Border Control Tweak Bill

Crushing Our Enemies

Crushing Our Enemies

TNPer
-
-
Discord
COE#7110
Some discussion among the Security Council revealed that there would be some benefit to allowing the Delegate to have a freer hand in assigning Border Control powers to members of the Security Council. As the law currently stands, the Delegate can assign BC powers to any of the three Security Council members who are earliest in the line of succession. So, when determining a line of succession, we currently have two factors to consider:
  1. Who is best able to assume the delegacy in a crisis?
  2. Who would it be good to assign border control powers to?
Sometimes, these are one and the same, but not always. It would be better for the Delegate to be able to grant BC powers to any three SCers without restriction, so that BC powers would not be a consideration for the line of succession. Then we would only have to consider the first factor in the list above, and the result is a line of succession that is more focused on its true purpose: who is best able to assume the delegacy in a crisis.

Here is my proposal:
Border Control Tweak Bill:
1. Section 7.2 of the Legal Code will be amended to read as follows:
Section 7.2: Regional Officers
6. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any government official or nation created for the purpose of performing government functions.
8. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to up to three members of the Security Council.
9. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
10. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assign additional powers to other government officials or regional nations as instructed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Section 7.2: Regional Officers
6. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any government official or nation created for the purpose of performing government functions.
8. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the up to three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.
9. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
10. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assign additional powers to other government officials or regional nations as instructed.

I welcome your comments and questions. Since this concerns the weighty matter of border security, I intend to move forward on this only after careful deliberation and feedback from the community.[/quote]
 
Last edited:
I don't see any problem with this. We have some good SCers like Nessie who aren't in the top three yet would do a great job with Border Control.

Full Support for the time being.
 
I really like this. Allowing the Delegate to give BC powers to members of the SC irrespective of their current order of succession would be quite helpful. I'm all for a more effective BC (not disregarding Nessie's work; like Dinoium said above, Nessie already does a great job). These changes would certainly bring more freedom to this process.

Full support for now.
 
I have a question actually. What happens if the Delegate were to choose Security Councillors and use them in a Rouge Delegacy crisis to secure power?
 
Well, I don't think that question is really relevant to the bill. I will say though that a situation where multiple security councilors are conspiring with the delegate to coup is a worst case scenario, but the regional response would be no different - remove the conspirators from power, restore the rule of law, then see justice done.
 
Full support... after you properly close the outer quote tag :P
Would it be worth requiring the consent of the SC before the Delegate could appoint his preferred SCers?
 
Dinoium:
I have a question actually. What happens if the Delegate were to choose Security Councillors and use them in a Rouge Delegacy crisis to secure power?
Click to expand...
Well, one assumes that only trustworthy members of the community who proved themselves truly loyal to the region are eligible to join the SC, right? In case of a rogue delegacy, I assume the rest of the SC would quickly jump into action to do some damage control and try to sort out the situation. In the end these situations can happen, no matter what kind of legislation you have. But that's also why it is so hard to get in the SC, right? People have to make sure that anyone eligible to join won't at least take part in such thing.
 
Seems good to me, but I'm sure there's probably gonna be some glaring flaw nobody's noticed that gets pointed out at the 11th hour, as per usual these days. :P

Either way, full support for now. ;)
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Well, I don't think that question is really relevant to the bill. I will say though that a situation where multiple security councilors are conspiring with the delegate to coup is a worst case scenario, but the regional response would be no different - remove the conspirators from power, restore the rule of law, then see justice done.
Click to expand...
Already then. Thanks for answering my question, here's a follow up:
Legal Code Section 7.2:
9. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
Click to expand...
This may not be all that relevant but how this relate to the marked up sub-section above it? And if this bill passes, would this bill conflict with it or not be much revelant to the sub-section stated above?
 
I believe this is an important step which will contribute to safeguarding the gameside community. It will allow us to respond more rapidly and have coverage over multiple time zones. Full support.
 
It doesn't conflict. If that clause were invoked, the delegate would be allowed to give BC to anyone on the SC, and would no longer be limited to a maximum of three.
 
This sounds sensible, but isn't the line of succession created by when the Counselor joined the SC?

In the Constitution :-

Article 6. The Security Council

5. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession by a majority vote. The line of succession must always include the Vice Delegate and all current Security Council members, and must always place the Vice Delegate first. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be automatically added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be automatically removed from the line of succession.

I have just seen GBM 's reply - Flexibility and speed are definitely key points. Is there any reason why only three members of the SC are granted BC powers?
 
Last edited:
Yes, new members that join the Council are automatically added to the bottom of the Line of Succession. Simply put this bill will allow the Delegate to grant border control to up to 3 members of the Security Council regardless of their position on the LoS.

During an emergency, the Delegate will still be able to grant Border Control to as many of the Security Council as they wish.
 
Marcus Antonius:
This sounds sensible, but isn't the line of succession created by when the Counselor joined the SC?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is an automatic placement when a new SCer is added to the LOS, however it is still subject to change by a majority vote of the RA. That's why those two factors listed in the OP are taken into account.

Marcus Antonius:
Is there any reason why only three members of the SC are granted BC powers?
Click to expand...
I'd have to look back at the original debate on that clause to be sure, but I imagine it's just an additional level of security. By limiting how many people can have border control, we limit the risk of someone with BC powers going rogue.
 
Couldn't the desired outcome (granting Nessuno Border Control powers without putting them high in the order of succession) be achieved by the Delegate asking for a Regional Assembly vote to approve granting them border control powers?

9. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the order of those clauses of that sentence should be reordered to put the case one can expect to be more frequent first, but nonetheless.

It may also be useful to review the first and second discussions of adopting the laws on Border Control powers.
 
Eluvatar:
Couldn't the desired outcome (granting Nessuno Border Control powers without putting them high in the order of succession) be achieved by the Delegate asking for a Regional Assembly vote to approve granting them border control powers?



Perhaps the order of those clauses of that sentence should be reordered to put the case one can expect to be more frequent first, but nonetheless.

It may also be useful to review the first and second discussions of adopting the laws on Border Control powers.
Click to expand...

I don't recall at any point during the internal SC debate this being explicitly about granting Nessuno BC powers. This is about flexibility and the need to correct an oversight. Right now, both the Delegate and Vice Delegate are in the top-3. The Delegate has BC powers by default, and I believe that a VD should never have BC powers, as it poses an unnecessary vulnerability. This leaves GBM as the only member of the SC that should be granted the permission. I originally wanted an extension to the top-5, not anyone (which by the way, would put Nessuno outside), but I was struggling with the wording because I only wanted that extension in case a top-3 SCer was either WAD or VD.

You do bring up a valid point about that one clause though. If we went forward with the change in the law, that clause would need to change to allow a non-emergency exception only to permit additional SCers to have it (although three SCers with BC should be plenty).
 
The logic behind the original text was that by ratifying an order of succession, or by dint of long tenure, the top three SC members have some degree of additional trust from the Assembly.

I believe the language was intended for the top three meant to be the top three in the underlying list, not the top three in the current order of succession (which would automatically be Delegate, Vice Delegate, and a senior SC member). Clearly that intent was not properly represented in the language, and if we want to keep that intent we should update the language.

I don't understand the reluctance to rely on the process whereby the Delegate proposes granting BC powers to a SC members to the RA.
 
There isn't a problem with the language. We know what it means. It's the result of it that's my concern. See the duplication?

D. Pallaith (as Delegate) (BC by default)
V. Sil Dorsett (as Vice Delegate)
1. Great Bights Mum (BC eligible)
2. Pallaith (as Security Councillor) (BC eligible)
3. Sil Dorsett (as Security Councillor) (BC eligible)

Now, should clause 9 be used in this case? Maybe. I'll bring it up with Pallaith and see what he wants to do next. You might see a couple new motions shortly.
 
Last edited:
The situation that Sil illustrates in his post is my main motivation for this bill. Often, the delegate and/or vice delegate are Security Councilors themselves, and tend to be among the most active and noteworthy, so they also sometimes appear in the top 3. This is to be expected, and under the current law, limits the number of people who can have border control beyond what was envisioned by the framers of that law. The marginal inconvenience to the executive that this causes isn't usually enough to motivate seeking an act of the RA to extend BC powers to an additional SCer. It would be just as easy to change the line of succession, lowering the serving delegate or vice delegate on the list - which of course is really the opposite of what we want to do.

One idea that came up in drafting was redefining the line of succession in the law to exclude the Delegate and Vice Delegate. This is trickier to word, but if people are seeking a compromise between flexibility and security, I could draft that and would support it.
 
I think the crux of Eluvatar’s observation is that by virtue of approving LoS changes, the RA is also endorsing BC officers by allowing the Delegate to select from among a small number that the RA is okay with (since they approved a LoS that specified a particular top 3). Let the Delegate pick BC officers from the entire SC, however, and suddenly the RA is out of the process because LoS and BC eligibility are now separate things. If instead I were to invoke that clause and pick specific people outside the top 3, the RA is once again involved in that decision process.

So I guess the questions that underpin this whole idea are, should BC be separately considered from the LoS (and this bill seems to be taking that position)? And should the RA always be part of the BC selection process?

I don’t want to speak for @Eluvatar but I think this is where he’s going with his post.
 
Yes that is exactly my point.

Changing three to five, or skipping over the Delegate and Vice Delegate for the three is unobjectionable to me. If we're amending the law in this way, I'd also suggest doing the grammatical tweak of putting the RA vote before the Delegate emergency in the text of clause 9.

If, however, my preference for maintaining heightened RA control of who gets border control powers is not the preference of the RA, then we may want to drop the RA vote portion of clause 9.
 
Sil Dorsett:
There isn't a problem with the language. We know what it means. It's the result of it that's my concern. See the duplication?

D. Pallaith (as Delegate) (BC by default)
V. Sil Dorsett (as Vice Delegate)
1. Great Bights Mum (BC eligible)
2. Pallaith (as Security Councillor) (BC eligible)
3. Sil Dorsett (as Security Councillor) (BC eligible)

Now, should clause 9 be used in this case? Maybe. I'll bring it up with Pallaith and see what he wants to do next. You might see a couple new motions shortly.
Click to expand...

Then change the line of succession as well. Not that hard. There is no way either of you should be in spot 2 or 3 while you are also serving as Delegate and Vice Delegate.
 
I'd like to offer the following amendment to Section 7.2.8 which would grant the original intent of this bill and still give the RA Assembly some say on who will be granted BC authority.

Section 7.2: Regional Officers
6. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any government official or nation created for the purpose of performing government functions.
8. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the up to three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
9. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
10. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assign additional powers to other government officials or regional nations as instructed.
 
I have two competing goals in authoring this legislation. First, I want to preserve the RA's existing oversight over who gets border control powers - my original proposal probably compromises this too much. Second, I want to prevent a situation where the delegate is frequently seeking approval from the RA to assign border control powers outside the top three - this is where I think Artemis' bill goes a bit too far. I expect that after confirming a member of the security council, it is highly unlikely that the RA would reject a request to assign them border control powers, so the votes would be largely procedural (read: a waste of time, just like many EC confirmations, but that is neither here nor there). I think the compromise is to exclude the Delegate and Vice Delegate from the calculation of who the three SCers earliest in the LoS are. This is tricky language, but I've given it my best shot:

The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council who are earliest in the Line of Succession. For purposes of this clause, the Delegate and Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the line of succession.
Click to expand...
Thoughts?
 
Why is the Vice Delegate being excluded? They don't automatically get BC powers outside of this clause, and I don't see a rationale to not allow them to be included in that list. They are the head of the security branch, and the one who takes over if something happens to the delegate - they should be at least able to be given BC powers without needing to go through the RA if something comes up.

If I were delegate and I had something come up in RL where I wouldn't be around for a week, I'd want the VD to have the necessary powers to safeguard the region in my absence.
 
I believe the logic is that the Vice Delegate, with the second most endorsements in the region, has the most opportunity to misuse border control powers in order to obtain, ah, executive powers.
 
My suggested tweak, for clarity, since the Delegate and VD are not always SCers. Also clarifies which Delegate is excluded (there can be Serving and WA):
The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council who are earliest in the Line of Succession. For purposes of this clause, a member of the Security Council who is simultaneously the Serving Delegate or Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the line of succession.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Eluvatar's concern is one of my concerns. Although, to be honest, a rogue vice delegate should be stomped out rather quickly. The Security Council exists for these kinds of events.

I get it's not hard to change the LoS, but to let it happen automatically whenever there's a special condition like what currently exists is just more efficient. It would also give the RA more to consider and think about when setting or approving a new line of succession because then positions 4 and 5 become important from a border control perspective.
 
I agree with SillyString. The VD should be able to obtain border control powers, if necessary. We shouldn't be basing the rationale for security limitations around the worst possible (and unlikely) scenarios. Using the logic referenced above by Elu, we should also be prohibiting the Delegate from obtaining BC powers as well since they may use it to maintain executive authority beyond their legal term. Ultimately, I think it comes down to having some faith in the officials we elect.
 
Siwale:
With the logic referenced above by Elu, we should also be prohibiting the Delegate from obtaining BC powers as well since they may use it to maintain executive powers beyond their legal term.
Click to expand...
It is not possible in a founderless region like TNP to restrict the in-game authority of the Delegate through in-game mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Sil Dorsett:
My suggested tweak, for clarity, since the Delegate and VD are not always SCers. Also clarifies which Delegate is excluded (there can be Serving and WA):
The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council who are earliest in the Line of Succession. For purposes of this clause, a member of the Security Council who is simultaneously the Serving Delegate or Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the line of succession.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If we adopted this phrasing instead of mine, then if the VD was absent, and an SCer assumed their duties, we would not be able to give BC powers to an additional SCer lower on the list. Is that intentional?
 
I'd add the stipulation that all 3 of the appointed SC be required to be citizens. This should aid in addressing any speed and flexibility concerns.
 
Janus:
I'd add the stipulation that all 3 of the appointed SC be required to be citizens. This should aid in addressing any speed and flexibility concerns.
Click to expand...
My only problem with this idea is:
Article 7. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category .
6. Any temporary replacement for a government official in the case of an absence or vacancy will be considered a government official in the branch of the official being replaced, regardless of the method of their selection.
7. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain citizenship while in office.
8. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one constitutionally-mandated elected official positions.
10. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.
11. Candidates in any election must maintain citizenship for the fifteen days before the opening of candidacy declarations and throughout the election.
12. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
13. Procedures to fill vacancies and absences in constitutionally-mandated elected offices may be established by law.
14. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
Click to expand...

I think the orginial draft is fine but COE's new markup could also work I guess.
 
IMHO, the best way to assign such duties is to the most active and most endorsed/influential nations in the SC as a matter of practicality and effectiveness.
 
It's becoming apparent to me as I work on the next draft of the Border Control Tweak Bill (which has become a misnomer) that the laws about how duties of the Delegate and VD are passed down the line of succession is spread into too many sections, and the terminology and definitions used are sometimes hard to follow. For instance, "Serving Delegate" is defined in two different chapters of the legal code (the same definition in both, thank flem), while there is no analogous term for the VD. The legal framework is so delicately laid that a minor bill like this requires serious care in phrasing, so as not to upset the whole mess. I'm going to work on a bill with broader scope to clarify this concept, which may take some time. I no longer intend to move forward with this bill, but will incorporate its intent into the larger bill, to be presented at a later time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top