeover, I believe it would have been negligent of the government not to look into the matter!!
Click to expand...
Totally agree. But it would have been avoidable if more attention would have been paid at the endo level situation.

Poltsamaa:
What I do feel needs adding are clauses that put the responsibility on the individual nation for complying with the regional election processes including the changeover of Delegate!!
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm doing here. Complying with regional election processes should not include forcing nations to drop its endos. Endo exchange is an important part of the game. A secure handover is not in the hands of a non-delegate nation, the most important part is the behaviour of the delegate and future delegate.

Erastide:
For the 2nd one... I think the delegate should be able to ask a nation to stop handing out endorsements for a limited period, like a week.
Click to expand...
Well, that's what I call a constructive answer. Good proposal, not too restrictive and should be sufficient to get the handover done.
It would be good to have some tools available to check if the nation is following, something like a daily check of given endos like the one presented by Thel (?).

Erastide:
The handover *will* restrict a nation's rights if they make a bid for the delegacy countering the newly elected delegate.
Click to expand...
Agreed, what about "The restriction of any nation's rights must be kept to a minimun"? It is a more or less symbolic clause, so I think we can leave the rest to the legal code.

Erastide:
Kitabo was a fairly known quantity, so Flem let the counts get fairly close, assuming there wouldn't be a last minute bid for the delegacy.
Click to expand...
Assumptions where correct, but what would have happened if assumptions where wrong? Everyone would be reigned by Emperor Leland I. :wacko: :noangel: IMHO it is preferable to have a better buffer and avoid what happened last time.

As a last point, I strongly object any allegations made by the Prime Minister, especially the underlying ones. Rather than discussing the details of a proposal made to balance regional security and nation's rights, he prefers not to contribute anything but blaming nations as usurper which is an insult that should not be made a government official. :eyebrow:
 
What if the delegate is losing endos faster than another nation althoug it stopped gathering endos? Ban this nation? Very unfair.
Click to expand...

I fail to see why that is unfair. Why would someone need so many endorsements unless they wanted the delegacy? I just don't understand. Maybe it's just the raider in me but I feel the only reason to have more than two endorsements would be because you wanted to go places with them. What other purpose does it serve?
 
I'm with Fedele on this one.

If the is a tart who is gathering enough endorsements to become delegate, but was not elected then I would view them as a security threat; end of story.

It is easy to tart enough to become delegate in a feeder, why do you think things such as Caps and the Security council exist? Saying that it is the outgoing delegates fault if someone surpasses him seems a little silly. If a tart continues to tart during a handover, they would be viewed with great suspiscion.

I honestly fail to see where our old system went wrong, though. Perhaps it's just me.

I'm also curious as to how a Delegate can maintain a decent level above a tart without asking them to drop their endorsements. Endotarting is not an exact science, without a major drop by the outgoing delegate, the handover could take weeks. We also have to remember that their is the regent to worry about. So, not only would the delegate have to remain above all tarts in the region and the VD, but they'd also have to try and keep their levels low enough for a quick and safe handover.

At the end of the day, endorsements are the making of a delegate; once you get a small amount of them so that you can propose resolutions, there is nothing of import that a tart can do with their endorsements.
 
Fedele:
Maybe it's just the raider in me but I feel the only reason to have more than two endorsements would be because you wanted to go places with them. What other purpose does it serve?
Click to expand...
Maybe it's just the slightly naive player in me, but it makes you feel nice to give and receive endorsements? :hug:
 
I realise that you enjoy it, Kitabo, but it is not the Delegate's position nor the Law's position to ensure that you are sensible with your tarting.

The law should come into effect when your tarting presents an actual security risk, as it did at the last hand over.
 
Eh, Fedele and Goalvie, there are reasons to have high endo counts, simply because it gives you pleasure to have it. As a sense of accomplishment.

However, in regards to the *specific* time during the handover, I know that Flemingovia stopped endotarting period. Consequently, his endos dropped by well over 100. It takes a long time to build up the endo count that a delegate is supposed to have, especially when people are starting from scratch. Therefore, waiting until that point would be absurd.

I mean.... I started endotarting before the actual election and then got asked why I was starting so early endoing all the nations. But if I hadn't, it would have taken me much longer to be in a position to take over from Flem. And on the night of (which was really random), Flem stayed up to watch the handover and make sure nothing untoward happened.

Yes, I understand that a nation should have the right to have a fairly high endo count. But I also think that in a given period after the election of a new delegate, all nations with a high number of endorsements should be forced to stop endoing others. The period doesn't have to start immediately after the election, but something like a week or two weeks that the incumbent can declare a moratorium on endorsements to allow the delegate and Vice delegate to gain their endorsements to such a level that handover can occur.

A good handover requires both the incumbent and incoming exert some effort. If they aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be delegate. :p But if a highly endorsed nation refuses to help with the transfer in a fairly reasonable manner, they are a security risk.
 
Mr.Gaunt:
Excuse me, Mr. Prime Minister, but my nation was not "usurping". It stayed where it was during the delegacy handover and only handed out a few endos to maintain the achieved level. Nothing else. No tarting. There is a god damn duty for the delegate to watch what is happening! :angry: What if the delegate is losing endos faster than another nation althoug it stopped gathering endos? Ban this nation? Very unfair.

My proposal includes two points of view as you probably have not seen:
- Protecting nation's rights
- Giving the delegate the possibility to take actions

There is a split responsibility of the delegate/future delegate duo and all other nations.
Click to expand...
I did not say you were usurping, I said your proposal places the responsibility on the Delegate and their successor rather than on each individual nation to make sure they do not become a risk to security during the changeover of Delegate!! It is YOUR responsibility to ensure you are not violating the laws of the region or placing yourself in a situation whereby you come under SC scrutiny due to your endorsement level reaching a level that places the security of the region and its government processes at risk!!

Your proposal puts "nation's rights" ahead of regional security and constitutional process!! There is a point where the good of the individual must make way for the good of the region and this is one such circumstance!!

Your proposal does not give the Delegate any possibility to take action, it merely legislates the "I didn't mean it" excuse for usurping the Delegacy!!

Totally agree. But it would have been avoidable if more attention would have been paid at the endo level situation.
Click to expand...

The reason you came under scrutiny was because the endo levels were being monitored!! If they weren't you would have gone unnoticed!!

That's exactly what I'm doing here. Complying with regional election processes should not include forcing nations to drop its endos. Endo exchange is an important part of the game. A secure handover is not in the hands of a non-delegate nation, the most important part is the behaviour of the delegate and future delegate.
Click to expand...

No, you are asking that no nation be responsible for their own actions!! You are asking that people cannot be punished for "accidentally" becoming Delegate outside the processes of the region!! The secure changeover of Delegate is the responsibility off all nations in the region!! Simply saying the non-Delegate nation is not responsible for possibly usurping the Delegacy during the changeover is a blatant removal of personal responsibility for one's actions and quite frankly and unacceptable situation as far as I am concerned!!

As a last point, I strongly object any allegations made by the Prime Minister, especially the underlying ones. Rather than discussing the details of a proposal made to balance regional security and nation's rights, he prefers not to contribute anything  but blaming nations as usurper which is an insult that should not be made a government official. :eyebrow:
Click to expand...

If you can point out any allegations I have made, underlying or otherwise, please do so!! What I did do was put across my opinion on a very dangerous piece of legislative change proposed by yourself!! If you could perhaps rebutt my comments rather than avoid them and post indignantly it would be far more constructive!! However, seeing as Erastide asked for the same concessions as I did, I am assuming it's not so much what was said, but who said it?! Your proposal paves the way for a legal "I didn't do it" defence for those that seek to usurp the Delegacy and to me that is not an option!! Because I am a government official does not preclude me from offering my opinions on proposals as they arise for discussion and debate!! I am a member of the RA, it is my right to do so!!
 
Poltsamaa:
If you could perhaps rebutt my comments rather than avoid them and post indignantly it would be far more constructive!!
Click to expand...
In contrast to Erastide's and Fedele's responses, your comments were not really responsive to my proposal, but a general "i do not agree you are silly" statement.
 
No, my comments quite clearly stated my concerns with the proposal and the reasons for those concerns!! The fact that you took exception to the comments should not be a reason to dismiss them completely!!
 
Kit, I don't think he was anything but respectful while stating his disagreement with you.

Please, let's keep this as a discussion and not a debate.
 
OOC:
O.K. folks, this was my first try of a major contribution to TNP discussions.
As a natural scientist, I'm not used to discuss in the way Polts does and I feel we are not going to get together and discuss properly. I have enough of such discussions at work already.
I'll skip that in the future, will continue to post a small comment now and then and for the rest of the time have some fun in Stars.
 
The way I discuss things is based on the view that if you propose a piece of legislative change then you should be able to defend it or amend it as comments arise!! My comments have been on-topic and directed at the legislation proposed so if people have a problem with that or are unable to differentiate between a discussion of legislation and a discussion of personal traits then that is not of my concern!!

I believe Kitabo has resorted to attacking me as Prime Minister rather than rebutt the comments I made addressing the concerns I have with this legislation!! At no time did I say he usurped or sought to usurp the Delegacy, nor did I say his proposal was "silly"!! I don;t like the proposal and what it represents if implemented!! I realsie he proposed it to find a balance between nation's rights and regional security, but it is obvious that the proposed legislation is far to open to abuse and therefore a security risk in itself!!

I make no apologies for expressing my opinion and will continue to do so as a citizen of this region, a member of the RA and a member of the Cabinet!!

I realise a few will take me to task claiming I have "driven Kitabo away", but I will not cease posting my opinions to appease people who would rather play the indignant victim card than actually discuss their proposal in a robust and civil manner!!
 
Hmm... interesting.

That said, if everyone folded so easily, we'd have no RAs left by now.

[edit]

*GoalVA points Kitabo to his arguments with Cisco et al. on S2 when he was trying to change legislature.

No-one said that being in the RA was going to be an easy ride; when you propose changes to the constitution or additions to the law, you have to fight to bring everyone else round to your way of thinking. In this case you are proposing something that could effect regional security, which is something that everyone is especially twitchy about so your job is doubly hard.

If you believe in this, then fight for it, prove your case and be prepaired to compromise in the face of mass disapproval. If you don't believe in it, then why did you propose it in the first place.
 
Polts:
Your proposal puts "nation's rights" ahead of regional security and constitutional process!! There is a point where the good of the individual must make way for the good of the region and this is one such circumstance!!
Click to expand...

Actually, it's her misunderstanding of what 'nations' rights' is. A nation does have a right to accumulate endos, but not to the extent that those endorsements threaten the Delegate and thus threaten the region's stability and security and the rights of other nations to a stable, peaceful and secure region.

A nation's rights end where they infringe upon the rights of other nations. No nation has a right to infringe upon the rights of every other nation in the region, even under the guise of one's own rights.

As such, I completely agree with Poltsamaa.




Romanoffia
 
Kitabo, please reconsider a decision based on an argument with Polts and others. The fact that you disagree on the agreement as it stands means that if you reach one that you both can agree on, it will be the stronger one.

I personally think there should be *something* for people to reference for such times. Maybe not completely binding, but some guidelines that the delegate officials could reference and point out to non-governmental nations to inform them if they are in danger of being declared a security risk.

The discussion concerning Kitabo at the handover was a bit haphazard, I think a more formalized discussion would have been good to have, with a corresponding TG to the nation if they are not a forum nation.
 
I am more than happy to discuss something formal with regards to the Delegate changeover, hence my posting in this discussion thread!! Afterall, these threads are designed to analyse and discuss a proposal so I would expect there to be both psotive and negative responses in any thread unless the proposal is simple and commonsense!!

Proposals regarding regional security are rarely simple and commonsense and as a result the discussion can be quite long and people are compelled to put their ideas forward on the proposal!!

Speaking from a personal perspective, I rarely assume a proposal I put up for discussion will be filled only with :kiss: and :tb2: emoticons!! Instead, I hope people are comfortable enough to put their true thoughts forward without fear or reprisals or someone throwing a tantrum about it!!

anyway, back on topic....!!
 
I remain uncertain as to what change is perceived as necessary in connection with the process by which an elected delegate securely hands over the Delegacy to the elected successor as Delegate.

Constitution Article III Section 2 Clause 1 Item B:
B - The UN Delegate for the Region shall maintain the Delegacy in accordance with this Constitution. The UN Delegate for the Region shall securely hand over the Delegacy to the Nation that is duly elected as the successor to the office of UN Delegate in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. The Delegate's primary role shall be to represent the interests of The North Pacific's UN member Nations through votes on UN resolutions at quorum; it shall be understood that this objective can be best achieved through open and regular communication with member Nations at The North Pacific off-site forum, via private message at that forum, or by telegram through NationStates.net. The Delegate shall have authority to approve proposals submitted by UN member Nations for consideration in the UN at the discretion of the Delegate.
Click to expand...

Constitution Article III Section 2 Clause 1 Item F:
F - At all times during the term of office, the Vice Delegate shall have the second greatest number of endorsements in the Region which shall be exceeded only by the number of endorsements held by the Delegate. The Vice Delegate may be authorized, by a vote of the Security Council on grounds of regional security, to temporarily assume the Delegacy under NationStates procedures whenever the Delegate may be unable to act or is not recognized within NationStates as the UN Member with the greatest number of endorsements within the Region or for other similar reasons of regional security. Upon the subsequent formal posted declaration of the Delegate that he or she is able to again act as Delegate of the Region within NationStates, the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall take any necessary action to cause the transfer of the Delegacy back to the elected Delegate.
Click to expand...

TNP Law 5 as amended by TNP Law 10:
Section 6. Additional Procedures for Election for UN Delegate and Vice Delegate for the Region.
A - The Nation elected as Delegate and the Nation elected as Vice Delegate under the procedures in the Constitution and the North Pacific Legal Code is are the formal designees of the region who is are to be designated as the UN Delegate and UN Vice Delegate for the Region by the voluntary endorsement of UN member Nations within the Region for the three month term upon declaration of the election in the canvass of results by the Election Commissioners.
B - The Election Commissioners shall include in the certificate of results a statement as to which candidate has been designated as the Delegate and the Vice Delegate in the election. The Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs will promptly notify all UN member Nations residing in the Region of the determination of the election results. The notification will include a request to all UN member Nations to unendorse the incumbent Delegate and Vice Delegate, if necessary, and a request that they endorse the newly designated Delegate and Vice Delegate. However, no Nation may be compelled to endorse or unendorse any Nation with respect to the Regional Delegacy or the Vice Delegate. The Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs may request the aid of any Nation he deems necessary to complete this procedure as expeditiously as possible. It is specifically intended that the newly elected Delegate and Vice Delegate are to be installed in office in accordance with NationStates procedures for the determination of a Delegate of a region within 2 weeks of the certification of the election.
Click to expand...

Constitution Article I Declaration of Rights:
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding UN member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a UN member.
Click to expand...


I think it is plainly clear that the original drafters of the Delegate election process (which actually predate my arrival in Nationstates) contemplated a degree of flexibility in the exact process by which the handover takes place. I think that imposing too many set procedures weakens rather than strengthens regional security. The constitution is respectful of the rights and responsibilities of individual nations as part of this process. There are remedies available (civil, criminal, impeachment) if there appears to be a violation of the rights of individual nations on the one hand, and of the right of the region as a whole to a secure transfer of office on the other.

The security council plays a role in the transfer if the persons who are the incoming or outgoing Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, Minister of Defense, NPA head, NPIA head, Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs, or others become aware of activities or information that indicate one or more players may intend to interfere with the legal transfer of the offices of Delegate and Vice Delegate. Ewcognizing the ingenuity of players, the fewer set structures and procedures that are set in stone, the fewer loopholes that will exist that can be exploited. That is one reason why I oppose a fixed endo limit, because the net effect of such limits makes it easier for someone to take a run towards usurpation of the Delegacy outside the Constitution process and without the consent of the governed under the constitutional processes.

The only change that was introduced based upon the experience of Flemingovia was to extend the time period for the transfer from one to two weeks, because one week proved impratical. I'm not aware that that time period was impractical for the most recent Delegate transfer; and I'm not aware of any other problems with the process that require legislation. Since, in my view, the process seems to be working, I say, let's leave something that works well enough alone.
 
Eh, Fedele and Goalvie, there are reasons to have high endo counts, simply because it gives you pleasure to have it. As a sense of accomplishment.
Click to expand...
try going back in time 6 months and telling stars that :p


Kitabo: please dont take offence to anything posted here. without critisism and change we dont learn and get god legislature :)
 
Maybe somehave missed the OOC remark.
I will try again to point out clearly why I am not keen to continue:
First of all, I am not a native speaker, so it is quite difficult for me to follow such discussions. Even though it's my daily business to communicate in English, it is a different thing to talk about NS legislation.
In RL I have a 70 people department to run in a company with an alcoholic as managing director and an extremely emotionalised atmosphere where rational arguments are urgently required to prevent the company from going under. That's why I spend a lot of my RL time bringing people down and back to facts rather than emotions. In NS, I am just seeking a little bit of fun and distraction, maybe taking the whole stuff not as seriously as some of you do. E.g. I like teddybears so I post using teddybear emoticons. Makes you feel 20 years younger.

Coming to the question why I stopped discussing so soon:
I am used to discuss facts more on a point by point basis, analysing potential issues, proposing alternatives and finding a solution. That's the way I work and bring things forward. Erastide's first response took a similar approach.
Now comes Poltsamaa: The approach is different, a more global one and based on believes, not discussing single points. A justified approach, but a more political way to argue. This forum is about politics so it's his right to post in that way, no matter if it is only IC or his way to discuss. I have enough "politics" in RL to deal with and often have difficulties to understand how politicial discussions work, because my nature and my education are different. So I am mainly wrong here, even though it will be interesting to follow some of the discussions.

(P.S.: I am not prepared to discuss this personal part any further)
 
This game is by its very nature, political!! The RA is by its very nature, political!! I have come across this problem before in other regions as the only conclusion I can come to is that people do not fully understand the role they play if they join the Regional Assembly!! The Regional Assembly processes legislative change proposals which entails discussion, debate and voting on proposals as they arise!!

I want as many people as possible involved in the Regional Assembly as it adds to the diversity of the region!! This is apparent from my efforts to allow as many people as possible to become RV and then hopefully members of the RA by extension!!

However, people have to be aware that if they join the RA and put up proposals for legislative change that they have to be ready to defend their ideas and/or compromise after discussion and debate with others in the RA!!

I have no interest in people's RL situations as I believe it is irrelevant to the game, if you don't like aspects of the game, don't put yourself in a situation where those situations arise!! I don't like RP or OOC sections of the forum so you'll rarely see me posting "north" of Magicality City on this forum!! That is my choice and I'd rather do that than post seriously in those threads and complain when people were acting "silly"!!

So, by all means use your teddy bear emoticons, I just think you probably need to reassess what you are wanting to do in TNP!! i have cut my teeth in NationStates in regions where the weak are eaten alive politically and thats just the way I like it!! I am more than willing to debate my ideas and if people want to criticise them then thats fine by me!! Attack the issue and not the person proposing the idea, thats the way it should be and hopefully thats the way it will remain!!

As for my comments not addressing a single point, you are right, it addressed your entire proposal as a single entity as I believe it represented one single outcome which I am 100% against!!

Best of luck in TNP and I hope you reconsider things and get involved in the RA as much as possible in the future!!
 
To me, this seems to be the same "endo cap" argument dressed in new light.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I see NO REASON NOT TO HAVE ENDO CAPS. Why the region as a whole seems politically PARALYZED on this issue is beyond me.

Why in the name of the Almighty would you have endo's that are really close to teh UN delegate's? Even if you have no bad intentions, it LOOKS bad, and that is what people judge by. If there was a legitimate reason for having high endo counts, this issue would be more difficult. But there IS NO legitimate reason.

I will tell you why many nations, and I'm not singling anyone out, just from my perspective, have high endo counts: It's very simple psychologically -- it makes them feel good. It makes them feel like a big mover and shaker in the region; it makes them feel important. In practice, no nation in the region other than the Delegate and VD should have more than a dozen or so. After all, only two other endorsements are needed to propose UN legislation. And I DO NOT buy the argument that yo uneed to have lots of endos to have people listen to your UN proposal. You can merely pass it on to your regional UN delegate and have them put it up or get the word out on your behalf.
 
more than a dozen/ sorry but i know that many people give endorsments to other nations as signs of goodwill and respect. A dozen is quite limiting.
Though i agree, too many endos can look bad. i know :p
 
Sorry, FL, but the "respect and goodwill" line doesn't fly with me!! Swapping endorsements with people you have never communicated with and do not communicate with after the swap is nothing to do with respect and goodwill and more to do with promoting people's own "status" in the region by trying to accumulate a high number of endorsements!!

If you swap with some people you know in the region, then that's understandable but the reality is there is no real reason to hold more than 20-30 endorsements taking these things into account!!

Someone claiming they "need" to hold in excess of 200 endorsements and continue to seek more while stating they have no desire to usurp the Delegacy will still raise some suspicion and come to the attention of the regional government!!

As I said, people have to be responsible for their compliance with regional law!! We do not have an endorsement cap at the moment but the endorsement levels in the region are monitored to ensure regional security!! If people accumulate high numbers of endorsements and become a security risk by way of possibly being a launching pad to usurp the Delegacy then the government would be negligent not to investigate and do all possible to reduce the threat!!

It takes time to accumulate endorsements, respect and goodwill rarely play any part in endorsement swapping!! I could psot regularly on the RMB that every one in the region sucks and then send out endorsement telegrams and gather 150 in a day or so!! Do the respect me or is their endorsement a sign of goodwill?! Or more accurately, do they not really care and kjust swapped endorsements becasue I asked them to?!
 
No reason for anyone to have more than 30 or 40 endorsements?

Remember that when you have more than 30 or 40 endorsements.
 
I have not sought endorsements and have 3 last time I checked!! If I get more than 30, I'll leave the region for an update if that will please you!!

I would find it amazing if a nation that did not endorse large numbers of nations or run an endo tarting campaign gathered more than 30-40 endorsements!!
 
I believe the discussion was referring to real reasons for having more than 20-30 endorsements!! Gamewise, there are none other than to make a claim for the position of Delegate!!

I think it would be a rare case that anyone exceeded 30 endorsements passively due to the fluctuations in regional population due to CTEs and people leaving for other regions outweighing any endorsements given by others seeking endorsements!!

We don't have an endorsement cap, so we do rely on people being responsible for their own endorsement level at present!! They are monitored and the government will address any threats as they arise!! If people would prefer a set endorsement cap, then they are welcome to propose such a change!! Until such time, the government will remain alert and monitor endorsement levels in the region as a matter of regional security!!

The main issue I had with this proposal was its removal of responsibility from the non-Delegate nations to ensure they do not place themselves in a situation whereby they become a security threat!! To me, that is a green light to anyone seeking to usurp the Delegacy knowing they cannot be held accountable!!
 
Rather than take away any guilt from those with high endorsements, I would rather see a proposal requiring nations to stay at a maximum of 50% the delegate's current number of endorsements. Any more than that (and, in my opinion, a good deal below that) is the result of someone having no other intentions than taking the delegacy.

God forbid we should have to see another person who feels they have been mistreated in some way use their high number of endorsements to declare war on the region.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top