Security Council Minimum Discussion

Iro

Iro

TNPer
I am not submitting an amendment just yet, but I would like to talk about a section in our Legal Code that I believe is outdated.
Section 5.1:
5. The minimum level is defined as being 50 endorsements, or fifty per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is least.
Click to expand...
Our Delegate is now at 400+ endorsements. There are many citizens above 50 endorsements, which is currently the minimum requirement, and all of our Security Council members are in the hundreds. If we are to be accurately secure, we should keep up with the times, and that means imo raising the bar.

Thoughts?
 
To avoid constantly changing, maybe we should come up with a sliding scale, like so:

  • If the delegate's endorsement count is below A, the minimum level shall be defined as X%.
  • If the delegate's endorsement count is above A, but below B, the minimum level shall be defined as Y%
  • If the delegate's endorsement count is above B, the minimum level shall be defined as Z%

Is that too complicated?
 
Yes, it's making me dizzy.

I have no objection to raising it at this time. I'd like to hear what Elu and Schnauzers think.
 
If those that wrote the current law could explain their reasoning at the time it would be a great help.

If a newly elected Delegate has a low endorsement count and cannot raise it quickly, the SC is legally required to lower their counts, thus weakening the security of the region.
Should this be addressed as well?

Finally, if we are going to make revisions to the law, I recommend addressing 3.7 of the Constitution:
7. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
Click to expand...
Why are we controlling the maximum allowed for SC members w.r.t the Delegate if they are also controlled w.r.t. The Vice Delegate?
Also, should it be rewritten to say "no nation shall have an endorsement count greater than that of the Vice Delegate."???
Honestly, since section 3 pertains to the Delegate and Vice Delegate, certain people may overlook it and accidentally surpass the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.

P.S.
What about the discussion here?
I am very curious to know the risks of a larger SC; I assume crazy things go on behind that black curtain, and they don't want us to see it!
 
The current legal standard 50 or 50 percent was designed as a flexible mechanism to account for the possibility of a Delegate with low endorsement totals fir whatever reason. The fifty percent could be a number lesser or greater than the 50. This formulation reflects the TNP tradition of a strong dislike for the concepts of a hard fixed endo cap for whatever use.
So long as the fixed number chosen continues the flexibility of being "A or 50 percent of..." formulation as it currently used there shouldn't be a problem for a partial raise in the fixed number. We should be extremely careful about raising the fixed number being used too high since we could always encounter another extended period of inactivity which was the reason for the current level of 50.

Maybe 100 for now? We really should be conservative in how much that number is increased out of an abundance of caution,
 
Grosseschnauzer:
This formulation reflects the TNP tradition of a strong dislike for the concepts of a hard fixed endo cap for whatever use.
Click to expand...
tradition_thumb%255B1%255D.jpg
TRADITION!​
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
To avoid constantly changing, maybe we should come up with a sliding scale, like so:
  • If the delegate's endorsement count is below A, the minimum level shall be defined as X%.
  • If the delegate's endorsement count is above A, but below B, the minimum level shall be defined as Y%
  • If the delegate's endorsement count is above B, the minimum level shall be defined as Z%

Is that too complicated?
Click to expand...
I would support Crushing Our Enemies' idea.
 
Lord Byron:
If those that wrote the current law could explain their reasoning at the time it would be a great help.

If a newly elected Delegate has a low endorsement count and cannot raise it quickly, the SC is legally required to lower their counts, thus weakening the security of the region.
Should this be addressed as well?

Finally, if we are going to make revisions to the law, I recommend addressing 3.7 of the Constitution:
7. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
Click to expand...
Why are we controlling the maximum allowed for SC members w.r.t the Delegate if they are also controlled w.r.t. The Vice Delegate?
Also, should it be rewritten to say "no nation shall have an endorsement count greater than that of the Vice Delegate."???
Honestly, since section 3 pertains to the Delegate and Vice Delegate, certain people may overlook it and accidentally surpass the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.

P.S.
What about the discussion here?
I am very curious to know the risks of a larger SC; I assume crazy things go on behind that black curtain, and they don't want us to see it!
Click to expand...
Lord Byron raises some good questions. Let me see if I can address some of them. The rules allow for flexibility during Delegate transfer periods. It is preferable for a newly elected Delegate to increase his endos rather than have everyone else lower theirs. Sometimes things don't quite work out that way and we get an Interim Delegate for a time until the new Delegate can get his count up.

The wording of 3.7 is intentional. The onus is on the VD to get himself into the #2 spot. Your suggested rewrite would essentially give TNP a floating endorsement cap. Also, note that the law says the Delegate "may" ban someone who surpasses the VD. He is not required to.

A word on endorsement caps - I see it as more than tradition. The freedom to gather endorsements is a hallmark of our liberties. Each WA nation in TNP is entitled to make friends and gain influence. It's easy for a region to have a cap, but it tramples on the rights of hundreds of nations. What the absence of a cap means for the government, is that the SC diligently polices nations whose enthusiasm for gathering endorsements exceeds the norm. We don't just rubber-stamp a ban on them. The SC is directly involved in working with nations on a case-by-case basis to strike a balance between our security needs to protect the Delegacy and their freedom to tart.

I think the discussion on SC eligibility will be continuing in the other thread, so we can address it there.

The SC private area is not as crazy as one might imagine. I'm sure Roman and BW can attest to how dull it is compared to their expectations prior to admittance.
 
I do think that my reform bill is better, because it is more thorough.

It does increase the maximum minimum to 100.
 
I can't see how you can possibly make that comparison, given that I haven't actually written anything in this thread to compare it to :P
 
This is slightly off topic, so I appologize... I feel like whining.
Constitutional Article 3.7:
The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
Click to expand...
The current state that we find ourselves in is that the Legal Delegate is actively gaining endorsements while the Vice Delegate is not so much.
Thus, the Delegate is able to continue to increase their influence level, while the Vice Delegates inaction prevents others from being able to do the same.

This may be unintentional, but I am a little frustrated because it's making it harder for me to coup.
If my calculations are correct, I need only 675 endorsements for the next 72 months, and then I will be able to banject GBM and FEC.
*Sarcasm*
 
:rofl: Did you not consider in 6 years both FEC and I will have also gained more influence? It's going to be quite a trick to get rid of both of us.

Seriously though, I have been encouraging BW to raise his endo count. It would give everyone a little more breathing room.
 
OK. Perhaps we can find a middle ground here.

I for one would like to hear from the SCers that have not spoken already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top