Delegate's duties during handover

:offtopic:  I got up to 60 before I left TNP with Erastide.  I never endowhored a day in my life.  ;)

If you want an endo cap, can I suggest it be set somewhere around 100?  A level that takes *some* work to get to, but shouldn't be a problem for a reasonably competent delegate and vice delegate.

(EDIT: My apologies. I accidentally hit the EDIT button when I meant to hit QUOTE. Dammit. Now the conspiracy theorists will think I meant to muzzle Eras :B): )
 
100 sounds like a good figure to me!!

And Eras, you will see that I stated such an event to be a rare occurrence, not impossible!! ;)
 
Erastide:
:offtopic:  I got up to 60 before I left TNP with Erastide.  I never endowhored a day in my life.  ;)

If you want an endo cap, can I suggest it be set somewhere around 100?  A level that takes *some* work to get to, but shouldn't be a problem for a reasonably competent delegate and vice delegate.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.. If the "one dozen" I mentioned in my previous post was too strict, I was making a point: If someone has within 100 endos of the Delegate, chances are that this isn't just due to "goodwill endos"
 
I do not favor the adoption of a fixed or percentage endo cap of any kind because their mere existence increases the risk to regional security and/or makes an attack on the elected Delegate easier.

By not having a cap, the regional security authorities can evaluate potential risks on their actual behavior, without supposition as to their intetions one way or the other. Stating that a given number (however calculated) is a safe harbor makes it easier for a potential threat, and makes detection of a threat harder because of the existence of a safe harbor.

That the system works without the existence of an endo cap is more indicative of the lack of need of one, especially when one considers that the existence of endo caps do not in and of themselves prevent threats to regional security.

I say we leave well enough alone. Each resident citizen has an obligation as a citizen to observe and protect our mutual constitutional system of Delegate election, and acting sensibly in the area of endorsements is part of that obligation.
 
Poltsamaa:
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!!
Click to expand...
I was being sarcastic, of course. I don't think people should be hounded for endo levels unless they appear to be trying to go for the gusto, if you catch my drift.
 
Romanoffia:
I was being sarcastic, of course. I don't think people should be hounded for endo levels unless they appear to be trying to go for the gusto, if you catch my drift.
Click to expand...
At what point is someone going "for the gusto" with special mention of "puppetmaster" attacks using people within striking range as a launching pad?! I think a proactive approach makes things clear for everyone and is probably the way to go!!
 
Hey, kitabo! forget them, I'm totally with you on this. The government has been infringing on nation's rights for quite some time now and somewhere people have to say: is security is be the all and end all or crypto-fascism's best weapon is fear based on national defense.
 
mr_sniffles:
Hey, kitabo! forget them, I'm totally with you on this. The government has been infringing on nation's rights for quite some time now and somewhere people have to say: is security is be the all and end all or crypto-fascism's best weapon is fear based on national defense.
Click to expand...
So then would you like to propose a change to the Constitution to make the delegacy and vice delegacy positions open to anyone? Given the game mechanics of NS, where someone can assume the "elected" positions simply by gaining endorsements, it makes sense to in some sense regulate or monitor the endorsements in the region. It would be negligent of the government *not* to monitor endorsement levels.

Frankly, not monitoring endo levels or knowing who the most endorsed nations in TNP were is what led to UPS Rail/GB. We've at least progressed to paying attention.

I don't particularly *want* to see a restriction on endorsements, but I would say somewhere from 100-200 would actually be okay (assuming the delegate keeps above 400). Given that it takes some effort to get over 100, people could play around at those levels and still be able to have others gawk at their endorsements. For example... the top 10 nations in TNP are:
NationE. Received
Former_English_Colony464
Sirixis270
Kitabo253
Frejmark218
Cranach117
OPArsenal97
Ermarian66
New_Mayitha66
Rhen_Va66
Click to expand...
If people wanted to play around, they could easily do so at 200 and under and be one of the highest people in TNP aside from the del/vdel.
 
mr_sniffles:
Hey, kitabo! forget them, I'm totally with you on this. The government has been infringing on nation's rights for quite some time now and somewhere people have to say: is security is be the all and end all or crypto-fascism's best weapon is fear based on national defense.
Click to expand...
Perhaps sir, you could aid us by contributing to discussions of this sort then?

To be quite frank, I don't believe I've ever heard you voice any complaints before; You are an Assemblyman, you have the power to propose and vote upon legislature: do you plan on actually doing anything with it?

I look forward to your contributions in the future.
 
are you questioning both my loyalty to the region and my participation?

I've been a very active assemblyman, since I've been an RA member I think I've voted on close to 80% of all proposed legislation. I just don't feel like engaging in the debates because frankly this whole "flamebaiting" and overburdening forum mod rules stifle most of what I have to say.

For your information I was an active dissident during all periods of tyrannical rule, from UPS to Great Bight to the NPD! I just find it a little too close to comfort when we start adopting the same policies that they did. I'm in no way comparing those tyrants to us but I'm just saying, adopting tyrannical restrictions in no way reduces tyranny.

And for Poltsamaa's usual shrill response, I think Gross made an excellent point in the way that endorsement caps don't really make the region safer! In fact it gives invaders a benchmark for their plans. If they know how much to safely get then they can also plan how many invaders to crash a region and oust our elected delegate.

I know politics is a contact sport and how out of line I seem to be because of my dissent, so I await another forum warning on how crude I am in daring to ever disagree. Why don't you think kitabo has responded? Because you guys character assasinate anyone and everyone over the most trifle of issues, just for the prize kill.
 
i dont think anyone will criticise you for disagreeing now, but the tone in which you do it doesnt inspire confidence.
adopting tyrannical restrictions in no way reduces tyranny.
Click to expand...
endorsment caps are a widely used mathod now. its hardly tyranical if you elect the people it protects, and you can get rid of them aswell
 
True but the way we get rid of them will always be a problem because of game mechanics. Even if we have endorsement caps, taking Grosse's point we still have a problem no matter what. Quite possibly a bigger problem by giving them a target and now let's not forget that this measure only protects those in power, the same power that was abused by the former NPD and the method that they used to oppress us.
 
mr_sniffles:
are you questioning both my loyalty to the region and my participation?

I've been a very active assemblyman, since I've been an RA member I think I've voted on close to 80% of all proposed legislation. I just don't feel like engaging in the debates because frankly this whole "flamebaiting" and overburdening forum mod rules stifle most of what I have to say.

For your information I was an active dissident during all periods of tyrannical rule, from UPS to Great Bight to the NPD! I just find it a little too close to comfort when we start adopting the same policies that they did. I'm in no way comparing those tyrants to us but I'm just saying, adopting tyrannical restrictions in no way reduces tyranny.

And for Poltsamaa's usual shrill response, I think Gross made an excellent point in the way that endorsement caps don't really make the region safer! In fact it gives invaders a benchmark for their plans. If they know how much to safely get then they can also plan how many invaders to crash a region and oust our elected delegate.

I know politics is a contact sport and how out of line I seem to be because of my dissent, so I await another forum warning on how crude I am in daring to ever disagree. Why don't you think kitabo has responded? Because you guys character assasinate anyone and everyone over the most trifle of issues, just for the prize kill.
Click to expand...
Actually, I am more curious about your dislike of the actions taken by the government. You have an ability to change that, and you do not seem to take it. Just voting and not giving your reasoning does not get your position across.

If you cannot debate without insulting someone then that is your own problem, and you should not blame the forum moderation team for it. If on the other hand you wish to involve yourself in debate where you do not believe the government is working in the best interests of the people you are more than welcome.

I am not sure what you are implying when you say that we are adopting approaches used by Great Bight or the NPD. Our security measures are in place to protect the democractically elected delegate. The fact of the matter is that this place would be a whole lot unstabler if we just let anyone who wanted the delegacy take it.

I am not infavour of a hard endorment cap, but I do believe we must place a limit when an endotart gets too close to our delegate.

Personally, this is the first time I've seen you speak out about anything, and it comes as a suprise. You cannot expect us to change if you do not tell us what we are doing wrong.
 
this measure only protects those in power, the same power that was abused by the former NPD and the method that they used to oppress us.
Click to expand...
there are systems in place to remove people from offive should the need arise, such as empeachment and of course elections. and as you have noted above, should someone go rogue we have a large pool of people to take action against them. Though am i right in saying measures are in place for this event?
 
Now you see this was exactly what I was talking about, no where exactly did I say that I do not believe the government is working in the best interests of the people? Please someone quote me on this, someone tell me where I was accusing people of trying to go all GB on everyone?

Again with: I am not sure what you are implying when you say that we are adopting approaches used by Great Bight or the NPD. Our security measures are in place to protect the democractically elected delegate. The fact of the matter is that this place would be a whole lot unstabler if we just let anyone who wanted the delegacy take it.

I didn't imply a damn thing, I flat out said; I just find it a little too close to comfort when we start adopting the same policies that they did. I'm in no way comparing those tyrants to us but I'm just saying, adopting tyrannical restrictions in no way reduces tyranny. Where did I say that I didn't support elections or where I wanted anyone to become delegate just by taking it?

Somewhere YOU started implying that I'm for instability and that I'm comparing you guys to the dictators, well I flat out said I wasn't and that they're the same approaches on different people. Not to mention Cathyy was a democratically elected delegate who quite simply refused to listen to the rest of the people. If I'm not mistaken she was recently re-elected before the trouble with ADN membership began.

For Fullhead, yes these measures are important and I support them but the basic assumption when it comes to endorsement caps or restrictions or whatever you want to sugarcoat it with, you're placing the residents under suspicion and those most likely to abuse freedoms under protection. Power corrupts, so it's important that we engage security in a way that deals with leaders and citizens equally because that's what truly separates the government from the people. When the people should be the government, no ifs ands or buts about it.

No thanks, if I'm going to get jumped by people with fancy titles and shrill voices I think I'd rather stick to voting. I think the act of voting does more than all the rhetoric and attacks can ever possibly do.
 
yes these measures are important and I support them but the basic assumption when it comes to endorsement caps or restrictions or whatever you want to sugarcoat it with, you're placing the residents under suspicion and those most likely to abuse freedoms under protection.
Click to expand...
Placing people under suspicion? doesnt it just ask people not to reach a certain level? we wont ban people straight off if they exeed the limit, it will, IMHO be more casual, ask first etc.

Its more of a agreement from delegate to people in my eyes
 
In my eyes it's policing the citizens for the protection of the delegate. It's obvious we won't agree but you presented your arguements well and we might as well agree to disagree.
 
mr_sniffles:
Hey, kitabo! forget them, I'm totally with you on this. The government has been infringing on nation's rights for quite some time now and somewhere people have to say: is security is be the all and end all or crypto-fascism's best weapon is fear based on national defense.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

Now, I actually agree with you on your points, and if you hadn't started your debate under the assumption I was going to jump on you, we might not be having this argument.

I apologise for misinterpretting your argument.


Care to expand on what you believe the best course of action should be, If an endorsement cap is not the most beneficial way of protecting the delegacy?
 
Sniffles, if someone pushes the president off the podium and declares themself the president, do we accept that?
 
I would disagree that having endo caps would somehow make the region more prone to an incident. That is analogous to saying that having cops on the street makes people more likely to be criminals.

True, not having an endo cap means there is more subjective analysis by members of the government as to what constitutes a threat -- but this subjective analysis may not always be trustworthy. Furthermore, I feel that if someone is knowingly within 100 endos or so of the Delegate's number, then this person is probably not an innocent bystander in the entire matter.
 
mr_sniffles:
And for Poltsamaa's usual shrill response, I think Gross made an excellent point in the way that endorsement caps don't really make the region safer! In fact it gives invaders a benchmark for their plans. If they know how much to safely get then they can also plan how many invaders to crash a region and oust our elected delegate.

I know politics is a contact sport and how out of line I seem to be because of my dissent, so I await another forum warning on how crude I am in daring to ever disagree. Why don't you think kitabo has responded? Because you guys character assasinate anyone and everyone over the most trifle of issues, just for the prize kill.
Click to expand...
My response was not shrill, merely an invitation for you to expand on what you had posted!! Posting generalised statements does not make an argument!! Not having an endorsement cap and not monitoring endorsement levels does leave the elected Delegate exposed!! The people of the region who were interested in participating and who were not banned from the process decided that an elected Delegate was the way to go, hence we have to have measures in place to protect that elected Delegate from others seeking to become Delegate outside the election process!!

Secondly, Grosseschnauzer's post makes no sense whatsoever!! Having a publicised endorsement cap does not make threats more likely, it enables the government to deal with them more easily!! The problem with not having a cap is that "threats" are dealt with differently each time and people start to abuse the system!! What Grosseschnauzer posted is akin to a bank refusing to tell you your credit card limit for fear you might max out your card!!

I also echo the sentiments of others, if you cannot put an idea across without abusing people then that is your problem and one you will need to rectify if you want people to engage you in discussion!!

Kitabo has not responded because he cannot support his proposed legislative change!! If he truly believed in it he would post again seeking to push his idea or find compromise!! There has been no character assasination here, just a person who is not willing to back up his proposal when people criticise it!!
 
Sniffles, if someone pushes the president off the podium and declares themself the president, do we accept that?

Yes, yes we do. In fact what I'm proposing is that we allow all citizens of the North Pacific a chance to push FEC as hard as they can. Whoever gets him the farthest thus becomes the next delegate. Thanks for the inspiration.

as to Wizard of Oz, thank you for providing a true rebuttal to what I have been saying. I think the laws already passed has more than protected the delegate from this fear of unknown invaders creeping up. The right of the delegate to ban anyone posing a threat for the crime of gaining too many endorsements too fast, gaining too many endorsements and not being well known, having too many endorsements and not being declared in the forum or not an RV... the list is almost neverending. I mean ok, all of them kind of irk me but having been through so many civil strifes I see some of them being neccessary. Now to have them all and to feel the need to pass more, especially an idea that's almost always the first tool used by our past oppressors! That takes the cake for me.

Might I also remind you that other than UPS (which I would argue was more the problem of Magicality's RL crushing disability sending the then government protections into disarray), none of our past troubles would have been solved by an endorsement cap. Great Bight just happened to be the runner up, a situation not possible today because of the Vice delegate. And with Cathyy; a disengaged electorate, massive massive endo-tarting leading to one of the most supported yet reviled delegates in North Pacific history. Once again none of which would have been prevented by an endorsement cap and probably the key policy that kept them in power much longer than they needed to be.

Now for a defense policy off the top of my head, well then I say better regional militia and stronger endorsement count for the Vice Del, strict division of powers among all ministers, and greater regional involvement (which I know easier said than done).
 
The people of the region who were interested in participating and who were not banned from the process decided that an elected Delegate was the way to go, hence we have to have measures in place to protect that elected Delegate from others seeking to become Delegate outside the election process!!

Funny since we've been on the opposite ends in the war for an elected delegate and last time you weren't so altruistic.

Secondly, Grosseschnauzer's post makes no sense whatsoever!! Having a publicised endorsement cap does not make threats more likely, it enables the government to deal with them more easily!! The problem with not having a cap is that "threats" are dealt with differently each time and people start to abuse the system!! What Grosseschnauzer posted is akin to a bank refusing to tell you your credit card limit for fear you might max out your card!!

Grosse's post does make sense, it makes sense to me and him and we both agree. Wizard of Oz and Fullhead understand it but disagree with it. Just because you might not like it doesn't mean that it makes no sense to anyone.

NOWHERE, I mean nowhere have I said, let's have a free for all! Let's not have elections! I still believe in all that and while the current protections are still a little close for comfort, I just find an endo-cap as absolutely unnecessary. The SC can already ban people who are gaining endorsements too fast, the system also bans people who have threatening endos that aren't RV's which already whittles down much of the NS population. So why the fear mongering? Why all the cries and shouts of me being irresponsible in the sacred security of the region? Because we're going too far, to the point that in my opinion is dangerously close to crypto-fascism.

The people or the citizens are not the problem when time and time again, we've seen that power is the problem. If security is an issue let's start there.
 
mr_sniffles:
Funny since we've been on the opposite ends in the war for an elected delegate and last time you weren't so altruistic.
Click to expand...
I deal with reality!! In reality, we have a system in which our Delegate is elected on an off-site forum!! For this to work we have to respect the election process and respect the alws designed to protect that process!! Wherther I agree with the system of electing a Delegate via an off-site forum or not is irrelevant to the issue at hand!!

Grosse's post does make sense, it makes sense to me and him and we both agree. Wizard of Oz and Fullhead understand it but disagree with it. Just because you might not like it doesn't mean that it makes no sense to anyone.
Click to expand...

I understand what he is saying, I just think it has no basis in reality and therefore makes no sense!! The analogy I drew stands!! by setting an endo cap of 100 it may mean more people accumulate endorsements up to that point but it in no way makes the threat to security more likely!! What it does do is draw a line in the sand so that all citizens know how far they can go before the government will step in to make sure no security risk eventuates!! Personally, I could not care less if we had an endo cap or not!!

NOWHERE, I mean nowhere have I said, let's have a free for all! Let's not have elections!
Click to expand...

So, can you explain how this situation you described fits in with the current election process?!

Yes, yes we do. In fact what I'm proposing is that we allow all citizens of the North Pacific a chance to push FEC as hard as they can. Whoever gets him the farthest thus becomes the next delegate. Thanks for the inspiration.

It seems to be advocating a system where endo tarting decided who is the next Delegate, not the election procedure we have in place!!

I still believe in all that and while the current protections are still a little close for comfort, I just find an endo-cap as absolutely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Why?! If nations have no desire to usurp the Delegate position, why do they need to have more than 100 endorsements?!

The SC can already ban people who are gaining endorsements too fast, the system also bans people who have threatening endos that aren't RV's which already whittles down much of the NS population.
Click to expand...

I believe the SC can approve requests made by the cabinet rather than ban anyone of their own volition!! And, yes, of course non-RV's are included!! What would be the point of leaving non-RVs outside the law while keeping RVs under scrutiny?!

So why the fear mongering?
Click to expand...

What fear mongering are you referring to?! I haven't seen any!! What I have seen i Kitabo make a proposal that many people found to be flawed!!

Why all the cries and shouts of me being irresponsible in the sacred security of the region?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard any shouts or cries about you at all, let along any irresponsibility!! Can you point hem out to me?!

Because we're going too far, to the point that in my opinion is dangerously close to crypto-fascism.
Click to expand...

Can you point out where we are going to far?! We do not have an endorsement cap and none has been proposed!!

The people or the citizens are not the problem when time and time again, we've seen that power is the problem. If security is an issue let's start there.
Click to expand...

Power isn't going to go away, we will always have a Delegate who will always have ultimate power in the game!! It is their choice whether or not they choose to abide by laws made on an off-site forum and believe it or not, they are within their right to eject anyone they feel comes close to their endorsement count!! No warning, no security council, no avenue for appeal...just gone!! If you want the raw gameplay method of attaining the Delegate position then, in my opinion, you have to have the raw gameplay method of hanging on to the Delegacy!! The security issue is if someone who does not wish to operate under the government system of this forum becomes Delegate!! So, it is not the power that is the problem, just who holds it and what they want to do with it!!
 
sorry to have to correct you but
Great Bight just happened to be the runner up
Click to expand...
UPS Rail, before leaving power, removed everyone with more endos than GB from the region.

And with Cathyy; a disengaged electorate, massive massive endo-tarting leading to one of the most supported yet reviled delegates in North Pacific history.
Click to expand...
Cathyy was, before Moldavi took power, on of TNPs most popular delegates, having gained 700+ endos with the full backing of the region.
Once again none of which would have been prevented by an endorsement cap and probably the key policy that kept them in power much longer than they needed to be.
Click to expand...
The endorsment cap isnt and hasnt just been used to keep tyrants in power. I belive the first official one may have been Sydia in TNP, which did keep him in power, but only to keep TNP safe while he was absent with PC trouble. It can keep us safe!

My belief is that a rough endo-cap would be a good idea. It allows us time to ask people to stop tarting/lower their count and also it gives us the option of, in extreme circumstances, having the delegate take action to protect us.
 
Note... this may be slightly long. Vacation trumps paying attention every second of the day. :thumbsup:

First off. The matter of endorsement caps. Are the evil? :p I would say endorsement caps *themselves* are not evil, merely the manner in which they may be used can help support "evil". Democratic regions can use endorsement caps for security and to make sure no resident runs the risk of being innocently ejected. Tyrannical regions can use endo caps to secure their power and resist all attempts to take over the region. In TNP, a tyrannical delegate would be evil and endo caps would support it. But that doesn't mean we can't use endo caps in a such a way that they support our democracy.
mr_sniffles:
In my eyes it's policing the citizens for the protection of the delegate. It's obvious we won't agree but you presented your arguements well and we might as well agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Yes... that *is* the purpose of it. Following the Constitution to protect the delegate from non-elected nations.

Yes, endo caps restrict people's freedoms. However, by the very fact that we have an offsite elected delegate, we are bound to restrict people's freedoms. Because we can't let just *anyone* become delegate, you now must become an RV and participate in the elections. And in order to ensure that happens, noone must be allowed to overtake the delegate's endorsements.

As to endorsement caps providing a target for invaders, I disagree. As Kitabo himself said, if he had been an invader, we could have been in a world of trouble. And he was higher than any endo cap that has been proposed. Invaders already have a goal. It's the endo count of the delegate. But in case you think there are more invaders than there actually are... if we have a gap of 100 or more, the delegacy should be safe. Especially when the defenders join in. But that's my opinion.

Endorsement caps are beneficial for *non* invaders in the region, because it gives them a place they can ascend too without being brought up for invesitgation (formal or informal). Yes, they are restricted in some way, but looking at the regional counts, there are only 4 (non-elected) people at or above 100, and 2 above 200. There are about 1000 UN nations at any given point in TNP. If there was an endorsement cap at the 200 level, it seems most wouldn't have that hard a time complying with it.
Kitabo 253
Frejmark 218
Cranach 117
OPArsenal 97

I'll hope you're being sarcastic, but..
Sniffles, if someone pushes the president off the podium and declares themself the president, do we accept that?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes we do. In fact what I'm proposing is that we allow all citizens of the North Pacific a chance to push FEC as hard as they can. Whoever gets him the farthest thus becomes the next delegate. Thanks for the inspiration.
Click to expand...
Are you truly advocating completely open elections for delegate? (oh, and it's she dearie)

Just because we've never seen endorsement caps be beneficial doesn't mean they can't be. Yes, they can support tyrannical delegates. Everyone has seen that multiple times. They can easily support a rogue delegate. But the process of election on this forum is supposed to lessen the possibility of a delegate going rogue. You have to trust the electorate and the elected delegate. But frankly, an endorsement cap wouldn't really mean a thing if a delegate went rogue. All you have to do is ban the top 10-15 endorsed nations after yourself, and you've got a really secure place as delegate.

There could easily be a clause that stated endorsement caps only applied in times of peace and to everyone but the elected delegate and vice-delegate. If a nation surpasses the cap, they can be asked to reduce their count, and failure to cut back and comply (with vote of the security council) could result in ejection.

Well, I think that's it. :hello:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top