Committing to an endo cap

Grimalkin

Grimalkin

TNPer
I've been advised by Eluvatar that the Security Council wants me to commit to a self-imposed endocap. Fine, I will, but I do it under protest.

Before I get to that, you're going to have read what I think about you and yours.

The Security Council can kiss my ass. I followed the law. I was below the VD's endo count, I was below the 85% rule. And because I followed the law, I was persecuted for it. I should have expected more from TNP. I also do not appreciate being threatened by any member of the government for remaining in the law. Threatening me tends to end badly. All of this could have been avoided if you had told your attack dog Pasargad to use at least a little tact.

So here's your commitment, you gorram bunch of hypocrites.

IRC with permission:
<Eluvatar> I don't think a limit of, 200, say, would be too much to ask.
Click to expand...

I commit to it.

Happy?
 
Geimalkin, I'm not sure you know exactly what went on, but there are various things that contributed to the chain of events that have nothing to do with me.

The high influence nations in TNP have always taken note of nations here who suddenly do a lot of endotarting, especially minnows, or nations that have all of a sudden become very active about endotarting. And another party, that is a nation not in the S.C., took note of your endo levels and the fact it was rising rapidly at the same time as a transition was in progress for the Vice Delegate's office. It tneds to make all of the long-time high influence nations nervous not just those of us on the S.C. I'll grant that Pasargad could have handled it a different way that would have been better. But at the time he acted, none of the other members of the S.C. were online (I for one was sleeping and that's usually the case on the nights after I see anyone medical.)
But addressing the concern is not paranoida and every recent delegate since the Security Council was established has used this body to note activity that would create possible threats to the TNP elected delegate system and the responsibility to prevent those threats from developing. You told Pasargad you were planning to run for delegate here in the future. Fine, but we do have a system in place, and having space between the Vice Delegate and the rest of the region other than the Delegate is part of that security system. An elected Delegate tries to avoid the eject button if it can be avoided.

As one who prepared long in advance before I ran for Delegate the first time back in January, I started working on my endorsement levels more than two years ago. I got them slow, I got them steady, and in only in the months right beofre I was asked by Blackshear to serve temporarily as Vice Delegate was I even anywhere close to Blackshear's endo level while he was vice dwlegate before me. That's how one avoids concern and suspicion.

Don't think calling me paranoid gets you off the hook. You gave and sought endorsements in a way and at a speed that attrated attention. Allowing our system to work basicaly as we intend is not paranoia. A statement for which I think you owe me a public apology.
 
An apology that you're not going to get from me.

You make some very good points. Blah blah blah.

But I maintain that I was WITHIN the limits of the law, the space was there and then some, and instead of coming to me and seeing what was going on, you send your attack dog after me, who had been involved with TNP in the past in various forms. I take offense to that. And I take offense to being threatened by you.

<conspiracy theory> And I HAVE to wonder how much of this is because we are very much opposed to each other politically and if this is your attempt to have my credibility destroyed. I honestly wouldn't put it past you. </conspiracy theory>

And I wouldn't call a member of the SC acting outside his authority (<conspiracy> Though I do wonder if he was acting under orders...hmmm </conspiracy>) the "system working as intended."


(Everyone's entitled to their own little portion of paranoia.)
 
No. You are never entitled to your opinion.

I know what went on in the private chambers of the Security Council and I can tell you your conspiracy theories are flat-out wrong.
 
Ah, but do you know what went on in private messages or telegrams?

Now, I don't really believe that Gross would ever be involved in a conspiracy against members of the Regional Assembly, but a lot of his posts do make me worry about some things.

I will accept that Pasargad acted under his own volition, but I will not be apologizing to Gross for calling him paranoid because he, well, is.
 
But I maintain that I was WITHIN the limits of the law, the space was there and then some, and instead of coming to me and seeing what was going on,
Click to expand...

Why should he come to you? Technically the onus was on YOU to give a heads up to HIM so that Pasargad's red flags wouldn't have sounded his alarm.

The lack of communication failed morseso on your end than his or anyone else's.
 
Govindia:
But I maintain that I was WITHIN the limits of the law, the space was there and then some, and instead of coming to me and seeing what was going on,
Click to expand...

Why should he come to you? Technically the onus was on YOU to give a heads up to HIM so that Pasargad's red flags wouldn't have sounded his alarm.

The lack of communication failed morseso on your end than his or anyone else's.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. So I was persecuted because I wasn't psychic. Understood.

...


Come back when you can actually make logical connections.
 
Not what I said.

If you started tarting and were reaching such a high count, why could you not have communicated with anyone if you had a chance to? Pasargad wasn't sent by Gross to go after you, he did it on his own. He also failed to communicate and ask properly what was going before he did this.

I feel it was a failure of communication on both ends. :2c:

That's all i'm saying.
 
There is no burden of communication on my end. The Constitution says I have a right to seek endorsements. It doesn't say that I need to notify the government of my intention.
 
Grimalkin:
There is no burden of communication on my end. The Constitution says I have a right to seek endorsements. It doesn't say that I need to notify the government of my intention.
Click to expand...
no but you sounded like Grosse was required to speak to you about it first instead of giving him the heads up....
 
Grimalkin:
So asking a nation for an endorsement isn't covered by free speech? Is that supposed to be the take away here?
Click to expand...
No it generally is. There just isn't an original right to tart. There are two separate rights that come into play, indirectly protecting tarting, but this protection is not in my opinion as strong as if there was such an explicit right.
 
Govindia:
Grimalkin:
There is no burden of communication on my end. The Constitution says I have a right to seek endorsements. It doesn't say that I need to notify the government of my intention.
Click to expand...
no but you sounded like Grosse was required to speak to you about it first instead of giving him the heads up....
Click to expand...
I'll say it again. The Constitution says I have the right to request for endorsements from nations (as far as I'm concerned, that falls under free speech), it doesn't say that I'm required to notify the government of my intent about anything.

It's starting to feel like we're going into the realm of thought police. Do I need to make sure I have my papers?
 
The Constitution has laws enacted by the Regional Assembly pursuant to it, and some of those laws deal with regional security and the Security Council. I assume from your statements that you don't recognize laws even when the Constitution specifically authorizes such laws. But you should try and read them, that's how you created the problem in the first place.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The Constitution has laws enacted by the Regional Assembly pursuant to it, and some of those laws deal with regional security and the Security Council. I assume from your statements that you don't recognize laws even when the Constitution specifically authorizes such laws. But you should try and read them, that's how you created the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...
Rather than just accusing him of ignoring the laws, why don't you act like anybody who is accusing someone of a crime has to act, and provide chapter and verse. Cite the laws, cite legal interpretations (if it helps), demonstrate specifically how his actions warranted the response, and how his actions are not protected by the law. The onus is on you, as a representative of the State, to prove that his actions were in breach of law, not on him, as a member of the State, to prove that they weren't.
 
TNP Law 30 does not actually say anything about nations not members or seeking to be members of the Security Council.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The Constitution has laws enacted by the Regional Assembly pursuant to it, and some of those laws deal with regional security and the Security Council. I assume from your statements that you don't recognize laws even when the Constitution specifically authorizes such laws. But you should try and read them, that's how you created the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...
Actually, I did. Shall I quote for you? I shall.

Article 3 Section 1 Subsection 9:
9. The duty of the Vice Delegate is to have the second highest endorsement count. The Delegate shall exercise discretion in banning nations whose endorsement count exceeds that of the Vice-Delegate.
Click to expand...

I buy that. It's a good thing I wasn't over the Vice Delegate's count!

Article 5 Section 3 Subsection 2:
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.
Click to expand...

If there is one, then I haven't found it!

Article 5 Section 3:
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...


I don't see anything in there about a single member of the Security Council being able to declare a nation a security threat and instruct removing their endorsements.



But you're the TNP lawyer. Tell me where I'm wrong, please.

EDIT:

Forgot one, posted below dealing with Endocap.

TNP Law 30 Section 1 Subsection 2 A and B:
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 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) no more than eighty-five percent of said count.
Click to expand...

This portion of the law only sets endorsement levels for members of the Security Council, not Joe Citizen.

Law 30 also does not enumerate any powers of the Council, dealing only with the internal workings of it. If you'd like for me to quote the whole Law, then only ask. I'm going to forgo it for now since it'll make a long post huge.
 
I think that is some pretty decent, detailed analysis from Grim.

This post, by the way, is not a definitive legal opinion, just some observations.

But I think you are on very shaky legal ground demanding that a citizen-at-large cap their endos for any reason. That is preciously close to violating their rights under the Bill of Rights. You can ask, I guess, for him to do it voluntarily. But if he refuses I'm not sure what you can do about it, legally. An official that forces the issue could be accused of abuse of power, if they don't have a legal basis.

4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA 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 WA member.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. That sounds pretty clear to me. Nations can endorse, or withdraw an endorsement, from anyone, for any reason they choose.

Sure, parts of the text, and your comments, seem to suggest that there ought to be another endorsement law for general citizens - but I've been up and down the code looking for it. I know other regions have one.

But I agree with Grim - I don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong - show me.

(Even if it exists in "practice" or even in the legal code, there is a chance it would be ruled unconstitutional based on the Section quoted above, since the Bill of Rights, by law, trumps the legal code and precedence.)

This is yet another example, Grosse, of not knowing what is actually written in the law as well as you think you do. I think there is quite a lot of the legal code that you have written in your imagination, but forgot to tell the rest of us.

Maybe YOU should spend less time blindly defending it, and more time reading it.
 
The Constitution requires that the Vice Delegate have the second highest number of endorsements.

The Constitution also recognizes that the Delegate has the right to protect the Constitution, including the elected Delegate, including ejection. There are various pre- and post-ejection remedies if necessary to validate that. The history of most of the Delegates has been to try and avoid using the eject button if we can get a voluntary agreement.

Third, as long as I've been involved with security issues, there has always been a monitoring mechanism (informal or formal) as to endo levels. Greater Peterstan, you can point to the text of the law, but what you keep missing is the history in which that law was developed. The language used in the enactments is guided by that history.
 
The Constitution requires that the Vice Delegate have the second highest number of endorsements.
Click to expand...

But that would seem to me to be part of the job description of the VD, rather than a requirement of every other nation in the region to lower itself to the VD's level.

The Bill of Rights clearly says that nations can endorse, or withdraw endorsement from anybody they like. It is a fundamental sovereign right. There just isn't much room for negotiation there.

Greater Peterstan, you can point to the text of the law, but what you keep missing is the history in which that law was developed. The language used in the enactments is guided by that history.
Click to expand...

Your "rebuttal" is that I am only looking at the law as it is written?

Congratulations. You were there when it was drafted. You understand the context, supposedly.

Riddle me this Batman - if you were there, why didn't you put this imaginary endo law, that is supposedly so important and relevant, into the text?

And why did you guys specifically put this into the text?

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

AND

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.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. FYI: Expressly means: specifically, consciously, in writing. Prescribed means the same thing.

Which means your constant blathering about historical context, traditional practice, and precedent means absolutely nothing, legally, unless it is supported by the law itself.

That is how I'm going to deal with any case that ends up in my courtroom, anyways. I am instructed, BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS: Apply the law as it is written.

Not by following the Delegate's vague recollections of historical context, or by following past practices, which themselves might have been illegal.

If it doesn't say what you want it to say, you only have yourself to blame. Your fingerprints are all over it. Own it.
 
But I think you are on very shaky legal ground demanding that a citizen-at-large cap their endos for any reason.
Click to expand...

Just so we are clear, the Security Council didn't demand an endorsement cap from a nation. It was discuss and agreed upon between the Security Council and Grimalkin that this is in the region and Grimalkin's best interest. The Security Council have not make any threat to the nation and the cap is voluntary accepted out of Grimalkins's goodwill.

This thread and discussion does raise the question of whether law on endorsement cap is needed though since it's seem we do not have one that specifically separate trusted citizen from unknown nation.
 
Felasia:
But I think you are on very shaky legal ground demanding that a citizen-at-large cap their endos for any reason.
Click to expand...

Just so we are clear, the Security Council didn't demand an endorsement cap from a nation. It was discuss and agreed upon between the Security Council and Grimalkin that this is in the region and Grimalkin's best interest. The Security Council have not make any threat to the nation and the cap is voluntary accepted out of Grimalkins's goodwill.
Click to expand...
We are in total agreement, Fel. Well said.

When we look at the issue in that context, Comrade Grimalkin should actually be congratulated and thanked for serving the security of his Region, sacrificing his own endos and voluntarily submitting to extra-legal limits on his nation's freedom, all for the good of the 'ole TNP. Bravo, old chum! :clap:

It is not surprising then, when then this ... dare I say, hero? When this national treasure also feels the character of his nation is being questioned that he respond forcefully? Take the passion from the patriot, and what is left? Who dares look with suspicion on this pillar of the community?

Shame. A pox on your houses.

S'anyways ....

Law on endorsements and security risks is definitely needed, if you perceive that to be important. Because it doesn't really exist right now, beyond the Proxy server laws. Again - prove me wrong, quote some law.

I kind of like that it doesn't exist. I'm not sure it should. Beyond maybe, proof of an imminent threat to Regional Security type stuff. As a massive, broad-based feeder region I believe we should be largely based around forgiving and accepting, even of those who might have somewhat checkered pasts.

Assessments about security should be based on things that are actually happening, not on the government's suspicions about what may happen.

Occasionally, you get leaders with paranoid delusions, who see coups around every corner. Then they abuse those powers when they begin identifying political opposition with attacks on the very state itself. Everybody becomes a perceived "security risk".

History is rife with it. Good thing there's no one like that around here.

But still ... I prefer that the security mechanisms of the state be somewhat limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top