Endorsement cap policy

Westwind

Westwind

TNPer
-
TNP is the only pacific that does not have an established endorsement cap policy. A review of our sister feeders provides the following:

The Pacific and The East Pacific maintain a 50 endorsement cap.
The South Pacific maintains a cap of 50% of the delegate's endorsement count.
The West Pacific maintains an 150 endorsement cap, with granted exceptions.

My inclination is to adopt a model similar to the TWP or TSP cap. My thought is either a 125 or 150 endo cap, with granted excecptions. I was also thinking that the Vice Delegate's count should not be exceeded, even by those exempted from the the cap.

Thoughts, Comments, and Ideas are welcome.
 
Do fixed endo caps really work, or do they create the very problem supposedly fixed?

TNP rejected fixed endo caps both as a reflection of the region's commitment to democracy and openness, and because vigilance and the use of a Vice Delegate provided the same benefit with fewer faults. And "vigilance" is the key word here.

To me it is not enough to say we should have an endo cap simply because everybody else has one. That, to me, is insufficient justification for the practice. And with the existence of regional influence, that argument becomes less persuasive.
 
The justification is regional security.

The higher the level of endorsements that are allowed, the more you risk having nations with Influence levels that cannot be removed by the delegate, or reduce the delegate's effectiveness by draining Influence.
 
Yes, and what stopped the Matt affair (other than his poor planning) was a strong ViceDek whose influence was damn near invincible. Having a ViceDel is basically a a defacto endorsement cap.

While I think we should be banning anyone over 100 endos, I can't help but notice that whenever a Del goes rogue it's the trusted ones with 100 endo+ that we depend on like Haor Chall, GBM, and FEC.

My two cents at least.


And if it was up to me and GBM agreed to it, she'd be permanent ViceDel
 
Well, I am all for a core of trusted UN's with high endorsement counts, as a security measure. Exceptions can always (and are usually) be made to an endorsement cap.
 
Ever since the incident with EM, I have carefully considered the pros and cons of an endorsement cap. I have surveyed the opinions of several nations who enjoy exchanging endorsements and was surprised by their positive responses toward instituting formal limits. An endorsement cap is certainly convenient. In the absence of a Security Council or similar body, it would codify the Delegate's authority over endotarters.

But it is no substitute for constant vigilence. Even then, when exceptions are granted, we find it comes down to that thing which is at the heart of the Delegacy: trust. Let me ask you all, how likely do you think it is that EM, having been a former Vice Del and longtime TNP resident, would have been granted an exception to an endo cap? I trusted him. I would have given him an exception. So, even if we had a cap, it would have been no guarantee that he would not abuse his freedom.

While there are good arguments for having a cap, the most compelling and interesting argument against one is that all the other feeders have one. In TNP, more than any other feeder, a nation has the freedom to play as he wishes.
 
Given the influence rules, I do not think one VD is sufficient security.

What stopped Dali and EM, in part, was that we had a number of high influence, high endo nations that could not all be banned. EM could ban GBM, but not ERAS as well.

I believe we need a two or three "regents" who are willing to sit there with a high number of endos. People like Eras or Unter or GBM.

For other nations, why not have an endocap with no exceptions? at 100 you get sent a warning. That allows you to stop tarting. At 150 you get banned for one update. Full Stop. This is a fairer system because people know that everyone is treated the same, plus a 50 endos gap between these things is sufficient buffer that if you stop endoing when you are warned, you should not go over the 150 limit.

One thing I would add: while we have had occasions when nations have overtaken the delegate, through abusing trust or through inattention, the greater risk to the region has been sitting delegates who have decided to go rogue, like Cathyy or Dalimbar. It could be argued that if we strictly enforce an endocap, it makes the constitution well nigh irrelevant, since the delegate would be so secure that they could go rogue at will.

Secure from invasion means secure from removal by natives also, especially if the delegate calls on outside armies for help.
 
Alot of good thoughts and comments, thank you.

I've also been giving thought to a group of Guardian nations - experienced, with high influence levels. It's an idea with significant merit.

And certainly, there's no doubt that vigilence in all cases is the key to security.
 
Lewis and Clark:
The justification is regional security.

The higher the level of endorsements that are allowed, the more you risk having nations with Influence levels that cannot be removed by the delegate, or reduce the delegate's effectiveness by draining Influence.
Click to expand...
Very valid point and on with which I must agree.

Here's an interesting suggestion - Pick a reasonable number of endorsements, preferable a percentage of the Delegate's level, say 50%. Then send them a TG without delay asking them of their intentions and informing them that the there is regional security issue involving their endo-tarting. If they continue and their endos increase another 10%, warn them that in another 2.5% they will be booted if they cannot reduce their number of endorsements withing 48 hours and that they will be booted at 65%. Tell them if they want to run for Delegate, wait for elections and cease tarting.

We could legislate this in less than 50 words or we could carve it in stone constitutionally in fewer words.



R
 
What I'm about to point out is not new, it is part of the reason why formal endo caps were never enacted, and the informal system using a Vice Delegate (and the requirement that the VD was to have the second-highest number of endorsements in the region) was utilized.

Clause (or Paragraph) 4 of the Bill of Rights states:
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...

My problem with fixed quotas, which is what endo caps are, is that it runs afoul of this provision of the Bill of Rights.

And Clause (or Paragraph) 8 of the Bill of Rights provides that:
8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The UN Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to this Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
 
This is also true, and I never thought of it until just now -

Some jackasses could work to mass endorse someone they want to remove from the region. I don't think it likely, but it is possible. And that's why we need the NPIA to analyze the data to see if this is the case. ;)


R
 
Grosseschnauzer:
What I'm about to point out is not new, it is part of the reason why formal endo caps were never enacted, and the informal system using a Vice Delegate (and the requirement that the VD was to have the second-highest number of endorsements in the region) was utilized.

Clause (or Paragraph) 4 of the Bill of Rights states:
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...

My problem with fixed quotas, which is what endo caps are, is that it runs afoul of this provision of the Bill of Rights.

And Clause (or Paragraph) 8 of the Bill of Rights provides that:
8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The UN Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to this Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'll have to write up an amendment to fix that and propose it to the RA.
 
The Bill of Rights has never, ever, been amended.

It is the closest thing to representing a universal statement of principles that has ever been accepted in The North Pacific. And I ill point out to you that the same group of Regional Assembly members who approved the current Constitution also approved the retention of the former Declaration of Rights article as the Bill of Rights.

It would be easier to draft a law that balance the efficiency that you crave with the respect for the principles that The North Pacific holds dear as expressed in the Bill of rights.
 
Disturbing the status quo and disturb a lot of people.
 
New Kervoskia:
Romanoffia:
Disturbing the status quo and disturb a lot of people.
Click to expand...
You, Gross, FALK, and Sniffles? Hell of a lot of people. Didn't know you made up the entire region. You must lay off the carbs, dear.
Click to expand...
I believe the point Roman was making was that a proposal to change the Bill of Rights to remove any of the freedoms which it preserves is gong to be very tough to pass the RA.

Now, if the RA enacts legislation instituting a cap, it could very well be struck down as unconstitutional. So the proponents of an endo cap do have an uphill battle either way.

As for exemptions from the cap... well that opens another whole can of worms. Who gets an exemption? Who decides? Why should one nation get one and not another? Doesn't it seem a bit cliqueish?
 
A Consititutional Amendment would settle questions of legality. Anything without a vote is just picking a fight really.
 
mr_sniffles:
Yes, and what stopped the Matt affair (other than his poor planning) was a strong ViceDek whose influence was damn near invincible. Having a ViceDel is basically a a defacto endorsement cap.
Click to expand...
Urrrr, no. There was no Vice Delegate, Ator People resigned.

As for the planning, yeah I didn't do any.
 
Okay, this is getting stupid. We (the newer members of the region, or at least the open minded ones) want to change something for the better of the region. But we can't do that because it goes against the Bill of Rights. Okay fine, let's amend the bill of rights. Oh No, Glory to god we want to do something that has never been done before. So the old guard says no no no. It seems like this process is repeated on several issues that could help the region, no?

*sighs*
 
We can do this without changing the Bill of Rights. Hell, most of any Consitution is in some way violating the Bill of Rights. All I'm saying is that we can do this without altering the Bill of Rights by allowing the rest of the region into the debate and for a vote on a Constitutional Amendment. But sadly chest thumping and pissing contests is more interesting for others.
 
New Kervoskia:
Or the Executive can do its job without you sticking your fingers into the badger's jar of staypuff.
Click to expand...
How am I sticking my hand in the jar? The Delegate asked for our opinions, I gave him mine.

Or maybe you could think before posting instead of thinking everything I do and say is some secret attack on you just because I did my job and pointed out your one glaringly obvious mistake.
 
mr_sniffles:
New Kervoskia:
Or the Executive can do its job without you sticking your fingers into the badger's jar of staypuff.
Click to expand...
How am I sticking my hand in the jar? The Delegate asked for our opinions, I gave him mine.

Or maybe you could think before posting instead of thinking everything I do and say is some secret attack on you just because I did my job and pointed out your one glaringly obvious mistake.
Click to expand...
No, I'd rather continue my usual routine because you bring me infinite joy and amusement.
 
It is possible to fashion a solution that does not violate the Bill of Rights, but inasmuch as I oppose endo capping in principle, I'm going to force their proponents to figure it out.

But here is a big hint: It does not require amendment of the Constitution or the Bill of rights, but will probably require legislation if it is to be binding on anyone. It also requires respect for the separation of powers (which some of the Cabinet Ministers of the day seem to not understand.)

One other point, the Minister of Justice is merely the chief prosecutor of the government, and not the head of the Judiciary. It would soothe things considerably if he kept that in mind.
 
Does anyone else find this whole discussion to be representative of why they hate this region? No?

I guess it's just me then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top