Endorsement Cap Law

Felasia

Felasia

TNPer
Split from here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6838534/1/

This is mostly from an endorsement cap law that is no longer in use in another region with a change to suit TNP's system. I welcome suggestion to this proposed law.

TNP LAW 33: Endorsement Cap Law

Section I. In order to maintain the security of region and the World Assembly (WA) Delegacy, The North Pacific hereby establishes an endorsement cap.

1. The nations holding the following positions shall be exempted from the endorsement cap:
a. The duly elected (or appointed) WA Delegate and Vice Delegate.
b. Members of the Security Council.
c. Nation that have declared candidacy for the position of WA Delegate or Vice Delegate during an election.

2. The limit for WA endorsements received shall be set by the Security Council.
a. The Endorsement Cap must be advertised on the Regional Message Board at least once per month, on the World Factbook Entry of the region, and kept up-to-date in the Security Council section of the North Pacific regional forum.
b. It shall be the duty of the WA Delegate to advertise immediately any change in the Endorsement Cap on the Regional Message Board, the World Factbook Entry, and in the Security Council section of the North Pacific regional forum.

3. The Security Council is responsible for keeping track of the endorsement counts in the region and informing the WA Delegate of any necessary action to be taken.
a. Any nation that exceeds the endorsement cap shall be advised by telegram and/or Private Message by the WA Delegate or Vice Delegate that the limit has been exceeded, and that it is requested that the nation come into compliance.
b. Nations that have been advised of their violation of the Endorsement Cap Law shall have 48 hours to come into compliance. If a nation so advised remains in violation of this law without making any evident and ongoing attempt to come into compliance, the WA Delegate may eject, and temporarily ban the nation until the next update has passed.
Click to expand...

Edit Note: 3.A
 
One thing to keep in mind with any such proposals is that the SC members have a range to observe, and not a fixed number; and that the range is subject to reasonable variation depending on the circumstances.

There is a strong historical bias against fixed endo caps in TNP; and about the only way one could be approved given that bias, is to allow the SC to utilize the same flexible framework in setting the regional range.

Felasia, you may want to look at how Law 30 structures the endo ranges for the Vice Delegate and the SC members, and how it acknowledges that in certain situations the authorized range may vary. (We also have an either or in defining the range since the lodestar is the Delegate's endo count, and even that can vary for various reasons.) When we worked on the Law 30 revision at the beginning of the year, that was one of the more significant changes that was introduced in order to make it workable.
Also subsection 3 of the draft does not indicate who can send the message to an affected nation, or whether that is something you'd leave for the SC to decide.
 
I think it is much more simple to set a fixed number that can be review monthly. I understand that historically TNP tends to use flexible level as evident from law on SC endorsement, but I want to keep this law as simple and easy to use as possible since this is an urgent matter and given different circumstances such as war, threat, or peacetime; I think it's reasonable to allow SC to change it to suit the situation.

Working on subsection 3.
 
Given that one must be a Vassal to join the Security Council I'm not sure I'm comfortable with setting a lower cap and allowing the SC to exceed it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply extend the requirement of not exceeding the limit for the SC to everyone?
 
The lower cap is for every other nation in the region since the SC already have a cap establish by law on it's membership requirement not to exceed 85% of Delegate endorsements.

If we are to extend this limit to everyone then I am not sure whether I understand the purpose of having the security council around when everyone is allow to exceed the endorsement of these trusted nations.
 
I'm relatively new to NS, and not really familiar with the whole hostile takeover raider-defender type gameplay.

Philosophically, though, I kind of like it the way it is (or, at least the way I interpret it when I read it).

That is: it should be the onus of the Delegate and VD to keep their endorsements in a certain range, not the responsibility of everyone else to keep below them.

The delegate controls the WFE and other key tools of communication. Keeping more endos than everyone else as an expression of popular support and confidence in their administration seems to be a more natural extension of the democratic ideals, and not too much to ask.

Within reasonable limits of course: so long as an individual doesn't actually go so far as to go past the delegate, thereby compromising our other democratic expressions, like elections and the legislative process.

But isn't that the point of the Security Council, to step in if stuff like that happens?

Beyond that, people should be free to curry favor and advance in the game as they like: isn't that the point?

Also, isn't TNP somewhat protected from hostile takeovers by our sheer size? I've been pretty devoted to collecting endos since I started playing - not for any dark ulterior motives, just to try and get the influence level up since I'm a new player. I don't really send out messages or do any aggressive tarting, but I try to endo new nations I see, and hope for one back.

But getting up to a near respectable number is pretty tough in TNP, let alone sneaking up on the delegate ... I mean, Grosse has 250ish.

I know y'all are going to say, "It happens. If you'd been around as long as I have <cough, cough, wheeze> ... back in my day ... "

To which I respond - what are the consequences, really? Someone tries a sneaky plot to take over the region, and causes a big (but interesting) controversy, and gives the various elected officials and arms of Government something to preside over, and a reason to exist? Civil society is reestablished and the simulated world keeps on turning.

I believe endeavoring to button things down so tightly to try and prevent anything interesting from ever happening is a) probably futile b) not worth sacrificing the individual freedoms of nations c) provides a classic avenue by which those in authority sometimes abuse their power and d) even if effective, is boring, and leads to a less interesting region overall.
 
I'm not sure I like how this forces the region to be entirely dependent on the SC to create the endorsement cap. I harbor very mixed emotions about the SC itself; I'm sure it has occasionally proven somewhat useful when the position of delegate needs to be recaptured, though I don't know if I like the idea of it being granted some of the abilities of a legislative body by the RA.

I do, however, entirely agree that TNP is in dire need of a heavily enforced endocap. Gross's time as delegate is probably the best time to create one so he can use his large amount of influence to act upon it and to coerce people into complying with it. I'm not going to be too displeased if the SC is given the ability to set it, I just hope they can set one that isn't too high.
 
The current SC is the second such body we've had in TNP. (The first was an elected committee of the R.A. under the last Constitution that could authority emergency actions by the Delegate or the government led by an elected Prime Minister. Certain other officials whose job related to regional security had access to its deliberations.

When the influence ratings came into the game, it made the old North Pacific Army obsolete, and the current Security Council was developed over time as a response to how influence works within a game-created region, and how to organize trusted high influence nations to assist in protecting the regional community and our system of elected Delegates. It took some time to refine the framework to get it right functionally. It is also a body whose members may be waived from having membership in the Regional Assembly. That permits them as long-time trusted residents of TNP to assist in protecting the regional community and stay above partisan politics.

My problem with the endo cap proposal is simply the implied nature of a fixed numerical endo cap. It's contrary in many ways to how we have applied our Bill of Rights and is just too inflexible to respond to day-to-day changes in circumstances, and to respond to elected Delegates who end up having Minnow influence while in office.
The only viable legal solution is what we devised for the SC members. A range (defined by the "either-or" formulation) as to endos, but which is adjusted for factors such as Delegate absence or inactivity. The only way I think an endo cap can work is with a similar formulation. With such a provision in the bill, then we're giving the SC some clear guidance to ascertain what a reasonable maximum of endorsements would be for those nations not currently serving as Delegate, Vice Delegate, or on the Security Council and giving the thing some flexibility. Because the Delegate and Vice Delegate (or an acting S.C. chair) would have that "reasonableness" discretion, it would avoid the problems that many of us feel would be involved with a hard fixed cap.

This is something I think would have to be included in this proposal if it is to get my support. It's not something that has been suddenly offered out of the blue waters of TNP, rather, I view it as a necessity if we're going to do anything like this as a statute within TNP.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
A range (defined by the "either-or" formulation) as to endos, but which is adjusted for factors such as Delegate absence or inactivity. The only way I think an endo cap can work is with a similar formulation.
Click to expand...
Ick. No thanks, Gross. This is the kind of thing that creates uncertainty and causes problems the government and the kind of thing which needs to be eliminated, not further supported. The last thing people need are more ranges and statistics and factors to consider when trying to make important decisions quickly.
 
And a hard endo cap is even more unfair, unreasonable, contrary to the traditions of TNP, and not to mention it does not work. That's why we've never adopted one here. We'd be better off with not passing a bill at all.

As for whether there is any type of endo cap there is one of sorts already in the Constitution, Article III Section 1:
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...
That's pretty clear.

It's not as if the idea hasn't been debated countless times in TNP. But the conclusion has been that it is undesirable and inconsistent with the notions of freedom and democracy TNP believes in. Hard and fast endo caps have been used by autocratic and rogue Delegates who could not see any other way to maintain power outside of the democracy that is already here.

It may take more effort, but I'd rather not have anything passed on the subject than have a hard endo cap enacted..
 
My :2c:

I think i would be against a Hard endo cap as well. I think the protection of the region is very important however I don't think enacting a hard endo cap is the way to enforce the security around here.

To further state my opinions.... I believe the Security Council should strive to be the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc... highest endorsed nations in the region. If a nation passes a member of the security council, they should be notified via telegram and told to back off of endorsements.

The vice Delegate should be the 2nd highest endorsed nation in the region. If a nation passes the Vice Delegate after being warned from the security council, I believe that Constitution, Article III Section 1, Point 9 should be acted upon.

It may not be as simple as this, however I think that this makes sense to a certain extent.
 
@Gross

And a hard endo cap is even more unfair, unreasonable, contrary to the traditions of TNP, and not to mention it does not work. That's why we've never adopted one here. We'd be better off with not passing a bill at all.
Click to expand...

It's work. The clear example is other feeders who have learned to use this cap flexibly depending on their situation to effectively cleanse the region of a threat.

It's not as if the idea hasn't been debated countless times in TNP. But the conclusion has been that it is undesirable and inconsistent with the notions of freedom and democracy TNP believes in. Hard and fast endo caps have been used by autocratic and rogue Delegates who could not see any other way to maintain power outside of the democracy that is already here.
Click to expand...

It's a law for security. The idea of freedom and democracy can only be protect if the security and stability of the region is protected and the voice of the people is not suppressed. The delusion that this region is protect is laughable given how last year it's been couped by a nation

@Pasargad

I think i would be against a Hard endo cap as well. I think the protection of the region is very important however I don't think enacting a hard endo cap is the way to enforce the security around here.
Click to expand...

I don't like calling it hard endo cap, it's a set-endo cap that is review every month base on security situation in the region. There is noting authoritarian or oppressive about this.

To further state my opinions.... I believe the Security Council should strive to be the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc... highest endorsed nations in the region. If a nation passes a member of the security council, they should be notified via telegram and told to back off of endorsements.
Click to expand...

Currently, that's a fact. I have the second highest endorsements in the region and Pasargad have the third highest numbers. However, there is no clause in the law that prohibited anyone from surpassing a member of the SC in endorsement or for the SC to maintain that high level of endorsement. Your suggestion means we will needs to make even more change to the constitution and legal code when it's far more simple to legislate a number of non-SC member nation.

The vice Delegate should be the 2nd highest endorsed nation in the region. If a nation passes the Vice Delegate after being warned from the security council, I believe that Constitution, Article III Section 1, Point 9 should be acted upon.
Click to expand...

The Vice Delegate is usually 20-30 endorsements from the delegate. There is still an army in NS that could quickly surpass this number and take delegacy from our hand.
 
If the delegate and vice delegate are doing their jobs, a endo cap is unnecessary. No one is going to sneak up and gather 250+ endorsements in this day and age without someone knowing (unless the delegate and vice delegate are inactive).

An endo-cap could work here, but it's lazy and does run counter to the established culture. Just because the other feeders do it doesn't mean we have to. Feeder homogenization, though increasingly inevitable with the current cross pollination of the shrunken player base, is, to me, an undesirable outcome.
 
I agree with blackshear. If the Delegate, vice delegate, and the security council is doing their jobs, no one should be able to sneak up and steal the delegate.

I also would find it easier to put a new law into the legal code then to give more power to the SC of evaluating the number every month. This would put some stability in this.
 
If the delegate and vice delegate are doing their jobs, a endo cap is unnecessary. No one is going to sneak up and gather 250+ endorsements in this day and age without someone knowing (unless the delegate and vice delegate are inactive).

An endo-cap could work here, but it's lazy and does run counter to the established culture. Just because the other feeders do it doesn't mean we have to. Feeder homogenization, though increasingly inevitable with the current cross pollination of the shrunken player base, is, to me, an undesirable outcome.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. At this moment, every nations are allow to seek endorsement up to the level of the Vice Delegate which is around 230-220. There is still an army in NS that can pull that number (20-25 endos) during the update which create a threat to regional security. The Delegate can be as active as he is in spotting these endorsements, but the fact is that it is unnecessary risk that this region shouldn't take when a law can protect us from this possibility.

I'm not saying that we should do it because other feeders did it. I'm merely pointing out that this system works when Gross claim it doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top