Security Council Reform Bill

Funkadelia:
For once I have to say... I agree with Pasargad. There's no point in being part of the Security Council, whose main job it is to protect the delegacy from rogues, if you're going to be moving your WA nation at any time.
Click to expand...
What is the reason for all SC members having their full endorsement level all of the time, even if there are more than half a dozen of them? I'm not talking having half the Security Council not in the region most of the time, I'm talking about a few SC members once in a while, very briefly.
Grosseschnauzer:
The whole idea behind the Security Council was to serve as a bulwark to protect the region and was a device only made possible by the introduction of influence.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
Grosseschnauzer:
The more this discussion goes on, the less I like the idea of using the disbursement rating to determine eligibility. If an nation eligible for the Security Council would rather be involved in NPA deployments, then they should not seek the responsibility that comes with membership on the Security Council. If any current Security Council member wants to join and deploy with the NPA, then let them take a leave of absence from the Council (i.e., voluntary suspension of membership) until they get that urge out of their system.
Click to expand...
The disbursement rating is a completely separate reform from the one relevant to deployments.

The primary reform relevant to deployments is changing the law from what it currently actually says, which is that anyone who's SC nation leaves the WA must be removed (not suspended) from the SC. That reform alone, making the written law match what has been applied to Denarian Knight (Felasia) and myself, would be a significant improvement.

Of course, I don't see a reason why leaving and rejoining WA is qualitatively different from losing the required endorsement level. Why should being lazy and letting your endorsements slip be preferred to stepping out for one update and immediately working to immediately restore your endorsement count to an acceptable level?
Grosseschnauzer:
Having 70 plus nation eligible for SC membership is excessive and would not work in practice. The intent of the body was to have the highest influence nations, collectively, involved in protecting the region when the Delegacy is at issue for whatever reason. I have not been shown any benefit to that aspect of these proposed changes in this discussion, and at this time, I cannot support them.
Click to expand...
Why is it excessive? Why wouldn't it work?

70 out of 5600 (all TNP nations) is 1.25%. 70 out of 670 (TNP WA nations) is about 10.4%. Not all of these 70 will join, just as not all of the 28 currently eligible nations by Influence have. If you see a Security Council of 23 or so members as excessive, I will humbly disagree. Through welcoming more nations to the SC we can better secure the region. In addition, by referring to an absolute instead of a relative level of influence, we can avoid crowding out potentially useful members.

If the Regional Assembly insists upon it, we could set a different required Influence score. There are 28 currently eligible nations. There are a further 6 nations with over 400 influence, a further 12 nations with 300 or more, and a further 10 with 250 or more. By using the influence score however, and not the influence rank, the Regional Assembly gains much greater flexibility in setting the required influence level.
mcmasterdonia:
I'm fine with the 8 days thing, its dropping the influence level that has my concern.
Click to expand...
Please consider the above paragraphs.
mcmasterdonia:
I mean, in a practical scenario. If a Delegate was to go rogue, would we really be concerned about the line of succession and such things? Surely, it would be whoever in the SC has the highest endorsements and influence who would replace him or her. I think this puts that at risk, while we might have 5 members of the SC with 200+ influence, if our other 600+ influence nations decide that's enough and resign WA to do other things. When issues arise, it's that much more difficult to get rid of a rogue. It would take a lot of time to get GBM or yourself, back up to a reasonable level to take back the Delegacy.
Click to expand...
1. Yes, we definitely ought to make sure that whoever leads the government in waiting is legitimate. They need not necessarily be the ones to take the seat, though that would be a bonus to legitimacy, but we must ensure that any government in waiting be 100% clearly legitimate. Anything else is just asking for trouble.

2. Of course, the facts on the ground would determine the details of military operations undertaken to restore democratic governance, but see (1) about legitimacy.

3. If a rogue has enough influence to banject a 200 influence nation, they have enough influence to delay the overtaking of them by a 800 influence nation by ejecting its endorsers. In that situation it's going to be a long hard slog either way. In any case, if you want to insist that SC members should always be within 100 endorsements of the Delegate, that's a whole 'nother ball game. Currently the law allows us to park at 50. This reform would raise the minimum to 100 (or 50% of the Delegate's endocount, if that is under 200).
mcmasterdonia:
I think the 8 day rule should stay. Surely NPA members should be able to serve on the Security Council, and still do their duty as SC members. In many ways the two are highly related.
Click to expand...
If you don't believe SC members should be able to participate in major single-update operations, and continue to do their SC duty, how?
mcmasterdonia:
In regards to lowering the influence requirement, I think it would be better to include these nations through other means.
Click to expand...
Even if such means materialize, I think the fundamental shift to using the more flexible influence score is appropriate, if only to set a required score of 400.
 
Hmmm this does actually need much more thought and discussion.

Deployments should not be a priority for the security council to consider. If you bear in mind there are 5,000 nations in TNP, dropping WA to get a 30th endorser on an op is not really a good enough reason. SC members should only deploy if they have suspension or removal from the SC. The fact you (Eluvatar) asked to be suspended and it didn't happen does raise questions, considering the Chair must have been fully aware of the mission.

Opening up the SC, while it obviously sounds like a great idea, could be risky and if we're being serious about it we should make sure those risks have been fully considered and mitigated before making the reform.

Anyone can be an SC member under the current laws, it just takes time to gain vassal level. If vassal level is 5% the influence of TNP then that does limit the number of nations that can be SC members. We need to find out whether it's a restrictive or permissive SC that is best placed to help us against a rogue delegacy.

I don't really see why an overlap of NPA and SC should be increased. Since the idea of national guard is already in the NPA code of governance, I think that would be a better outlet for it, otherwise you have both problems of NPA members unwilling to deploy and SC members dropping WA.
 
If one accepts the influence score as a linear representation, then TNP sees the Ambassadors as having 0.81% of regional influence apiece, the Diplomat as having 0.77%, the Envoy as having 0.71%, the Duckspeakers as having 0.64% to 0.66% apiece, the Handshakers as having 0.57% to 0.62% apiece, the Trucklers as having 0.50% to 0.56% apiece, the Vassals as having 0.40% to 0.48% apiece, and Minnows having between 0.00% and 0.40% apiece.

That said there are reasons to doubt the linearity of the regional influence score. There are reasons to believe it may be a logarithmic or otherwise non-linear representation of a hidden internal number. For instance, Safalra found that in entirely UN-free regions from the start of influence, 31 nation regions were composed entirely of Envoys, which would lead one to expect that a nation with 3.2% of regional influence would have the Envoy rank.
 
Ok. I think Eluvatar has clarified most of this for me.

I still think that 200 influence might be a little low. Other than that small part, it has my support.
 
Chasmanthe:
I motion to table for further discussion on the above mentioned points.
Click to expand...
Standing Procedures:
1. Any member may introduce a proposal to exercise a power of the Assembly by creating a thread in or making a post in a related thread in the Meeting Chambers or Private Halls subforums.

2. If a proposal has associated text, the opening post of the thread will contain it in a single quote tag. The member who introduced the proposal may alter this text at their discretion.

3. Any member may call for a vote by posting “motion to vote”, "motion for a vote", "call to vote", "call for a vote" or similar in the thread. Any other member may second such a motion by posting “second” or similar in the thread.

4. If a motion is seconded, a vote will be opened. If the proposal has associated text, the vote will be held on the text at the time of the second.

5. Members may vote “aye”, “nay” or “abstain” or similar. Any member may change their vote before the end of voting by making a new post.
Click to expand...
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but there exists no procedure for a motion to table. If a motion to vote is made and then seconded (the latter hasn't happened yet), it proceeds to vote. The time to table it is when voting, by voting nay.
 
I have some very serious concerns about the aspect of the bill as it deals with the use of the soft power disbursement index, and the level being proposed based on that index. I have alerted Eluvatar that I wanted to discuss it with him, but he and I have not been on irc at the same time (or more accurately he didn't seem to be available when I checked, and I haven't had a lot of opportunities to be on IRC.
I think that needed discussion is important enough to state that I will state an objection to a motion to vote until there is some clarity over the use of that index as opposed to the influence level as in current law. Something doesn't feel right about the proposal, and I think the introduction of a totally new element requires more careful consideration by the entire Regional Assembly.
 
I believe it would be too early to vote on this bill at this time. I have received some suggestions for stylistic changes, and there are some points worth continued discussion.

I ask that no vote be held until these matters are resolved.
 
Eluvatar:
I believe it would be too early to vote on this bill at this time. I have received some suggestions for stylistic changes, and there are some points worth continued discussion.

I ask that no vote be held until these matters are resolved.
Click to expand...
As no one has seconded yet, it is not an issue but I would certainly not be against delaying a vote on the legislation should a seconder appear.
 
Given the concerns raised by at least one Security Council member and the author's own preference to continue discussion, I withdraw my motion to vote.
 
I haven't had time to revise the text with r3n's suggestions.

The reform is needed.

I'll find time this weekend.
 
I am not to sure on this proposal and I think it could use some adjustments. But very few adjustments. Like 5% adjustment. But apart from that.....

I support the proposal.
 
Elu, do you still intend to carry this through to a vote at some point? If so, would you prefer that this thread remain open, or start fresh with a new one?
 
Well, relatively soon.

Finally reviewing r3n's suggestions, here is my revised proposal:

Security Council Reform Bill:
A Proposal to Amend a Law
The below amendment to the North Pacific Legal Code will be applied.

Chapter 5: Security Council Law:
Chapter 5: Security Council Law

1. Any laws regulating the activities of the Security Council must be listed in this chapter.
2. In this chapter, "Council" means the Security Council.

Section 5.1: Requirements
3. The influence requirement will consist of a Members of the Council will maintain an TNP influence level score (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) greater than or equal to or greater than Vassal 300, though when a nation's influence score within TNP is unknown as the displayed score may include significant influence within other regions, a TNP influence rank greater than or equal to Vassal may be substituted.
4. Members of the Council will maintain an endorsement level within the range described in this Section.
4. In this Chapter, the serving Delegate means the legal Delegate or, in the absence of a legal Delegate, the acting Delegate.
5. The minimum endorsement count level is defined as being 50 100 endorsements, or fifty per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is least.
6. The maximum endorsement count level is defined as 20 40 fewer endorsements than the serving Delegate's endorsement count, or eighty-five percent of said count, whichever is greatest.
7. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
8. The required range is to be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into account such factors as transitions between elected Delegates, the recall of a Delegate, or periods of Delegate inactivity.
9. The legitimate serving Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.

Section 5.2: Admission
8. Any Regional Assembly member satisfying the influence requirement and endorsement count requirement may apply to join the Security Council.
9. An application which does not meet the appropriate requirements or ceases to meet them must be rejected.


Section 5.23: Enforcement
10. If Whenever any Council member does not have the required satisfy either the influence level, or exceeds or does not meet the required the endorsement level requirement, the Vice Delegate will must warn them. If , and if the Council member does not come into compliance within at least fifteen eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate will must suspend them.
11. The Vice Delegate shall must remove members of the Council whose member nation no longer exists or no longer resides in voluntarily departs The North Pacific or resigns from the World Assembly outside the needs of a NPA sanctioned mission.
12. The Vice Delegate will must report any suspension or removal of a member of the Council to the Regional Assembly.
13. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will reinstate them.
14. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a member poses a security risk to The North Pacific and request approval from the Regional Assembly to remove the member from the Council.
15. The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will submit the request to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval will require a two-thirds majority.
16. The Council may task a member with taking actions required under this chapter in the absence of the Vice Delegate.
17. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate.
18. If the Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist or voluntarily departs The North Pacific or resigns from the World Assembly, or fails to maintain an endorsement level within the range required of Council members for over eight days, the Vice Delegate will be removed from office.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thoughts?

Edit: Changed 250 to 300.
 
For reference, these are the nations of TNP with SPDR >= 200, ordered by SPDR:

#[c]Nation[c]SPDR[c]1[c] Former English Colony [c]899[c]2[c] Great Bights Mum [c]892[c]3[c] Groovistan [c]851[c]4[c] Kitabo [c]758[c]5[c] Yaorozu [c]746[c]6[c] Zemnaya Svoboda [c]714[c]7[c] Pasargad [c]704[c]8[c] Grosseschnauzer [c]685[c]9[c] Novare Res [c]653[c]10[c] Herzliyya [c]644[c]11[c] Laibach [c]638[c]12[c] Whereisthatistan [c]612[c]13[c] Moany Old Gits [c]611[c]14[c] ILVSIVM II [c]588[c]15[c] Impenyer [c]576[c]16[c] Span [c]572[c]17[c] Ermarian [c]566[c]18[c] Blackshear41 [c]557[c]19[c] Fengate [c]544[c]20[c] Velon [c]528[c]21[c] Andromeda Islands [c]523[c]22[c] Blue Wolf II [c]521[c]23[c] Elevation [c]510[c]24[c] Enif [c]503[c]25[c] Denarian Knight [c]470[c]26[c] Felenia [c]443[c]27[c] Wisconsota [c]434[c]28[c] MY MONARCHY [c]433[c]29[c] Oneofakynd [c]431[c]30[c] Medieval Things [c]421[c]31[c] Anarcosyndiclic Peons [c]419[c]32[c] Endless Skies [c]418[c]33[c] Selfgradatude [c]415[c]34[c] Delcovia [c]413[c]35[c] New Allied Australia [c]405[c]36[c] McMasterdonia [c]401[c]37[c] Espana Japones [c]376[c]38[c] Magehunter [c]368[c]39[c] Blacknoirschwarz [c]368[c]40[c] New Greasbyland [c]360[c]41[c] Grand Miltonia [c]350[c]42[c] Governmentum [c]344[c]43[c] Zzzaaa [c]336[c]44[c] Eumbner [c]330[c]45[c] Andrapos [c]327[c]46[c] Markdegrey [c]327[c]47[c] Spadestan [c]317[c]48[c] Frenulumnia [c]315[c]49[c] God n Country n Byron [c]308[c]50[c] Agramer [c]304[c]51[c] Mancunia Revolution [c]298[c]52[c] Hekik [c]288[c]53[c] Ischaemia [c]287[c]54[c] Isimud [c]282[c]55[c] Khodoristan [c]270[c]56[c] Atrigea [c]267[c]57[c] Everywheristan [c]261[c]58[c] Mk Steele [c]259[c]59[c] Ehlnar [c]257[c]60[c] Newmist [c]256[c]61[c] Buschgardensburg [c]255[c]62[c] New-Magrathea [c]247[c]63[c] The Marians [c]233[c]64[c] Llerrac Yar [c]230[c]65[c] BrightFutures [c]230[c]66[c] Deutronesia [c]229[c]67[c] Corrigador [c]227[c]68[c] Tairlia [c]227[c]69[c] Rubrum Natio [c]226[c]70[c] Cerasia [c]225[c]71[c] Ator People [c]222[c]72[c] Boobaloo [c]222[c]73[c] Spikester [c]221[c]74[c] Ascenon [c]221[c]75[c] Tilling-on-Sea [c]220[c]76[c] Democatic Donkeys [c]219[c]77[c] The Veiled Phoenix [c]219[c]78[c] Tripolipoli [c]217[c]79[c] The Union of Liberty [c]215[c]80[c] Urukanh [c]213[c]81[c] Eglise Sainte Eve [c]210[c]82[c] New haven america [c]206[c]83[c] Drewsenshireton [c]204
 
I kinda think 200 is too low.

I also think it might be worth considering requiring that the SC stays at least 40 endorsements behind the Vice Delegate, instead of the Delegate. I don't see why the SC should need to exceed the VD's endorsement count.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I kinda think 200 is too low.

I also think it might be worth considering requiring that the SC stays at least 40 endorsements behind the Vice Delegate, instead of the Delegate. I don't see why the SC should need to exceed the VD's endorsement count.
Click to expand...

I'm proposing 250 now, not 200. I included those with 200 to 250 for reference only.

I don't agree regarding the Vice Delegate requiring a buffer that large. Current law already requires the Vice Delegate to attain the second highest endorsement count. I see no reason to require a large buffer between the Vice Delegate and the members of the Security Council.

If however SC members are to be required to have no more than 40 less than the Vice Delegate's endorsement count, then the Vice Delegate should have a more restrictive endorsement count minimum.
 
Even 250. I think a Vassal requirement is fine.

My point is that there is no punishment for SC members exceeding the Vice Delegates limit. Their only requirement is to have up to 40 endorsements less than the Delegate. Tbh that isn't much at all. If you recall, a quick unendorsement campaign can cause a Delegate to lose that many endos in a few hours (Especially if the Delegate is inactive). 100 Endorsement gap would be much more reasonable.

Why should the SC need to exceed the Vice Delegates endorsements? We do have a line of succession, it would be nice if it's expected that it be followed in game. Delegate- Vice Delegate- SC. I don't see a reason why the SC should exceed the Vice Delegates endorsements, unless both are removed from office by the RA.

Current law requires the Vice Delegate to attain the second highest level, yet it also allows for the SC to do what it likes providing they keep 40 endos a way from the Delegate.
 
I just said, current law requires the Vice Delegate to have the second most endorsements. That means current law requires the Vice Delegate to have more endorsements than SC members. I'm just not comfortable with requiring a buffer between the Vice Delegate and SC members.

A Vassal requirement limits the pool of possible nations to 25 right now, and as it is a proportional rank requirement it is likely to remain so a limit of 25 or so nations indefinitely. The actual influence accumulation to be eligible to join the Security Council is going to keep increasing indefinitely, and will basically continue to run ahead of any nations that might wish to join such as your own. Indeed, at current endorsement levels I believe your nation will take another year to attain the current Vassal cutoff, but never become a Vassal. (To actually become a Vassal within one year, it would need more than double the endorsements).

I think that that is fundamentally broken, in the long run.

Jamie suggests a requirement of 300 SPDR, which would currently limit us to 49 nations eligible to join (of which something like 7 more would be expected to join, proportionally speaking), but would gradually allow more nations to be eligible once they have accumulated that much influence.
 
Eluvatar:
I just said, current law requires the Vice Delegate to have the second most endorsements. That means current law requires the Vice Delegate to have more endorsements than SC members. I'm just not comfortable with requiring a buffer between the Vice Delegate and SC members.
Click to expand...

So by Default SC members should stay below that limit? If so, why even include the 40 endorsements lower than the Delegate part. They should be expected to stay below the Vice Delegate (as usual making allowances for a transition)

A Vassal requirement limits the pool of possible nations to 25 right now, and as it is a proportional rank requirement it is likely to remain so a limit of 25 or so nations indefinitely. The actual influence accumulation to be eligible to join the Security Council is going to keep increasing indefinitely, and will basically continue to run ahead of any nations that might wish to join such as your own. Indeed, at current endorsement levels I believe your nation will take another year to attain the current Vassal cutoff, but never become a Vassal. (To actually become a Vassal within one year, it would need more than double the endorsements).
Click to expand...

Cool.

The point remains that lowering the influence requirement to 250 provides the opportunity for a great deal more nations to come within 40 endorsements of the Delegate. I see that as a bad idea.

The law may currently be within 20 endorsements, however the only people on the SC are long serving, trustworthy members. Most of whom have held the Delegacy before at some point or even multiple times. My concern is other.. err less trustworthy people legally coming within that limit and taking the Delegacy easily after one unendo campaign.
 
I think what Eluvatar has proposed is great but I agree with Jamie's suggestion of 300 in place of 250. It can still be revised to 250 if 300 is found to be not quite low enough.

I'm not sure about what you said McM - at the mo the vice delegate's limit is 20 less than the delegate and everybody else's limit is less than the vice delegate. The only change to those limits here is from 20 to 40, so an improvement. Keeping a higher SC requirement wouldn't stop lots more nations approaching the delegate's endorsement count, they are already entitled to do that even if they are not joining the SC.
 
Thank you for explaining why the vassal rating does not suit our needs. I agree completely with using the SPDR. 300 sounds like a nice conservative number.
 
For the record, as far as I am concerned as "second author" of the current version of the bill, I have no issue with fine-tuning the exact endorsement and influence numbers. However, I will defer to those in the RA that are more experienced in those issues; I do not have a good quantitative grasp of these numbers to make any recommendation myself.
 
Can you give us an idea of how much 300 is? Do you have any data for, on average, what kind of endorsements levels and tenure in the region nets that amount of influence? I realize it depends heavily on the changing conditions of the region, but any clue you can give would be helpful for a lot of us to understand what these numbers mean.
 
I believe that it would take a new nation which becomes Delegate today with half a thousand endorsements half a year to get to 300 spdr.
 
I checked over the bill and put the latest revision into the first post.

I think this is ready to move toward voting, and motion for a vote on the proposal now in the first post.

Eluvatar:
Security Council Reform Bill:
A Proposal to Amend a Law
The below amendment to the North Pacific Legal Code will be applied.

Chapter 5: Security Council Law:
Chapter 5: Security Council Law

1. Any laws regulating the activities of the Security Council must be listed in this chapter.
2. In this chapter, "Council" means the Security Council.

Section 5.1: Requirements
3. Members of the Council will maintain an TNP influence level (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) equal to or greater than Vassal 200, though when a nation's influence total may include influence within other regions, an influence rank equal to or greater than Vassal may be demanded.
4. Members of the Council will generally maintain an endorsement level within the range described in this Section.
5. The minimum level is defined as being 50 100 endorsements, or the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is least.
6. The maximum level is defined as 20 40 fewer endorsements than the serving Delegate's endorsement count, or eightycount, whichever is greatest.
7. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
8. The required range is to be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into account such factors as transitions between elected Delegates, the recall of a Delegate, or periods of Delegate inactivity.
9. The legitimate Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.

Section 5.2: Enforcement
10. If any Council member does not have the required influence level, or exceeds or does not meet the required endorsement level, the Vice Delegate will warn them. If the Council member does not come into compliance within at least fifteen eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate will suspend them.
11. The Vice Delegate shall remove members of the Council whose member nation no longer exists or no longer resides in voluntarily departs The North Pacific or resigns from the World Assembly outside the needs of a NPA sanctioned mission.
12. The Vice Delegate will report any suspension or removal of a member of the Council to the Regional Assembly.
13. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will reinstate them.
14. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a member poses a security risk to The North Pacific and request approval from the Regional Assembly to remove the member from the Council.
15. The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will submit the request to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval will require a two-thirds majority.
16. The Council may task a member with taking actions required under this chapter in the absence of the Vice Delegate.
17. If the Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist or voluntarily departs The North Pacific or resigns from the World Assembly, or fails to maintain an endorsement level within the range required of Council members for over , the Vice Delegate will be subject to removal from office following an automatic recall vote.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I am noting there have been some new changes. (for example, the deletion of the old 5.1:8) I'll review it in detail tomorrow and weigh in on it then.
 
3. Members of the Council will maintain an TNP influence level (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) equal to or greater than 200, though when a nation's influence total may include influence within other regions, an influence rank equal to or greater than Vassal may be demanded.
Click to expand...

But... getting to Vassal is nearly impossible for anybody new, isn't it? Could the second Vassal perhaps be changed to "A higher SPDR rating may be demanded"?
 
SillyString:
3. Members of the Council will maintain an TNP influence level (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) equal to or greater than 200, though when a nation's influence total may include influence within other regions, an influence rank equal to or greater than Vassal may be demanded.
Click to expand...

But... getting to Vassal is nearly impossible for anybody new, isn't it? Could the second Vassal perhaps be changed to "A higher SPDR rating may be demanded"?
Click to expand...

If they have significant influence on their nation from outside TNP, I personally have no issue with requiring Vassaldom. Actually new people wouldn't have such foreign influence(s).
 
Eluvatar:
SillyString:
3. Members of the Council will maintain an TNP influence level (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) equal to or greater than 200, though when a nation's influence total may include influence within other regions, an influence rank equal to or greater than Vassal may be demanded.
Click to expand...

But... getting to Vassal is nearly impossible for anybody new, isn't it? Could the second Vassal perhaps be changed to "A higher SPDR rating may be demanded"?
Click to expand...

If they have significant influence on their nation from outside TNP, I personally have no issue with requiring Vassaldom. Actually new people wouldn't have such foreign influence(s).
Click to expand...
...So anybody who spent significant time outside of TNP should never be able to join the SC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top