Endorsement Simplification Act

[Rocketdog]

The Security Council has been discussing endorsement gathering. To improve the calculating of reckless endorsement gathering, the proposal bases it as a percentage WA delegate (instead of the previous VD minimums). This simplifies the the calculation and keeps the threshold consistent regardless of VD/Delegate transitions. Furthermore this change also helps keep a more resonable gap between the SCers and other WA nations.

1. Chapter 5 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

8. The Serving Delegate is responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in The North Pacific. Serving Frontier Delegates are responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific.
9. The Vice Delegate is responsible for maintaining an endorsement count at least that of 90 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement count. Frontier Vice Delegates are responsible for maintaining an endorsement count at least that of 70 per cent of the Frontier WA Delegate’s endorsement count in their respective territories of The North Pacific.
10. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate, or the Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate, is below this level, they must promptly act to gather sufficient endorsements to meet or exceed the requirement.
11. Frontier Vice Delegates are responsible for setting a endorsement cap.
12. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate, or the Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or the respective territory to which it is assigned; or resigns from the World Assembly, their office will be considered vacant.
13. If the Vice Delegate is temporarily unavailable, the Council may task one of its members with performing the duties of the Vice Delegate. The Council may hold a confirmation vote, but is not required to do so.
14. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate. During any period when serving as acting Frontier Delegate, Frontier Vice Delegates will be considered absent from the office of Frontier Vice Delegate.

22. The Serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:

• It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
• It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
• It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
• It has more endorsements than 80 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement level.

23. The Serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds 85 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement level.
24. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
25. Unless a delegacy emergency is in effect, any Council member who exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count while the Vice Delegate is above the required minimum for their position must stop seeking endorsements until they have fewer than the Vice Delegate.
26. Serving Frontier Delegates may eject or ban any nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds the respective territories endorsement cap
27. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside the territory of The North Pacific.

Spoiler: Markup

8. The Serving Delegate is responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in The North Pacific. Serving Frontier Delegates are responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific.
9. The Vice Delegate is responsible for maintaining an minimum endorsement count at least that of 90 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement count, minus one-fifth of the total number of WA nations in the region. Frontier Vice Delegates are responsible for maintaining an minimum endorsement count at least that of 70 per cent of the Frontier WA Delegate’s endorsement count, minus one-fifth of the total number of WA nations in their respective territories of The North Pacific.
10. Frontier Vice Delegates are responsible for setting a endorsement cap in their respective territories of The North Pacific..
10 11. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate, or the Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate, is below this level, they must promptly act to gather sufficient endorsements to meet or exceed the requirement.
11 12. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate, or the Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or the respective territory to which it is assigned; or resigns from the World Assembly, their office will be considered vacant.
12 13. If the Vice Delegate is temporarily unavailable, the Council may task one of its members with performing the duties of the Vice Delegate. The Council may hold a confirmation vote, but is not required to do so.
13 14. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate. During any period when serving as acting Frontier Delegate, Frontier Vice Delegates will be considered absent from the office of Frontier Vice Delegate.

22. The Serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:

• It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
• It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
• It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
• It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 80 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.

23. The Serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count 85 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement level.
24. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
25. Unless a delegacy emergency is in effect, any Council member who exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count while the Vice Delegate is above the required minimum for their position must stop seeking endorsements until they have fewer than the Vice Delegate.
26. Serving Frontier Delegates may eject or ban any nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:

• It is not holding the office of Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate.
• It has been reported to the Frontier Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
• It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements.
• It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 per cent of the Frontier WA Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.

2726. Serving Frontier Delegates may eject or ban any nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds the Frontier Vice Delegate’s required minimum endorsement count the respective territories endorsement cap.
2627. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside the territory of The North Pacific.

Spoiler: Version 2

8. The Serving Delegate is responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in The North Pacific. Serving Frontier Delegates are responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific.
9. The Vice Delegate is responsible for maintaining an minimum endorsement count at least that of 90 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement count, minus one-fifth of the total number of WA nations in the region. Frontier Vice Delegates are responsible for maintaining an minimum endorsement count at least that of 70 per cent of the Frontier WA Delegate’s endorsement count, minus one-fifth of the total number of WA nations in their respective territories of The North Pacific.
10. Frontier Vice Delegates are responsible for setting a endorsement cap in their respective territories of The North Pacific..
10 11. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate, or the Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate, is below this level, they must promptly act to gather sufficient endorsements to meet or exceed the requirement.
11 12. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate, or the Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or the respective territory to which it is assigned; or resigns from the World Assembly, their office will be considered vacant.
12 13. If the Vice Delegate is temporarily unavailable, the Council may task one of its members with performing the duties of the Vice Delegate. The Council may hold a confirmation vote, but is not required to do so.
13 14. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate. During any period when serving as acting Frontier Delegate, Frontier Vice Delegates will be considered absent from the office of Frontier Vice Delegate.

22. The Serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:

• It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
• It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
• It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
• It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 80 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.

23. The Serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count 85 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement level.
24. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
25. Unless a delegacy emergency is in effect, any Council member who exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count while the Vice Delegate is above the required minimum for their position must stop seeking endorsements until they have fewer than the Vice Delegate.

26. Serving Frontier Delegates may eject or ban any nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:

• It is not holding the office of Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate.
• It has been reported to the Frontier Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
• It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements.
• It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 per cent of the Frontier WA Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least the endorsment cap of their respective territories of The North Pacific.

27. Serving Frontier Delegates may eject or ban any nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds the Frontier Vice Delegate’s required minimum endorsement count 30 per cent of the Frontier WA Delegate's endorsement level.
28. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside the territory of The North Pacific.

Spoiler: Version 1

8. The Serving Delegate is responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in The North Pacific. Serving Frontier Delegates are responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific.
9. The Vice Delegate is responsible for maintaining an minimum endorsement count at least that of 90 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement count, minus one-fifth of the total number of WA nations in the region. Frontier Vice Delegates are responsible for maintaining an minimum endorsement count at least that of 70 per cent of the Frontier WA Delegate’s endorsement count, minus one-fifth of the total number of WA nations in their respective territories of The North Pacific.
10. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate, or the Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate, is below this level, they must promptly act to gather sufficient endorsements to meet or exceed the requirement.
11. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate, or the Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or the respective territory to which it is assigned; or resigns from the World Assembly, their office will be considered vacant.
12. If the Vice Delegate is temporarily unavailable, the Council may task one of its members with performing the duties of the Vice Delegate. The Council may hold a confirmation vote, but is not required to do so.
13. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate. During any period when serving as acting Frontier Delegate, Frontier Vice Delegates will be considered absent from the office of Frontier Vice Delegate.

22. The Serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:

• It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
• It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
• It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
• It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 80 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.

23. The Serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count 85 per cent of the WA Delegate's endorsement level.
24. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
25. Unless a delegacy emergency is in effect, any Council member who exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count while the Vice Delegate is above the required minimum for their position must stop seeking endorsements until they have fewer than the Vice Delegate.

26. Serving Frontier Delegates may eject or ban any nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:

• It is not holding the office of Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate.
• It has been reported to the Frontier Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
• It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements.
• It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 55 per cent of the Frontier WA Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.

27. Serving Frontier Delegates may eject or ban any nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds the Frontier Vice Delegate’s required minimum endorsement count 65 per cent of the Frontier WA Delegate's endorsement level.
28. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside the territory of The North Pacific.

 

[Fregerson]

Truly a necessary change and the numbers look okay to me. Support.

 

[Eluvatar]

Why the change from having the vice delegate required endorsement level equal the fast track ejection threshold? I think the justification for the fast track threshold was to make sure the Vice Delegate does have the second most endorsements.

This seems to shift us closer to a plain endorsement cap, and away from our traditional gentle touch.

 

[St George]

I don't see a need for this.

 

[Rocketdog]

Why the change from having the vice delegate required endorsement level equal the fast track ejection threshold? I think the justification for the fast track threshold was to make sure the Vice Delegate does have the second most endorsements.

This seems to shift us closer to a plain endorsement cap, and away from our traditional gentle touch.

The existing vice delegate required endorsement level as of this post is 576, which sits at roughly 55% of WA nations.

WA nations are starting to being close to reaching that threshold. This act raises fast track threshold to just below where security councillors endorsement sits, whist keeping the our gentle touch we already have.

 

[Eluvatar]

One explanation for WA nations nearing that threshold is that relative endorsement levels have changed due to decline in WA population. Another is that the slow track process (with two+ warnings, further detailed in the SC procedures I think), which involves friendly contact with endorsement gatherers, isn't being implemented.

Tell me about how the Security Council is or is not implementing the slow track process?

 

[Great Bights Mum]

One explanation for WA nations nearing that threshold is that relative endorsement levels have changed due to decline in WA population. Another is that the slow track process (with two+ warnings, further detailed in the SC procedures I think), which involves friendly contact with endorsement gatherers, isn't being implemented.

Tell me about how the Security Council is or is not implementing the slow track process?

Every nation above the threshold is contacted, and the SC tracks the "friendly warning" process. We ran into a situation where there were approximately 20 nations who were technically out of compliance, but were nowhere near being an actual security threat. This act will serve to allow high endorsers to continue gathering endorsements while aligning our practices to focus on real threats.

I would be happy if some of you math wizards here could look at how this proposed change affects real numbers at various endo levels for both the delegate and vice-delegate. I would like to be sure we aren't becoming unnecessarily vulnerable given the changing WA numbers.

 

[Dreadton]

Why not take this opportunity to adjust 5.4.25. Not letting SCs endorse during a transition always seemed strange and in all practicallity this law shouldnt go into affect until the VD is closer to the SC in endorsements

 

[Ferdinand IV]

I see no reason why these amendments shouldn't be adopted, I support these changes and believe they will ensure the security of the region in times of uncertainty like these.

 

[Comfed]

The new numbers within TNP seem reasonable to me.

The new ejection thresholds for frontier territories, however, are not. They're recklessly high. In a frontier, the security system has to be optimized to prevent the possibility of a raid from an outside agent. We, a feeder, have the privilege of over 1000 WA nations and nearly 800 delegate endorsements; we can afford a free endotarting culture, and go to sleep at night knowing that an unknown sleeper nation can't just take the delegacy. A frontier does not have that luxury. Except for perhaps Concord and Europeia (which I very much doubt are about to become our territories), none of them have enough endorsements on their delegate to justify allowing any random nation to approach over half the delegate's count.

 

[Ferdinand IV]

The new numbers within TNP seem reasonable to me.

The new ejection thresholds for frontier territories, however, are not. They're recklessly high. In a frontier, the security system has to be optimized to prevent the possibility of a raid from an outside agent. We, a feeder, have the privilege of over 1000 WA nations and nearly 800 delegate endorsements; we can afford a free endotarting culture, and go to sleep at night knowing that an unknown sleeper nation can't just take the delegacy. A frontier does not have that luxury. Except for perhaps Concord and Europeia (which I very much doubt are about to become our territories), none of them have enough endorsements on their delegate to justify allowing any random nation to approach over half the delegate's count.

This is something I didn't take into account when reading the amendments over. I'm in heavy agreement that the ejection threshold is overly high. If this Act is to be adopted then the threshold must be heavily lowered to ensure the security of TNP and its Frontiers. I also request what Frontiers currently are associated with TNP.

 

[Rocketdog]

Why not take this opportunity to adjust 5.4.25. Not letting SCs endorse during a transition always seemed strange and in all practicallity this law shouldnt go into affect until the VD is closer to the SC in endorsements

With the changes to the VD minimum, 5.4.25 will now only effect the top half of the SCs as the VD minimum is now higher (as of this post if the Act was implemented it would be at 708). The minimum wouldn't change wildly as it will be based on the WA Delegate.

 

[Former English Colony]

I think we might need to separate the language for frontier territories versus the main region.

One concern with the current system is that it is tricky for nations not well versed in the region to know the maximum they're supposed to stop at. And that number changes daily and requires some work to figure out (who's VD, what are their endos) plus more math. Keeping it based on the top spot plus a flat percentage calculation means it's easier for those getting cautioned to keep themselves in check. We don't want to keep TGing people that are just having some simple fun.

 

[Rocketdog]

The new numbers within TNP seem reasonable to me.

The new ejection thresholds for frontier territories, however, are not. They're recklessly high. In a frontier, the security system has to be optimized to prevent the possibility of a raid from an outside agent. We, a feeder, have the privilege of over 1000 WA nations and nearly 800 delegate endorsements; we can afford a free endotarting culture, and go to sleep at night knowing that an unknown sleeper nation can't just take the delegacy. A frontier does not have that luxury. Except for perhaps Concord and Europeia (which I very much doubt are about to become our territories), none of them have enough endorsements on their delegate to justify allowing any random nation to approach over half the delegate's count.

For 5.4.26, would the changing percentage from 55% to 40% and for 5.4.27 65% to 50% (fast track threshold) be better?
We might need another system for Frontiers and have a stricter endorsement culture.

 

[Comfed]

For 5.4.26, would the changing percentage from 55% to 40% and for 5.4.27 65% to 50% (fast track threshold) be better?

It would only be marginally better but still unacceptably dangerous. Take a look at the list of frontiers and ask yourself how many of them would be safe with unknown nations at 40-50% of the delegate's endorsements. Bear in mind that an updater force of 50-60 is potentially in the cards, and most frontiers would require a far smaller force to be seized under this new system.

We might need another system for Frontiers and have a stricter endorsement culture.

Yes, this is what we need. The modified regime presented in the OP assumes the possibility of an active endotarting culture in the frontiers when this is not the case. In reality, most major frontiers do not elect their delegate, leaving it to a highly trusted nation, and restrict the endorsement levels of non-SC/guardian/whatever nations to a very small amount. The law should take that into account.

 

[Rocketdog]

I have added a clause in 5.2 for frontier VD's to set an endorsement cap and change 5.4.26 to the endorsement cap and 5.27 to 45% (fast track threshold).

I think we need to set and endorsement cap for frontiers, dont know if the VD should be responsible and if its in the correct section of the legal code.

 

[Ferdinand IV]

I have added a clause in 5.2 for frontier VD's to set an endorsement cap and change 5.4.26 to the endorsement cap and 5.27 to 45% (fast track threshold).

I think we need to set and endorsement cap for frontiers, dont know if the VD should be responsible and if its in the correct section of the legal code.

I still find the 45% to be dangerous high, I’d recommend instead 20% or lower as frontiers will have a lot less nations and thus more exploitable to possible dangers that may invade a frontier.

Say a frontier has about 90 endorsements. With the way things are a nation can obtain about 40 endorsements leaving a 50 endorsement gap between the delegate. A large coalition of invaders would not be necessary if they were to invade it, leaving it as a highly vulnerable position. Now say that nation was involved in the possible raid and now the frontier is easily taken during the NS update. Now instead let’s say it is set at 20%. Sure it’s a lot lower of a cap and a lot more strict, but given the circumstances TNP is in it’s worth the restriction. A nation now can only gain 18 endorsements before possibly being ejected making it much more difficult for possible infiltrators to gain control.

Now it is once again a low and strict cap, but keep in mind that 5.27 if simply allows nations to be ejected, it is not forced. That appears to be what sir Rocketdog had in mind when setting the limit as 45%, but this just an assumption. So all in all I believe putting strict limits on endorsement gathering will provide greater security, and that the amendments presented should be adjusted to reflect this.

 

[Rocketdog]

I still find the 45% to be dangerous high, I’d recommend instead 20% or lower as frontiers will have a lot less nations and thus more exploitable to possible dangers that may invade a frontier.

Say a frontier has about 90 endorsements. With the way things are a nation can obtain about 40 endorsements leaving a 50 endorsement gap between the delegate. A large coalition of invaders would not be necessary if they were to invade it, leaving it as a highly vulnerable position. Now say that nation was involved in the possible raid and now the frontier is easily taken during the NS update. Now instead let’s say it is set at 20%. Sure it’s a lot lower of a cap and a lot more strict, but given the circumstances TNP is in it’s worth the restriction. A nation now can only gain 18 endorsements before possibly being ejected making it much more difficult for possible infiltrators to gain control.

Now it is once again a low and strict cap, but keep in mind that 5.27 if simply allows nations to be ejected, it is not forced. That appears to be what sir Rocketdog had in mind when setting the limit as 45%, but this just an assumption. So all in all I believe putting strict limits on endorsement gathering will provide greater security, and that the amendments presented should be adjusted to reflect this.

I need it to be higher then the endorsement cap that the frontier would set, which is the strict cap, so i have amended it to 30% might be a good area based on 25% endorsment cap that is seen in large frontiers.

The other option is seeting 5.27 to be a certain percentage / amount above the territories endorsement cap which may be better, at roughly 30 - 40% of the endorsment cap
possibly?

 

[Ferdinand IV]

The other option is seeting 5.27 to be a certain percentage / amount above the territories endorsement cap which may be better, at roughly 30 - 40% of the endorsment cap
possibly?

I believe that’d be better, I’d argue for still a lower percentage if we’re saying for an endorsement cap. Realistically a complicit nation would work to have their endorsement count lower than the cap, so I believe 10 or 15% exceeding the cap should warrant a possible ban ejection.

 

[Robespierre]

It's taken me awhile to look at this proposal more closely but, broadly speaking, I'd say that I'm in favor of it.

The new wording seems to make things clearer and keeps the law consistent during times of transition. It's a lot easier for people to grasp than the VD's minimum is, I'd say.

 

[Ferdinand IV]

I believe that’d be better, I’d argue for still a lower percentage if we’re saying for an endorsement cap. Realistically a complicit nation would work to have their endorsement count lower than the cap, so I believe 10 or 15% exceeding the cap should warrant a possible ban ejection.

Upon rereading, I now believe it'd be better if 5.27 were removed entirely since it's already written that Delegates may eject anyone who has surpassed the endorsement cap of the respective region.
Alternatively, 5.27 could be rewritten so that delegates must eject nations that exceed a certain percentage of an endorsement cap, but I believe this isn't necessary.
Everything else in this act I support.

 

[Rocketdog]

Upon rereading, I now believe it'd be better if 5.27 were removed entirely since it's already written that Delegates may eject anyone who has surpassed the endorsement cap of the respective region.
Alternatively, 5.27 could be rewritten so that delegates must eject nations that exceed a certain percentage of an endorsement cap, but I believe this isn't necessary.
Everything else in this act I support.

It needs to meet all of the criteria in 5.26 for that ejection to happen. I don't wish to eject someone simply because for one update there are just above the endorsement cap by one. Also 5.27 gives powers to the directly to the delegate if the VD or security council are slow to react for any reason.

 

[Ferdinand IV]

It needs to meet all of the criteria in 5.26 for that ejection to happen. I don't wish to eject someone simply because for one update there are just above the endorsement cap by one. Also 5.27 gives powers to the directly to the delegate if the VD or security council are slow to react for any reason.

Ah alright. Then my earlier opinion still stands.

 

[Comfed]

It needs to meet all of the criteria in 5.26 for that ejection to happen. I don't wish to eject someone simply because for one update there are just above the endorsement cap by one. Also 5.27 gives powers to the directly to the delegate if the VD or security council are slow to react for any reason.

Maybe you don't wish to instantly eject someone who has gone over the cap, and indeed I would agree that it would be improper to do so in TNP, but a frontier can't afford the same luxuries as we can. Functionally, the point at which nations can be ejected with no warning is the endorsement cap, not the number of endorsements that this bill says is the endorsement cap. Put another way, a malicious nation intending to invade a frontier could simply surpass the endorsement cap, wait for the two warnings, and after they have received the second warning just stop endotarting. Since they technically complied with the warnings and are no longer "actively gathering endorsements," they couldn't be ejected, even if at their endorsement level they obviously represent a threat.

 

[Rocketdog]

Ah alright. Then my earlier opinion still stands.

Maybe you don't wish to instantly eject someone who has gone over the cap, and indeed I would agree that it would be improper to do so in TNP, but a frontier can't afford the same luxuries as we can. Functionally, the point at which nations can be ejected with no warning is the endorsement cap, not the number of endorsements that this bill says is the endorsement cap. Put another way, a malicious nation intending to invade a frontier could simply surpass the endorsement cap, wait for the two warnings, and after they have received the second warning just stop endotarting. Since they technically complied with the warnings and are no longer "actively gathering endorsements," they couldn't be ejected, even if at their endorsement level they obviously represent a threat.

Thoughts on changing 5.26 to

26. Serving Frontier Delegates may eject or ban any nation in their respective territories of The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:

• It is not holding the office of Frontier Delegate or Frontier Vice Delegate.
• It has been reported to the Frontier Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
• It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements.
• It has more endorsements than the endorsment cap of their respective territories of The North Pacific.

Otherwise I am happy to delete the clause and have 5.27 be the only mechanism for territories.

 

[Comfed]

Thoughts on changing 5.26 to

Otherwise I am happy to delete the clause and have 5.27 be the only mechanism for territories.

Without the bit about warnings, I'm not sure what this clause does substantively that c 27 doesn't, given that point 2 is a mere formality and point 3 is extremely broad without the qualifier "after two warnings against gathering endorsements." I'd say that having c 27 be the sole mechanism for territories, if it's based on the endorsement cap and not some other arbitrarily set threshold, would be a better solution, but this is fine too.

 

[Ferdinand IV]

Thoughts on changing 5.26 to

Otherwise I am happy to delete the clause and have 5.27 be the only mechanism for territories.

I’m fine with this, still preferably would like the percentage to be lowered or changed to the endo cap and also lowered.

 

[Rocketdog]

Changed to delete clause 26 and have clause 27 reference the endorsement cap.

 

[Ferdinand IV]

The changes made are sufficient enough, I support all amendments presented.

 

[Rocketdog]

I move for a vote.

 

[Robespierre]

EDIT: Unneeded second.

 

[Picairn]

Motion and second recognised. A vote has been scheduled to open at (time=1710514800).

Motion recognised. The bill will be at formal debate for 5 days, after which a vote will be scheduled.

 

[Rocketdog]

I request a shortened formal debate period.

 

[St George]

I request a shortened formal debate period.

Unless otherwise overruled by the Speaker, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to shorten formal debate to anything less than 3 days, rather than 5.

Accordingly, formal debate is now 3 days.

 

[AraFuttio]

Unless otherwise overruled by the Speaker, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to shorten formal debate to anything less than 3 days, rather than 5.

Accordingly, formal debate is now 3 days.

I concur with this. The bill is not particularly urgent.

 

[St George]

Formal debate has expired and a vote has been scheduled to start shortly.

 

[St George]

The vote has now started