maintaining security

[Flemingovia]

Rogue delegacies may be a TNP tradition, but a bit more security than we have at present would surely be a good thing.

So what can we do to improve the security of our region?

 

[Abstain]

As things stand we have a number of influential nations in the region who can tart during a rogue delegate and be pests that must be constantly watched. However this may not always be the case.

If we go the route of giving the delegate lots of power in a new system I feel this will cut back on a lot of rogue delegates. From what I have seen the main gripe is how constricting the constitution is in regards to the position. If you get rid of that issue then you only have those who coup for the sake of couping (and will do so no matter what system they're elected by) and those who coup during periods of inactivity such as this one (which can be prevented by creating a system that is fun and simple so people continue to play.)

If we go the route of separating the delegate from the forum government then if a coup happens it really doesn't affect the government at all. And by making them mostly, if not completely free, of the government then as stated above there will be almost no reason to coup.

 

[Ermarian]

A group of high-influence nations is practically the greatest fail-safe against rogue delegacies. For example, right now I wouldn't have the influence to ban either Erastide (FEC) or Great Bights Mum.

Since banning an equal costs about half your influence, this is unstable: You can't have an unbannable counter for every delegate, since one nation has the most influence, and they can ban anyone. However, two or three influential nations would make it impossible to ban all.

 

[Romanoffia]

What Em said. We set up a succession of trusted, powerful nations in order of power to step in temporarily until the threat can be entirely eliminated. The trick is to do it in such a way that minimal damage is done to each of the powerful successors. It would need a core group of nations who can shift endorsements to facilitate this quickly in an emergency situation. This would essentially be like having a Peace Delegate and a procession of War Delegates in the case that the sitting delegate cannot effectively repel invaders, etc.

 

[Dyr Nasad]

I think that the idea of "war delegates" or "guardians" is the best way to go about this - perhaps the limits on security council membership could be loosened so that it includes more of the high-influence players?

 

[Ermarian]

I'm not sure I get the idea. When does the next less powerful delegate take over - when the current delegate goes bad, or when the current delegate is ousted by invaders?

While we establish a protocol, it should be kept in mind that the more people it involves, the more certain it is to fail because someone fails to act. Also, controlled transfer of the delegacy is difficult, risky, slow and barely predictable, so multiple tactical transfers are unlikely to be practical.

 

[Eluvatar]

The real problem isn't the basic structure of a Delegate choosing a cabinet but bound by laws adopted by the people, the problem is extreme inactivity and the ability of a Speaker to dominate the process.

The Delegate's powers are already extremely broad.

What is necessary is to create interest in TNP.

 

[Moany Old Gits]

Unless Ermarian, Zemnaya Svoboda or GBM go rogue (probably some others too) we will always be fine - the odd rogue delegacy will happen from time to time.

Maybe we should focus on rallying unfairly banned nations to create new WA nations Then we can keep harassing the rogue delegate

 

[Romanoffia]

I'm not sure I get the idea. When does the next less powerful delegate take over - when the current delegate goes bad, or when the current delegate is ousted by invaders?

While we establish a protocol, it should be kept in mind that the more people it involves, the more certain it is to fail because someone fails to act. Also, controlled transfer of the delegacy is difficult, risky, slow and barely predictable, so multiple tactical transfers are unlikely to be practical.

OK, here's the idea......

You have an elected delegate. The delegate's initial influence level is meaningless for all intents and purposes for this system.

The nations you have in the 'Guardians' can and should be nations that have very high levels of influence that are substantially higher than the sitting delegate. We've got a few nations that are active on the forum for a long time that can hold these positions.

The idea is to have these nations keep their endorsement levels close enough to the sitting delegate's levels so that if there is a sudden need to put in a delegate with enough influence to repel any such threat. The sitting delegate simply hands the delegacy to the 'war delegate' who by design would be a nation with heap-big influence to begin with. That war delegate could pass the seat off to yet another influential nation. That way any expenditure of influence ejecting invaders would be distributed amongst a cadre of influential nations so as not to do too much damage to one particular nation.

An example scenario...

The elected Delagate is a 'minnow'. Invaders move in and start chipping away at the influence level by forcing the delegate to eject an invader or endo-tarter bent on stealing the Delegacy. Should the Delegate not be sufficiently influential to eject the offender (don't waste your time on the invaders themselves at first, just the major offender) a corps of designated nations would remove their endorsements from the 'peace delegate' and shift them to the appropriate 'war delegate' who would have the level of influence to remove any invaders as needed.

Then you have a couple more 'war delegates' to step in in series to hold the region. Once peace is established the elected delegate is simply reinstalled by shifting endorsements.

 

[Eluvatar]

You're assuming every war delegate is just as active as one would expect an active delegate to be.

This is a dangerous assumption.

 

[Westwind]

Shouldn't we also have the Vice Delegate positioned closely to the Delegate in number of endorsements ? Prepared to assume the Delegacy if needed ?