Updating Law 30 on the Security Council

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
During the last campaign, Blackshear and I did discuss having a review of the current provisions concerning the Security Council to see if there is anything that can be changed so it would function with a membership more easily than we've been able to have since it was created.

At the moment, there is a Vice Delegate and two members; and two more members are likely within the fortnight. That would be the largest membership since the current SC was created.

One area of concern is the endo range level for SC members. Currently it is set at between 50 and 85 per cent of the Delegate's endo level at any time. Several admitted members have been removed because their endo level at any particular time did not stay within this range for a period that exceeded five days.

Given the higher rate of percentage fluctuations in the Delegate's endo count these days, and given that we do run into lull periods where conscientious endo-ing by SC members could still lead to falling outside the statutory range, I believe we need to review that aspect of Law 30.

In addition, we may want to review the requirement that SC members need to exceed the influence level of "Vassal" as a condition of membership.

We may also want to review the 30 day waiting period before the RA can vote on a pending application.

Finally, we need to review whether the waiver requirement for certain SC members as to RA membership is too rigid or not, and whether the current language discourages otherwise eligible candidates from seeking membership on the SC.

For convenience, I am including the provisions of the Constitution and the Legal Code on the Security Council.
 
Could we clarify what is a 'trusted member' of the RA perhaps?

Is this too vague or does it basically mean if you've done dodgy things in the past you haven't much hope?

Should there be a longer period of continuous membership of the RA for security council eligibility?

Probably I've missed the point again:)
 
Trusted member is what the required number of SC or RA members say it is (Much like the comment of the late Hugo Black, then a justice of the RL U.S. Supreme Court who once said that he couldn't define what porn was, but he could recognize it when he saw it. :) )
 
There are a whole bunch of nations (about 8) in the region that meet the regional influence requirement but sit at a constant 64-77 endorsements, just shy of 50% of the delegate's. If the threshold was lowered to 40%, they would all be eligible. I realize we don't need (or want) 20 nations in the Security Council have a deeper pool to choose from would be advantageous. If the regional influence requirement was lowered to Vassal and above, a few more candidates appear (and Grosse would have been in the SC ages ago).

I don't see the RA waiver requirement as too rigid. The reason it's never been invoked, I think, has more to do with the fact that players not interested in the RA tend not to be interested in the SC or any of the other off-site constructs we've created here rather than being put off by the hassle of getting a waiver.

I'm not against revisiting these requirements, but we should discuss why the current levels were set where they are and if watering them down is actually helpful or counterproductive.
 
First, the News section at NS contained this new item this evening from Max:
Two minor adjustments to Regional Influence:

* When a nation ceases to exist due to inactivity and is later resurrected, its Regional Influence drops as if it had spend that period of time outside the region. (Previously, resurrected nations had the same amount of Influence as when they ceased to exist.)

* Nations that haven't logged in for at least a week do not gain Regional Influence. (Previously, all nations gained Regional Influence regardless.)

Your Regional Influence determines how easily your Regional Delegate may eject you from your region, or, for Delegates, how easily you may eject other nations. (More about Influence.)

Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion that prompted this change!
Click to expand...

I think one way to simplify things would be to use the level of influence as a criteria for initial admission into the SC; thereafter it should be based on a reasonable effort to maintain the range of endorsement, and that effort should also be gauged on the relative extent to which the sitting Delegate's endo count changes.

I'm not sure five days will necessarily be sufficient if the shifting nature of the endo levels causes sitting SC members to have a change in the level of influence, even though the actual numbers remain stable.

I would suggest that once admitted, the influence level just needs to be greater than minnow and not vassal as it is currently, and that 15 days after a warning should be sufficient time for an SC members to get their endo levels within the approximate range below the Delegate.

Under the tweaks announced today, if an SC members goes inactive or CTE, their influence level will be greatly affected; if they return and make a bonafide attempt to restore their old influence level we should acknowledge that bonafide effort as far as retaining membership.
 
I would agree with those assessments. I definitely think the regional influence requirement should be Vassal and above. I think we do need some concrete endorsement levels though. I'm not against flexibility (the 15-day period sounds reasonable) but there should be a definite target members are shooting for. I like the 50% level but am willing to hear what others think.
 
Sometime in the next few days, I'll work up a draft reflecting the recommendations being discussed. (I'm trying to get caught up on some RL stuff, and the winter weather this year is not helping things along at all.)
 
It would be good to have more nations on the SC, so lowering the requirement to Vassal status would increase the pool of eligible nations.

As for the endorsement level, times have changed since the percentages were approved. A couple of years ago it was typical for the delegate to have 300-400 endorsements. Now we have levels half that, and the 85% cap can allow a member to get within 20 or so endos of the delegate. Is that too close? Maybe we can make it 85% or 30 endos below the delegate, whichever is less.
 
All looks good. The level of influence would seem to be more important and a vassal in the North Pacific does take a long time to reach so it is a strong position for a nation to be in. Nations can usually build up endorsements very rapidly if necessary.

Having just been admitted to the SC my endorsements are higher than they've ever been but I can already see that it will take regular checks to keep it over 50%.
 
Reducing the influence level seems reasonable. I remember when I first read that law I was a little surprised, since TNP is the most influential region in the world, it would take forever for a new nation to gain that share of the influence... As a region our influence rankings will change slower than any other in the game... :no:

Anyway, I can't speak for the endorsements, my WA was only in TNP for a brief period of time before I focused elsewhere... The closest thing I have to experience in this area was that I was able to boost my endorsements by 35 endorsements a day for two days in TEP several months ago. Although I know TEP =/= TNP.
 
I forgot to include the provisions in the Constitution and in Law 30 concerning the Security Council in the initial post for this thread; so I'll put them in now.

TNP Constitution:
Article V: Security Council

Section 1: Membership
1. The Security Council (Council) shall be composed of trusted Assembly members of The North Pacific meeting Influence and Endorsement Count requirements set by law.
2. The Vice Delegate shall serve as Chair of the Council.
3. Assembly members may apply to join the Council if they meet the minimum Influence and endorsement levels prescribed by law. Other trusted members of The North Pacific who meet the minimum influence and endorsement levels prescribed by law may also apply to join the Council if the Regional Assembly grants an exemption to the Regional Assembly membership requirement by a two-thirds supermajority vote.
4. The Council shall admit by majority vote those applicants who the Council determines are not a Security Risk to the North Pacific.
5. If the Council denies, or declines to act on an applicant within 30 days, the Assembly may require the Council to admit such applicant by a two thirds supermajority vote.
6. The Assembly may terminate an exemption of a particular Council member from Regional Assembly membership for a stated reason by a two-thirds supermajority vote.

Section 2: Powers

1. The Council shall enforce any approved motion of the Assembly to recall the Delegate.
2. The Vice Delegate as President of the Council shall keep record of members of the Council and remove members if empowered to do so by law.
3. From time to time, the Council may, by majority vote, recommend an order of succession to the Delegacy beyond the Vice Delegate among members of the Security Council who are members of the Assembly. The order of succession shall be determined first, by length of current service on the Council, and if necessary, then by influence level, and then by endorsement level of Council members who have equal levels of service and then, of equal influence level. The Assembly shall immediately vote on the adoption of such recommendation by a majority vote.

Section 3: Responsibilities

1. Members of the Council shall be responsible for maintaining an endorsement level and influence level consistent with laws concerning endorsement and influence levels.
2. The Council shall submit to the Assembly a proposal to update endorsement level and influence level laws on a regular basis, when required by law.
3. Each member of the Council shall execute an oath of office.
4. Members of the Council are required to remain members of the Assembly unless granted an exemption under Section 1 of this Article.
5. The Council may advise the Delegate and the Speaker of the Assembly concerning existing or potential security threats to the Region.
6. Any removal by the Vice Delegate may be overturned by a two-thirds supermajority vote of the Assembly.
Click to expand...

TNP Legal Code:
TNP LAW 30
The Security Council Regulation Act

Section One: Requirements

1. Members of the Security Council (Council) shall maintain influence greater than Vassal.
2. Members of the Council shall maintain an endorsement level of at least fifty per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count and no more than eighty-five percent of said count. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
3. Should Council members not meet or exceed the required endorsement level for a period of five days, the Vice Delegate is required to act pursuant to Section Two of this Law.
4. The elected and legitimate Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.

Section Two: Enforcement

1. The Vice Delegate may remove members of the Council who violate the requirements of this Act.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I personally believe great modifications to the strictness of TNP's overall influence and endocount rules must be made if the region is ever to be stabilized. As this appears to be a measure to strengthen the region's SC and therefore protect the region from rogue delegates and attempted usurpers by making more members eligible to be on said SC, I lean towards supporting it. However, I am not entirely sure, even after reading the above clauses, how the members of the SC are chosen for their positions there - simplification, please?
 
SC eligibility summary: Regional influence above Vassal, 50% of Delegate's endorsement total, we know who you are and have some measure of trust you won't work against the elected government.
 
i believe in keeping the influence level on Vassal for SC membership requirements to insure only nations who have spent long time in TNP get to be elected as SC member and the elected delegated tend to put cap on endorsement that should be considered if the delegate gets a very large number of endorsements there can be problem for SC members getting required percentage endorsement needed for SC
 
I have an alternative that takes into account the possibility that a future delegate in an even more barren NS will not be at modern day endorsement levels (For perspective, in 2004 I had 513 endorsements and was third in the region. A TNP delegate with only 159 endorsements was unfathomable then.).

It is thus:

Security Council Eligibility Requirements

Regional influence level: Vassal or above.
Endorsements requirement: 50 endorsements or 50 % of the Delegate's total, whichever is lower.
Other: The trust of the other members of the Security Council (or Regional Assembly if the SC fails to expedite an application).

Thoughts?
 
It looks good, except I would also like to rework the endo cap for SC members. If there isn't enough of a cushion for the delegate, it becomes much to easy to inappropriately unseat him.
 
Great Bights Mum:
It looks good, except I would also like to rework the endo cap for SC members. If there isn't enough of a cushion for the delegate, it becomes much to easy to inappropriately unseat him.
Click to expand...
Does 85% or a 15-20 endorsement gap, whichever is greater, work?
 
That would be the maximum allowable. The floor of 50 endorsements or 50% would still be intact. The 85%, 15 short (or whatever) of the delegate requirement would be the ceiling.
 
One of the issues that need to be addressed is changes in the number of endos held by the sitting delegate, and the impact that has on the endo range for the Security Council, both initially and thereafter.

Blackshear made a passing reference to this, but we have that problem now, both during handovers after elections; and during other periods when the Delegate may not be endo-swapping as much as necessary to maintain any particular level.

I'm sorry I haven't gotten around to a draft, but RL and a couple of bouts of intestinal flu have not been helpful. (Not to mention that Lieb is a very demanding taskmaster!)
 
I thought the range spelled out specifically addresses that. There is a floor, a ceiling and two criteria for determining both, one at a set level, the other determined by the Delegate's endorsement total.

Nothing is ever carved in stone here. Flexibility is required otherwise we'll just be rewriting this thing (again) when circumstances change.
 
I would like the RA to note that I do support the ideas proposed, especially to provide a tad more flexibility to those we trust to defend us from "rogues" or outside hostile take overs.
 
The constantly changing winter weather had not done me any favors lately. I think I'm over the latest round, and I hope to have a draft ready within the next couple of days. With winter weather returning outside, I don't plan to be running around town (I do not trust the drivers on winter covered roads), and Lieb doesn't seem to like dealing with snow on the ground.)
 
Sorry for the delay, but here's is a draft of the amendments that I believe reflect the discussion about how to change the influence and endorsement level requirements.

I've added language to suspend rather than remove members who fall out of compliance with these requirements, and provide for the member's reinstatement once the member comes back into compliance. I've also added language to deal with members who move out of TNP, lose RA membership, or become a security risk. I've also introduced some flexibility in the enforcement section so we can better deal with changes in the Delegate's endorsement levels and during Delegate handovers.

Blue is language being added; red is language being deleted.

TNP LAW 30
The Security Council Regulation Act

Section One: Requirements

1. Members of the Security Council (Council) shall maintain an influence level equal to or greater than Vassal.
2. Members of the Council shall maintain an endorsement level within the range described in this Section.
A. The minimum level is defined as being either of at least (1) 50 endorsements, or (2) fifty per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count.
B. The maximum level is defined as being either (1) that number of endorsements that is 20 fewer than the serving Delegate’s endorsement count, or (2) and no more than eighty-five percent of said count.
C. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
D. The authorized range is to be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into account such factors as the handover transition between elected Delegates, the recall of an elected Delegate from office, or periods of Delegate inactivity.
3. Should Council members not meet or exceed the required endorsement level for a period of five at least fifteen days, the Vice Delegate is required to act pursuant to Section Two of this Law.
4. The elected and legitimate Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.

Section Two: Enforcement

1. The Vice Delegate may remove suspend members of the Council who violate the endorsement and influence level requirements of this Act. Suspension takes places if, after a warning by the Vice Delegate, a Council member fails to come into compliance with the endorsement and influence level requirements within a reasonable amount of time specified in the warning, which is usually fifteen days.
2. The Vice Delegate may remove members of the Council whose World Assembly nation no longer exists or no longer resides in The North Pacific, resigns from the World Assembly (except as part of a formal redesignation of a resident World Assembly member nation within The North Pacific), or lose their membership (unless exempted) in the Regional Assembly.
3. The Vice Delegate shall report any suspension or removal of members of the Council to the Regional Assembly in accordance with Article V, Section 3 of the Constitution.
4. Should a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence level requirements of this Act, the Vice Delegate shall reinstate the Council member.
5. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a Council member poses a Security Risk to The North Pacific and shall submit such determination to the Regional Assembly for approval to remove that member from the Council. The Speaker shall submit the determination to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval shall require a two-thirds supermajority vote.
Click to expand...
 
Two points, in case they get raised:

By having two potentially different maximum or minimum endos numbers to define the range of endos expected pf Council members, we are knowingly introducing a bit of vagueness into the numbers. I think the discussion supports the idea of seeing what the values are, and then using a reasonable application of the two sets of numbers, based upon the circumstances that are present at the time. So the key word becomes "reasonable," and our experience with the current range suggests this will give us some flexibility so the concepts becomes and remains workable.
Second, "suspend" means that they remain members of the Council, but not in good standing to participate as Council members. Thus, reinstatement occurs once a member brings itself back into compliance, and this way we avoid having to vote on it. If a suspension becomes an issue, the report to the RA will allow the RA to act as a buffer to review the suspension if necessary. With the other changes, I expect that it will be easier to attain and maintain a larger SC membership than has been the case in the past.
 
Those points were my understanding as well. I support having that flexibility to act in reasonable accord, and the mechanism of suspension to smooth operations.

The SC provides important regional security, so a larger, more active, and responsive SC is to our advantage.
 
I think we're ready to move this forward to formal discussion and see if there are any other changes that are needed. So I'll move to forward this bill to formal discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top