Strengthening of Regional Security

The clause as you've drafted it forces the Delegate to act but forgets one key point: influence.

If they cannot touch the nation in question, it would tie their hands and actually force them to violate the law. As you've said "will" it may actually prevent a slingshot with the SC, I'm not sure.
 
The most immediate flaw with your suggestion is that it would force the delegate to ban members of the SC who happen to rise above the VD in endorsements temporarily, as well as all nations who have more endorsements than the VD following an election. This is very problematic!

More broadly, I don't like removing discretion from the delegate in terms of handling threats, but that's a separate conversation.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
The clause as you've drafted it forces the Delegate to act but forgets one key point: influence.

If they cannot touch the nation in question, it would tie their hands and actually force them to violate the law. As you've said "will" it may actually prevent a slingshot with the SC, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
That is a very good thing to note. Ill add an exception clause.
 
SillyString:
The most immediate flaw with your suggestion is that it would force the delegate to ban members of the SC who happen to rise above the VD in endorsements temporarily, as well as all nations who have more endorsements than the VD following an election. This is very problematic!

More broadly, I don't like removing discretion from the delegate in terms of handling threats, but that's a separate conversation.
Click to expand...
The clauses coming after 20 should take care of all of this. eg 21 (Not a member of the SC) 23 (Two warnings to stop gathering endorsements)

In clause 20, it states that the delegate only has to act if the nation meets ALL of the criteria in the clause.

Clause 25, still states MAY. So the delegate has discretion if the subject unintentionally surpasses the vice delegate. (eg. After an election)
 
Requiring the banjection of an adspammer or other criminal is vastly different than requiring the Delegate to banject a member of the Security Council for accidentally gathering too many endorsements. Considering the fluid nature of endorsement gathering, it is ridiculous to remove the Delegate's discretion on whom they will banject.
 
Grimalkin:
Requiring the banjection of an adspammer or other criminal is vastly different than requiring the Delegate to banject a member of the Security Council for accidentally gathering too many endorsements. Considering the fluid nature of endorsement gathering, it is ridiculous to remove the Delegate's discretion on whom they will banject.
Click to expand...
21. It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
 
JhonsJoe:
SillyString:
The most immediate flaw with your suggestion is that it would force the delegate to ban members of the SC who happen to rise above the VD in endorsements temporarily, as well as all nations who have more endorsements than the VD following an election. This is very problematic!

More broadly, I don't like removing discretion from the delegate in terms of handling threats, but that's a separate conversation.
Click to expand...
The clauses coming after 20 should take care of all of this. eg 21 (Not a member of the SC) 23 (Two warnings to stop gathering endorsements)

In clause 20, it states that the delegate only has to act if the nation meets ALL of the criteria in the clause.

Clause 25, still states MAY. So the delegate has discretion if the subject unintentionally surpasses the vice delegate. (eg. After an election)
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I misunderstood the proposal. That's much more reasonable, though I'd still rather keep things are they are. Have you noticed a problem with the delegate declining to eject people who are threats?
 
The law was intended to set up an either or: a nation MAY be banned if it meets 3 listed criteria OR it has more endorsements than the Vice Delegate.

Perhaps this needs clarification.
 
SillyString:
JhonsJoe:
SillyString:
The most immediate flaw with your suggestion is that it would force the delegate to ban members of the SC who happen to rise above the VD in endorsements temporarily, as well as all nations who have more endorsements than the VD following an election. This is very problematic!

More broadly, I don't like removing discretion from the delegate in terms of handling threats, but that's a separate conversation.
Click to expand...
The clauses coming after 20 should take care of all of this. eg 21 (Not a member of the SC) 23 (Two warnings to stop gathering endorsements)

In clause 20, it states that the delegate only has to act if the nation meets ALL of the criteria in the clause.

Clause 25, still states MAY. So the delegate has discretion if the subject unintentionally surpasses the vice delegate. (eg. After an election)
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I misunderstood the proposal. That's much more reasonable, though I'd still rather keep things are they are. Have you noticed a problem with the delegate declining to eject people who are threats?
Click to expand...
No. Not in the present.

However, it would be stupid if a delegate knowingly lets another nation take over the region without banning it. Because in the case of a region takeover, the delegate wouldn't be able to be held accountable.
 
JhonsJoe:
Grimalkin:
Requiring the banjection of an adspammer or other criminal is vastly different than requiring the Delegate to banject a member of the Security Council for accidentally gathering too many endorsements. Considering the fluid nature of endorsement gathering, it is ridiculous to remove the Delegate's discretion on whom they will banject.
Click to expand...
21. It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
Click to expand...
Regardless, insert your own clearly innocent situation. I recall when I was endoswapping to reach the level that was allowed by the Legal Code, but an over zealous member of the Security Council 1) reported me as a potential threat to the Delegate and 2) issued me unjustified warnings. Under your current wording, the Delegate would have been required to banject me REGARDLESS of what the situation actually was, like being well under the endorsement cap.

It is almost an assumption of guilt until proven innocent. How do you know what I am doing, what my goals were? Perhaps I was preparing for an attempt to run for office. Perhaps I just wanted to sit at the endocap level and coast for a while.

The law needs clarification, but yours is simply not the clarification that is needed.
 
Grimalkin:
JhonsJoe:
Grimalkin:
Requiring the banjection of an adspammer or other criminal is vastly different than requiring the Delegate to banject a member of the Security Council for accidentally gathering too many endorsements. Considering the fluid nature of endorsement gathering, it is ridiculous to remove the Delegate's discretion on whom they will banject.
Click to expand...
21. It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
Click to expand...
Regardless, insert your own clearly innocent situation. I recall when I was endoswapping to reach the level that was allowed by the Legal Code, but an over zealous member of the Security Council 1) reported me as a potential threat to the Delegate and 2) issued me unjustified warnings. Under your current wording, the Delegate would have been required to banject me REGARDLESS of what the situation actually was, like being well under the endorsement cap.

It is almost an assumption of guilt until proven innocent. How do you know what I am doing, what my goals were? Perhaps I was preparing for an attempt to run for office. Perhaps I just wanted to sit at the endocap level and coast for a while.

The law needs clarification, but yours is simply not the clarification that is needed.
Click to expand...
23. It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
24. It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.

How about this? This criteria also has to be met.
 
Although that section clearly needs some reformatting.

Legal Code:
20. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which meets all of the following criteria:
21.* It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
22.*It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
23.* It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
24.* It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.
25.21 The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
26.22 Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
27.23 Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate or Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under this chapter.
Click to expand...
 
Grimalkin:
Although that section clearly needs some reformatting.

Legal Code:
20. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which meets all of the following criteria:
21.* It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
22.*It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
23.* It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
24.* It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.
25.21 The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
26.22 Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
27.23 Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate or Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under this chapter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Oh my. Thats exactly what i was thinking!
 
JhonsJoe:
Grimalkin:
Although that section clearly needs some reformatting.

Legal Code:
20. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which meets all of the following criteria:
21.* It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
22.*It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
23.* It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
24.* It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.
25.21 The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
26.22 Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
27.23 Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate or Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under this chapter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Oh my. Thats exactly what i was thinking!
Click to expand...
see the new post i posted.
 
JhonsJoe:
However, it would be stupid if a delegate knowingly lets another nation take over the region without banning it. Because in the case of a region takeover, the delegate wouldn't be able to be held accountable.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I am confident we would hold a delegate accountable (through recall and maybe even trial) if they knowingly or negligently allowed another nation to seize the region. :)

Also, I like the new change! It definitely clarifies things.
 
SillyString:
JhonsJoe:
However, it would be stupid if a delegate knowingly lets another nation take over the region without banning it. Because in the case of a region takeover, the delegate wouldn't be able to be held accountable.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I am confident we would hold a delegate accountable (through recall and maybe even trial) if they knowingly or negligently allowed another nation to seize the region. :)

Also, I like the new change! It definitely clarifies things.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's what Im gonna go with. Hopefully the speaker can archive this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top