Modifying Legal Code

I'd like to propose a deletion of a section of the legal code. (And I *think* this is the way to do it) Section 7B

B - Outright endorsement swapping with respect to the election of the UN Delegate and Vice Delegate is prohibited.

Click to expand...

While I understand the general intent of this section, it in fact hinders the incoming delegate and vice-delegate. And there is already a provision that is designed to protect the region, Article III, Section 2, 1F

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.

Click to expand...

So long as any candidate does not exceed the Vice Delegate, I do not see why they should be prohibited from endoswapping during the election. Other nations face no such restrictions, which is non-sensical.

If all (or at least the dedicated) Delegate and Vice Delegate candidates could get themselves up in endorsements before the election has ended, it would allow a quicker handover at safer levels.

I can quickly think of a scenario where repeal would not be a good idea.


Nation gains endos (with the ultimate intent of seizing the Delegacy irrespective of the election system).

Nation decides to run for VD, and endotarts since it would be legal to do so "so it would be easier for the winner to have enough endos for the handover once the election is over."

Nation loses the elections. and endotarts in a bid to seize the Delegacy outside the election system.

Because we made it easier for that nation to gain endos in the context of the election, we make it easier for them to just keep going outside the process.

That's just it.... for *everyone* else, it's perfectly legal to get up to the Vice Delegate's position. But suddenly, because you're running for office, it's illegal? It makes no sense. It also results in the handover taking place at very low endorsement counts, as it takes some time once you get above 200 endos.

I tend to agree with Eras!! The current wording does tend to punish or at the very least place suspicion on the nation that is following the law and duly elected while leaving non-elected nations free to gather endorsements!!

I agree with Gross on this matter. There is no reason to change the legal code in respect to this matter. As Gross stated, there are some very important reasons why this arrangement has come to be. Removing has the effect of weakening the succession of power during an emergency. When no emergency exists, the law has no real effect, which is as it should be.

Changing the code on this point is tantamount to throwing out your lifeboats because you have the hubris to think that your ship is insinkable.

"Don't worry Captain Smith, it's only a scratch!"*




*Anyone get this reference?


R

OK, so the Delegate/VD Candidates aren't allowed to 'outright' endo swap, just incase they decide to make a dash for the delegacy if they lose?

So why is everyone else who isn't a candidate (and therefore we probably don't know so well) allowed to?

Surely its more dangerous to have unknowns sitting just off the VD's endos during an election hand over, than have people we know doing it.

Especially considering the new rules regarding regional power. A new delegate who had to wait until the election was over to gather endo's, could have some difficulty dealing with a handful of nations who because they weren't candidates have been gathering endo's (and influence) for a month or more...

Maybe I need to point out a scenario for some people here... Let me use... our *current* situation. Here are the top 10 endoed nations in TNP right now.

Hepzibah Ii294
The Tresville Element216
Kitabo189
Mopoker182
Former English Colony161
Frejmark143
Unterwasserseestaat129
Fiduciary Philandering113
Pjwang110
Groovistan96

Click to expand...

Of those 10, 2 are our duly elected representatives. 2 (myself and Unterwasserseestaat) are the ONLY ones running for Delegate and Vice Delegate. Logically, we should be sitting right below the vice delegate waiting for the election to end so that we can have a smooth handover. Yet I would point out to everyone the multiple other people that are interspersed on this list. Even if there was more then one candidate, they should have the right to get as close as possible (the Vice Delegate's endos) before the election ends.

The reason the current section in the legal code makes no sense is because I *could* have "outright endoswapped" prior to the election, gotten myself up to the Vice Delegate and sat there with no consequences. However, as soon as elections come and I declare my candidacy, my hands are tied.

Frankly, given the influence dynamic, I would almost be prepared to introduce legislation that *required* all Delegate and Vice Delegate candidates to obtain a minimum number of endorsements before the end of the nomination period (something like 100). It's not really that hard, and it would allow them to gain some influence in the region before one of them became delegate. Plus it would show them a bit of the endotarting experience and if they're ready for it.

The danger of takeover does *not* come from someone making a blind rush for the delegacy. The danger comes from electing a rogue delegate, and that will be the danger for a long time.

Waaaait just a minute here.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The first problem I have is that the quoted section of TNP law does NOT say "all putative candidates in any election cycle shall not endoswap with regards to the election of the Delegate or VD". It DOES say that endoswapping of this kind will be prohibited, period. I fail to see where people are getting the idea this only applies to only candidates for D/VD or putative candidates thereof.

I would read 7B as saying everyone cannot do this. That would cover one of the objections that FEC has made.


Whether we want a ban on endoswaps during the election period or not, the law has to be consistent. If we want to allow it, we should allow it for everyone. If we ban it, we ban it for everyone. There should be no difference between the average voter and a candidate for D/VD -- just because they are a candidate does not mean they have won anything yet.

I'm uneasy with the idea of removing the rights of nations who may play the game in its purest form. We have as much a responsibility to insure the rights of nations who don't sign up to forums as those who do. And considering if they don't subscribe to this 'off shoot' we have created for ourselves, endos are a huge part of the game. Do we have the right to tell them they can't endo swap for 2/3's of a month out of every 3, just because we're holding elections?

I agree, it's meant to apply to everyone, regardless of whether they are a candidate or not. (sorry I read it slanted towards myself ) Practically, it usually affects the candidates in terms of people that have any awareness of the Constitution, since quite a few of the highest endorsed people are not part of the Regional Assembly or even this forum.

The endocap in our region is the number of Vice-Delegate endorsements. Which typically is at least above 200. And I see nothing different about election time which should prohibit anyone, least of all the candidates, from getting up to that level. Beyond the current vice delegate should still be prohibited until after the election.

The text also says "With regards to" the election of D/VD. If I was reading that before reading the arguments in this thread, I would be confused as to what that meant. I mean, clearly people cannot endoswap so as to INTERFERE with the election of D/VD. That would include outright seizure of the D/VD position. But it doesn't specifically say that anyone is blocked from endoswapping during the election cycle.

Well, is there any need for it then? There are already provisions to deal with nations we consider as threats in regards to taking the Vice Delegate of Delegate position. I see no problem in removing it entirely, if it is just repeating regulations stated elsewhere.

In my mind, the provision is designed to complement the system we use to elect a delegate and vice delegate.

Under it, endotarting as such is not prohibited, but endotarting to affect or interfere with the election system is prohibited. It's a far more specific provision that the statement in the constituion related to the Vice Delegate that the VD is to have the second highest number of endorsements. The latter provision imposes a duty on the VD during their term of office; the former provision makes it illegal for anyone to use endotarting to interfere.

In that list that FEC posted earlier there are two nations in that list for whom the security council was asked to authorize ejection because of endotarting. They're still in the region, months after the authorization was approved by the Security Council. Does anyone seriously think there is zero chance they or some other player might still attempt another endo-run at the Delegacy with the handover process starts?

The other issue is the affect of the changes brought into Nationstates by version 1.9, or however you want to refer to it. I'm not certain anyone fully understands the altered dynamic, and I'd be quite relunctent to make any changes that weaken the legal and constitutional processes to protect the Delegate election process. We need to be really sure about what we're doing and why we're it in this uncertain environment.

I'm also concerned that several recent proposals floated during this campaign cycle might have the cumulative effect of so weakening anything that the result of the proposals as a group would prevent any defenses to an attack on our elected delegate system, including the elected government's ability to protect itself from usurpation.

The region has been in that situation before; we've managed a year of stability and I'd like to be sure we're making choices that maintain that stability.

Okay, a couple of points.

1. Given that there is no provision to stop outright endoswapping outside the election time, this specific provision makes little sense. Any appeal to the SC would likely fall under "not going over the Vice Delegate" regardless of when the problem occurred. Frankly, we're at *really* low levels right now for the delegate and vice delegate. It would be quite easy to overtake the vice delegate. But regardless of that, it's still illegal to go over their endorsements. But before election time, people can get up there perfectly legally, but during election time it's wrong. And as it's hard to ban outright endoswapping period, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep the provision. You'll *notice* an endoswapper if you're paying attention, and it will take more then just the election time to get all the way up there.

2. In regards to the NS changes. Several points here.
A.) Influence is gained by 2 means, time in region and number of endorsements. More endorsements means you gain influence faster.
B.) Ejecting or banning nations requires influence on the part of the delegate.

All the nations that are above 100 and 200 endorsements are gaining influence quite quickly in comparison to other people and all the non-UNs in the region. If you *truly* want to guarantee the safety of the region, make an endo cap of 100 or 150 endos. Make sure the vice delegate stays above 200 and the delegate above 300. But then, we've had this argument. Our views on the rights of the citizens means we don't want to restrict their endorsements too much in the name of safety. Although personally I think there is little reason for someone to maintain over 150 endos.

Another way to help get the region over the most vulnerable time (changing delegates) would be to create a requirement that delegate (and VDelegate) candidates maintain a certain number of endos for a certain time period. This would mean they were gaining some influence before they became delegate, and therefore would hopefully be able to kick out someone that tried to overtake them.

Other possibilities would be to provide a provision for the delegate and vice delegate to switch off in the event of a real attack. Essentially use the delegate's influence and then switch to the vice delegate's. Or even, as someone suggested, have more then one vice delegate so there is more influence spread out.

Another possibility suggested was to have a permanent UN Delegate nation for the region. However... I think that actually puts us in greater danger, since, IMO, the rogue delegate will continue to be the biggest problem. And a rogue delegate with a longstanding UN Delegate nation will have a huge amount of power.

Idea...

Instead of deleting those 2 parts...why not modify them to solve all concerns mentioned here.

You can specify that candidates cannot surpass the VD and must stay a specified % behind. That should solve Gross's concerns.

Tresville:

Idea...

Instead of deleting those 2 parts...why not modify them to solve all concerns mentioned here.

You can specify that candidates cannot surpass the VD and must stay a specified % behind. That should solve Gross's concerns.

Click to expand...

Uh.. Cisco? I don't want to delete the part about staying below the Vice Delegate. Just the part that specifies endotarting is illegal during elections.

Despite all the posts, I still think Eras' initial proposal makes sense!!

Former English Colony:

Given that there is no provision to stop outright endoswapping outside the election time, this specific provision makes little sense. Any appeal to the SC would likely fall under "not going over the Vice Delegate" regardless of when the problem occurred. Frankly, we're at *really* low levels right now for the delegate and vice delegate. It would be quite easy to overtake the vice delegate. But regardless of that, it's still illegal to go over their endorsements. But before election time, people can get up there perfectly legally, but during election time it's wrong. And as it's hard to ban outright endoswapping period, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep the provision. You'll *notice* an endoswapper if you're paying attention, and it will take more then just the election time to get all the way up there.

Click to expand...

I don't think we should talk too much about the NS 1.9 changes here. We've speculated on that in another thread, and while it's very relevant to this discussion, arguing about possible outcomes of these changes can lead us off topic.

I'm not sure I agree with this quoted portion. Is there really no provision to stop endoswapping outside election time? Anyone who goes over the VD endo line, or even comes close to it, is (and has been) subject to review by the SC. I'd like to challenge FEC to name one instance where an appeal to the SC was treated as "not going over VD" so we let that nation of the hook.

However, at the same time I'm tempted to say that I believe 7B doesn't say much at all. If we want the interpretation that 7B should mean "no one can endoswap during elections", then let's make that clear. If we don't want that, then either replace it with something more specific or remove it.

wizardofoz01:

I'm not sure I agree with this quoted portion. Is there really no provision to stop endoswapping outside election time? Anyone who goes over the VD endo line, or even comes close to it, is (and has been) subject to review by the SC. I'd like to challenge FEC to name one instance where an appeal to the SC was treated as "not going over VD" so we let that nation of the hook.

Click to expand...

Here's a reason for me not to post past my bedtime. That wasn't what I meant at all. I more meant that the only provision that *actually* gets used is the one about staying below the delegate. A corollary to that happens is "outright" endoswapping, because it's kinda hard to get endorsements without giving them out. But the danger that's raised in discussions and petitions for bans is the possibility that in the near future a nation will go over the Vice Delegate's endos.

Former English Colony:

Although personally I think there is little reason for someone to maintain over 150 endos.

Click to expand...

Yes there is. And this is possibly a new role for the NPA to some extent.

Influential, long term citizens of the region who have a good level of influence are a safeguard against rogue delegates. If a delegate goes rogue, it becomes very costly for that delegate to eject influential nations.

That leaves the options of either permitting people to sustain 100 endos and such or prevent people from accumulating more than a handful of endos or be ejected. It's a double edged sword. If you choose a low level endo cap like 30, you can eject hundreds in a flash, no problem, but that is very impolitic and would tend to make a delegate very unpopular regardless. IOW, a set endocap might cause some nasty problems.

OTOH, the current system benefits the region by keeping potential rogue delegates on short reins. If they start ejecting influential members, then their ability to eject anyone is diminished.

New game rule(s), new strategies and tactics. I think it better to investigate the math behind any endocap scheme before acting rashly.

R

Not the NPA, the NPAA Roman.

And yes, trusted members to remain above 150. That's like the multiple vice delegates idea. And maybe even in the future that you have to be a vice delegate before you can become delegate.

But people that are just gaining? There's no need for them to stay above 150. Kitabo/Mr. Gaunt would be someone we (I assume ) trust enough to remain up there. While Mopoker is more of an unknown. (Although I would argue he's shown restraint when asked, so he's reasonably safe)

However, all of the above discussion has little bearing on whether or not the line in question in the legal code should continue to be there or not. As Wizard said, we're going off-topic and discussing the Influence changes again.

Right, recap.

We've discovered that we all have different interpretations of what that clause means, and some of us think it doesn't do much no matter which interpretation we use. We've also touched on whether candidates should gather x amount of endos before running...

So,

1) Is there enough of a consensus, or a strong enough reason, to remove this clause?

if not,

2) Can we work out a re-wording, that clears up its intent, and doesn't penalise candidates?

also,

3) While we're at it, do we want to come up with another clause to require candidates to have a certain amount of endos, or what?

Personally, I think the security council is sufficient to analyse theats, and will understand the dangers surrounding the handover (and if its not, then this clause is the least of our worries). And although I would like this removed, I'd be happy with a rewording that doesn't cause some much mis-interpretation.

As to the candidates, well obviously its a good idea if they have a reasonable number of endos by the time nominations are finished. I would think expecting them to have at least 75% of the endos that the VD is acceptable.

Generally I'm against endo-caps, or percentage based rules on the endos of the average citizen. Firstly, I don't think we really have the right to (especially in the case of endos), and secondly I think it breeds complacency. I would prefer an SC that looks at any threat on its individual merits (or lack thereof ), than have one which only acts once someone has reached a certain amount.

I think I agree with Namye on this one. (Always a safe choice, right?)

I don't think we should remove it altogether but perhaps reword it so that it is made clear. I won't be the one to suggest the new wording as I, personally, have no problem with its current state but if this is an issue with some here, especially if those are the same who are running for delegate and vice delegate, something should be done about it.

I think it can be safely removed -- it doesn't do much in its current state.

Therefore, unless there's a concensus to modify this clause to say that no one is able to endoswap during the election period...

The other issues (like whether we need to have requirements for candidates) are things that we've already touched in on some other form, ie the endo-cap idea, which have already garnered little support.

We should require a term as vice delegate before serving as delegate, a term as delegate before serving as prime minister, and a term of prime minister before being vice delegate. That way we can make sure only people we trust get in.

Fedele:

We should require a term as vice delegate before serving as delegate, a term as delegate before serving as prime minister, and a term of prime minister before being vice delegate. That way we can make sure only people we trust get in.

Click to expand...

That would be just *splendid* Fedele.

Seriously though... the vice delegate before delegate (assuming we had more then one) makes sure someone's willing to take the time to endotart, and will have built up a store of endos/influence. If there's only one vice delegate then it doesn't work though.

I'm not to hot on the idea of requiring someone to be a vice delegate before being delegate unless it involves having a number of vice delegates at any given time.

Or, perhaps we could have some special designation either by tenure or election that awards a certain number of nations/people a specific title that permits them to run for delegate.

Here's an idea of how it would work -

* We elect a vice delegate that actually fills the position of vice delegate

* We elect 7 individuals to a position that are symbolic vice delegates and call them something like "Elder Statesmen", "Senators", "Sine Curi" or anything other appropriate names

* Require three months consecutive membership in the RA for the ability to run for these slots and at least 1 Billion popuulation for your TNP nation

* Membership in those slot positions are perpetual unless you renounce citizenship or otherwise lose citizenship, in which case you must regain citizenship and run for a slot again.

This would eventually create an ever increasing poole of eligible Delegate candidates.

Good idea? Too complex? Too stringent or not stringent enough?

Any thoughts?


R

Interesting at the very least but it might be a bit of a hassle.

It can be reduced in complexity.

Make some simple realistic residency and population requirements, RA membership, and then just delcare those people 'elder statesmen'. From that pool you get your Delegates and Vice Delegates.

R

BUMP

For relevancy, and so I can laugh at the thought of me using this against the current candidates. (After I told them to do it of course )

I'll just note the current scenario looks a bit worse then it did back when I first proposed this. Here's the current top 20 with endos

#1  Former English Colony  414
#2  Unterwasserseestaat  287
#3  Gossamer Cornweb  222
#4  Kitabo  191
#5  Black Shear  176
#6  Joyjoyland  163
#7  Dipsomaniatron  141
#8  Chodean Kal  140
#9  Dinas Bran  132
#10  Frejmark  130
#11  Groovistan  128
#12  Pembroke Land  128
#13  Unitat  101
#14  Heftogen  97
#15  Butterteat  96
#16  Impenyer  90
#17  Jigglemooce  86
#18  Ator People  84
#19  Free John States  81
#20  Jakana  76

Click to expand...

In terms of endotarting, Dai is 2nd and GBM is 14th. They're a bit slower then the rest of them. And yet.... they should be able to get themselves at least towards the top 5 before this ends.