TNP Law and NS Law

Are the laws of TNP bound by the laws of NS?

My concern is regarding the appointment of the Delegate.
NS law dictates that the Delegate shall be determined by the number of WA endorsements.
However TNP law dictates that the Delegate shall be chosen by vote, at which point TNP Nations are asked to endorse that Nation.

Your insights are appreciated!

The nation with the most endorsements at update time is the in-game delegate.
The nation who wins the election is the elected delegate.

It's a bit like de facto and de jure although I've never heard those terms used about delegates.

Once the RA has finished recalling Elu, Tim will be our lawful, constitutional, de jure delegate. No one knows how long it will take for his endorsement count to overtake Elu's, but once it does, the game will update Tim with all the delegacy powers, making him de facto delegate as well.

New endorsements from the region's WA members will make the transition smoother. It's an exciting time!

The election of the Delegate by the RA is TNP de jure law.
I argue that the appointment of Delegacy in NS by most WA endorsements is NS de jure law as opposed to NS de facto practice. And if so, is TNP law subject to NS law? I.E. does the election mean nothing and whoever has the most endorsements must be considered the Legal and rightful Delegate? And the election is to determine the preferred Nation to be Delegate for everyone to choose to endorse or not? (Even TNP law states that Nations don't have to endorse the actual Delegate nor the elected Delegate)

It's not NS "law" - it's game mechanics. The person who is legitmately in the Delegate seat is the one elected by the RA - yes, others can endotart up, but they're not the "legitimate" delegate - and they don't automatically get the seat. Part of the reason why we have the TNP Security Council is to try and prevent people taking the seat in the first place other than the elected person, although very occasionally someone does manage it.

Lord Byron:

I.E. does the election mean nothing and whoever has the most endorsements must be considered the Legal and rightful Delegate?

Click to expand...

NO. It's the equivalent of saying "might makes right". The primary active people of TNP decided quite a long time ago to make it an elected governance, and we've operated on that principle since. I don't think any feeder (and most other regions) operate on the idea that whoever wins the delegacy is just in charge and can do what they please. All that rewards is an ability to endotart, not an ability to tend to the nations in the region and help the region have fun with the game. Based on past history, it in fact means they're playing "king of the hill" and proceed to kick as many people as they can for sh**s and giggles.

But the "in game" Delegate determined by "in game mechanics" is recognized by "the game" as the official Delegate and given the "in game" powers that go along with that.
Who are you to say that Nation is not the rightful Delegate? Lest you are stricken down by the Creator and Sustainer Max Barry, I urge you to repent!
If you want to hold an election and decide who you wish would be Delegate, go ahead and do so. We all know it does not change Max Barry's decision, and the only way you get your "elected" Delegate into the seat is by prodding, etc until enough Nations have followed your command/request and that Nation finally has enough endorsements to meet Max Barry's requirements. The vote is only something that makes us feel justified in commanding/requesting the endorsements.
I am sorry to sound hostile; I just get worked up when defending the truth of NationStates and our creator Max Barry.

SLLB

P.S. does no one agree with me?

Lord Byron:

But the "in game" Delegate determined by "in game mechanics" is recognized by "the game" as the official Delegate and given the "in game" powers that go along with that.
Who are you to say that Nation is not the rightful Delegate? Lest you are stricken down by the Creator and Sustainer Max Barry, I urge you to repent!
If you want to hold an election and decide who you wish would be Delegate, go ahead and do so. We all know it does not change Max Barry's decision, and the only way you get your "elected" Delegate into the seat is by prodding, etc until enough Nations have followed your command/request and that Nation finally has enough endorsements to meet Max Barry's requirements. The vote is only something that makes us feel justified in commanding/requesting the endorsements.
I am sorry to sound hostile; I just get worked up when defending the truth of NationStates and our creator Max Barry.

SLLB

P.S. does no one agree with me?

Click to expand...

My view of that is... go create your own region. You will swiftly be invaded and kicked out. But you can go have fun with that. We've chosen to create something that's more secure. And Max enjoys the variety of regional governments and how intricate they get. I doubt he'd want to participate in most of them, but the fact that such a multitude of ideas have sprung from a simple concept is tribute enough to him.

Lord Byron:

But the "in game" Delegate determined by "in game mechanics" is recognized by "the game" as the official Delegate and given the "in game" powers that go along with that.
Who are you to say that Nation is not the rightful Delegate? Lest you are stricken down by the Creator and Sustainer Max Barry, I urge you to repent!
If you want to hold an election and decide who you wish would be Delegate, go ahead and do so. We all know it does not change Max Barry's decision, and the only way you get your "elected" Delegate into the seat is by prodding, etc until enough Nations have followed your command/request and that Nation finally has enough endorsements to meet Max Barry's requirements. The vote is only something that makes us feel justified in commanding/requesting the endorsements.
I am sorry to sound hostile; I just get worked up when defending the truth of NationStates and our creator Max Barry.

SLLB

P.S. does no one agree with me?

Click to expand...

I agree with you conceptually.

But, this forum, the RA is one big oligarchy that controls the region. If the rest of the WA members that are not part of this RA wanted to all of a sudden rise up and revolt against the current ruling class they could by unendorsing every member of the RA. However, they haven't and have implicitly given their support to the ruling body of the region by continuing to support the government and the electoral process developed by the members of the RA.

So, I agree that the regional (NS) laws require that the elected delegate is the one with the most WA votes, but the ruling members of the region have decided upon a method to select that delegate that causes the least amount of regional disruption (e.g. banjections). Without this group, the RA I mean, we'd all be living in a Wild Wild West because there would be no accepted process to select the delegate and it would be a continual struggle for power. With the laws we've created here, we try to avert that scenario to keep the peace in the region and exert the power of the delegate in as democratic way as is possible.

In the scenario you present about our "elected" misses a few things. First, the masse of us have to agree to abide by whoever wins the election. That in and of itself is no small feat. Second the winner is given license to collect endorsements by those of us who would otherwise like to be delegate ourselves. In essence we relinquish our individualistic pursuit of power when we made the decision to join the RA and abide by its laws here. You'll say the laws here have no place in Max's world. Technically yes, but as I said it's wild wild west and we - the oligarchy of TNP - have decided that it's best to develop a system of governance than anarchy. Make no mistake, if we didn't have this forum the sitting delegate would need to fight off many attempts at the delegacy and as exciting as that would be, I'm not quite sure how many nations would enjoy continual strife in their region.

That's my two dimes and I hope that helps in addressing your question.

Lord Byron:

NS law dictates that the Delegate shall be determined by the number of WA endorsements.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that is true law in the traditional sense. Law is a civilianization over what would otherwise be anarchy, it gives power to civilians regardless of their capabilities as endo-tarters and propagandists. You could say that "natural law" in the state of nature in RL, dictates I have the right to everything... pillage, raid whatever. But when we come out of a state of nature, we agree to restrict those rights in favor of law and order -- that's what we have done here; we've agree to impose some order to take us out of a state of nature.

If you're thinking a state of nature would be better simply on the basis that it is nature, let me remind you of a phrase from Hume: is =/= ought. Just because naturally the region would be anarchic, does not mean it would necessarily be better off anarchic.

In RL, I sit here in University, expanding my potential.. the state will protect me from being hurt, encourage me to learn and I can go on to live a happy life hopefully. If the State of Nature's "order" had never been civilianized, natural law might dictate that I should be in a cave somewhere bashing something with a stone and scared for my life.

Thank you all for your insightful responses.
What I take away from it is that everyone agrees with me and I am validated in realizing that I am always right.
I will now continue to irritate you further by proposing slight changes in language to our Constitution and Legal Code, forcing debate on issues that have already been hashed out in this Region for the past many years.
If only within the TNP Library there were TNP Doctrine and the like, linked to from The Docks, so that silly noobs like myself would not be so bothersome; ah well, that kind of thing takes lots of time and energy.