Regional Honorary Awards Proposal

[Simone]

Introduction

As promised in my platform, we will look at "strengthening badges, awards and the hall of fame and honors to recognise the heroes of TNP in NPA and elsewhere. These will be integrated into both Discord and Xenforo."

After some further consultation on Discord and taking the feedback below, I believe the simplest way forward is to simply require every honorary award to be subject to RA vote. I have drafted the legislation below.

Proposed legislation

---

Section 9.5 of the TNP Legal Code

23. The Regional Assembly may, by majority vote, grant honorary awards to anyone who has made extensive contributions to The North Pacific.
24. The Regional Assembly may also by majority vote remove such awards at its sole discretion.
25. Being a recipient of an honorary award confers no additional privileges to the recipient.

---

Purpose

As @Attempted Socialism and others have put it more succinctly than I can, this would give the regional assembly a simple pathway to:

1. Recognise anyone whose extensive contributions may be largely "unsung", such as backend or technology work, or involve significant OOC work that cannot be recognised on the NS site. (Even though this is an IC award, as this is not on NS site, there are likely to be significantly more ways for us to fit the OOC contributions to suit the IC.)
2. Remove recipients from being subject to the vagaries of the NS Security Council, given how much that is driven by GP or other considerations. Having our own awards to hand out to TNP participants give us more flexibility.

Drafting

I am proposing to put this at the very end of the Legal Code, after the official religion. I believe having a section in the Legal Code is more efficient - it makes future proposals for granting honorary awards not having to justify itself as to the legal basis for the at-vote within the act presented to the RA itself, so the drafting of the commendations, citations etc., would be a lot easier in terms of having fewer preambles etc.

There are some considerations:

1. The awards are not named in the Legal Code, it simply refers to "honorary awards". This gives the RA maximum flexibility in how to call it, or have different awards created for different recipients.
2. Clause 24 is added to allow the RA to also remove an award at any time. I added "at its sole discretion" so that the award can be removed for any reason, or without any reasons at all - this is in case we end up removing an award for OOC reasons, as has happened in WASC, and we may not want to cite a reason.
3. Clause 25 is simply to clarify that the award is honorary only and confers no powers.

One additional major reason for putting this on a statutory footing (in the Legal Code) is that the learning curve for a prospective writer of the regional award proposal can be lower - it is plausible to have a simplified format such as:

"Under Section 9.5 of the Legal Code, the Regional Assembly hereby awards (name of award)... for the following reasons: (and then goes to the 20 reasons for the nominee)"


Display

1. Honorees can have a special color in the TNP Gen Discord. What color is up to Admin, in my view.
2. There should eventually be a badge in Xenforo as well, similar to the one/two stars received by supporters/sustainers. The Admin and the RA can decide later how many stars it has.

Other issues

• Candidates can decline awards. As this is TNP internal, anyone who wants to decline an award can say so easily.
• For the avoidance of doubt, I will decline all awards because I thought of this idea and it was in my Platform.

Delegate/Ministry Awards

• Delegate/Ministry Awards would simply be established via Delegate Directives. Since they can be overturned at Delegate/Ministerial levels, they are obviously less prestigious than a RA award.

Spoiler: Some preliminary thoughts related to service medals

Service Medal - Conferred by Delegate? (Speaker? Minister?)

This is a lower level award for service on a particular project or for long term service to certain ministries or communities (including roleplay, RMB, games, etc).

I am open as to how this is nominated, whether it's the same as the other process or different. Whether it is a RA conferment, or conferred by a Minister, or Delegate, and who decides on these. One possibility is that each branch of government has one and is conferred by that branch’s head.

Spoiler: Some preliminary thoughts related to NSSC

Some additional thoughts on NSSC which were largely preliminary

Some additional thoughts

There are probably four categories of nominees, at least for the TNP Regional Hall of Fame (or whatever the name is):

1. Nominees who would qualify for a NSSC Commend anyway (or who already have one) - so Ghost, Elu, Eras, McMasterdonia, Hulldom for example are all in this category. It is worth debating whether a duplication makes sense - see the discussion regarding McM's nomination of Ghost in February.
2. Nominees who declined to accept an NSSC Commend, but who may consider accepting a TNP Regional Award instead - it's a possibility, I simply don't know how many people are in this category.
3. Nominees who may quality for a NSSC Commend, but will require some heavy selling and superior writing - I won't name names here, but there are several nominees from Heroes of Valhalla or from TNP MoWAA nominations who can be pushed to commend level but with drafts stuck in limbo. We should eventually aim for them all to get an NSSC Commend, the TNP Hall of Fame is more a stepping stone (I guess, for lack of a better word).
4. Nominees whose work do not qualify for NSSC Commend, because it's mostly TNP internal or off-site. Sil Dorsett (as chief election commissioner and administrator) comes to mind. TNP RP also comes to mind - RP in general is very under-represented in NSSC as many RPers simply do not consider an NSSC Commend to be valuable.

 

[Cloud]

Service Medal - Conferred by Delegate? (Speaker? Minister?)

This is a lower level award for service on a particular project or for long term service to certain ministries or communities (including roleplay, RMB, games, etc).

I am open as to how this is nominated, whether it's the same as the other process or different. Whether it is a RA conferment, or conferred by a Minister, or Delegate, and who decides on these. One possibility is that each branch of government has one and is conferred by that branch’s head.

As this is a lower-level award, I think it should be under your purview, the Executive, and not the Speaker’s Office. I’m not sure the Speaker should be giving out any awards at all.
posting this as a citizen ftr

 

[Robespierre]

Something like this has been proposed before.

Please see that discussion for further details if you're not already familiar with what the consensus was on that. TL;DR we do not need this. Regardless of the nominees for said awards, it's unnecessary. No support.

 

[Picairn]

I'm not sold on RA Commendations/Hall of Fame, but more awards from the Executive can be good. I also prefer the NPA's Hall of Honour to remain separate from other reward systems.

 

[Simone]

I don't think that I've ever seen a commendation originate from here in the Regional Assembly before, but Ghost is certainly deserving of such recognition if anyone is. This part, in particular, stands out to me as being truly impressive:



I hadn't realized that, so I'm glad it's a stat that's been included in the commendation itself. Suffice it to say, I support this.

Something like this has been proposed before.

Please see that discussion for further details if you're not already familiar with what the consensus was on that. TL;DR we do not need this. Regardless of the nominees for said awards, it's unnecessary. No support.

Actually you supported the idea of commending Pallaith in February, I read that thread. I think there was no overwhelming support for it rather than that there is no support for it.

 

[Simone]

As this is a lower-level award, I think it should be under your purview, the Executive, and not the Speaker’s Office. I’m not sure the Speaker should be giving out any awards at all.
posting this as a citizen ftr

I am very much open minded at this stage.

I'm not sold on RA Commendations/Hall of Fame, but more awards from the Executive can be good. I also prefer the NPA's Hall of Honour to remain separate from other reward systems.

Again, open-minded. I have not even drafted the Legal Code change that I suspect will be necessary if we go down the path of a Delegate's Service Medal.

 

[Robespierre]

Actually you supported the idea of commending Pallaith in February, I read that thread. I think there was no overwhelming support for it rather than that there is no support for it.

Yes, I’m aware. I supported it because the nominee was particularly impressive. This proposal, however, isn’t attached to any particular nominee. Instead, it’s a framework for commendations carte blanche.

I don’t really find that necessary or desirable at the present time, although Ghost would’ve been a worthy nominee had something been done with that previous attempt in February.

Hope this helps!

 

[Hulldom]

I actually thought about something like this while I was Delegate, though it never ended up with even a blueprint for what to do and how to do it. I’ll give the ideas themselves a perusal later, but tentatively I like the idea—just a matter of execution.

 

[Attempted Socialism]

Two comments about the almost always political and sometimes contentious nature of TNP:
If an honour can be bestowed upon a recipient by public vote and taken back by public vote, that puts emphasis on the recipient being popular and their role public-facing. That popularity or the specific roles are not necessarily what takes the most effort, or is the most conducive to regional well-being. In a way this mimics Goodhart's Law: If our service is to be measured in honours and awards, that risks changing what counts as service. That can be counteracted by conscientiously awarding honours despite a lack of publicity or public acclaim for the service performed, and restraint if an honoured person later disappoints by not removing their honour without good cause. It is also very plausible that such an honour, while prestigious, is simply not so prestigious as to crowd out current reasons for service. We have seen people step up and take positions with high workload, little public acclaim, and lots of public scrutiny if something goes wrong (E.g. the Election Commission). If we are mindful of this we might even make our honours system work in our favour, if the RA gives extra credit for widespread, long-term, diligent service in otherwise non-celebrated roles.
(A thought that occurred to me after writing this is how such an honour should take IC/OOC actions into account. The RA is IC, but some very important work has been done OOC -- such as rebuilding our tech infrastructure -- and we can all definitely imagine OOC actions that would warrant retracting IC honours.)

For the executive honours I see a different pressure. If it is bestowed by the Delegate, presumably it can also be removed by the Delegate (Or Minister, in case it is a Ministerial honour). If one Delegate bestows the honour selectively, but the next grants it to everyone, it cheapens the honour not just for the many recipients of the second Delegate but also for the few of the first. And while not likely at the moment, we might see a Delegate retract honours granted to a predecessor's favourites if factionalism gets too out of hand. We could also see it used as a reward/punishment system if not planned for. This latter risk might need an illustrative example. Think back to Gorundu's recall, where a number of Ministers resigned or voted for the recall. A less scrupulous Delegate in that situation could have used honours as carrot and stick to whip votes on the recall motion.
Like above, however, I can see several countermeasures to this. First, in order to curb inflation in honours I suggest it is limited to a few per term. A Delegate may bestow fewer honours but not more honours. Second, a recipient can't have their honour retracted by the Delegate acting unilaterally, but has to have a sign-off from some other institution (RA vote most likely, though RA Speaker or Justices are also possible). Third, a Delegate's picks for the honours should get 'locked in' only toward the end of term, but before voting starts. Fourth, any honour should come with a general description of the recipient's service, analoguous to how the RA would have a debate thread with a justification for the motion put.

I'm in favour of the general idea as long as it is implemented right, so my comments are geared towards how to avoid pitfalls and not a critique of the concept.

 

[St George]

I don't see how a formal awards system, enshrined by law, is desirable in any way. It's one of those vapid Europeia-style things that leads to people recognised beyond their talent level or achievements because they did things the established regime liked, even if those things were objectively or morally bad.

 

[Simone]

I actually thought about something like this while I was Delegate, though it never ended up with even a blueprint for what to do and how to do it. I’ll give the ideas themselves a perusal later, but tentatively I like the idea—just a matter of execution.

I look forward to your feedback.

Two comments about the almost always political and sometimes contentious nature of TNP:
If an honour can be bestowed upon a recipient by public vote and taken back by public vote, that puts emphasis on the recipient being popular and their role public-facing. That popularity or the specific roles are not necessarily what takes the most effort, or is the most conducive to regional well-being. In a way this mimics Goodhart's Law: If our service is to be measured in honours and awards, that risks changing what counts as service. That can be counteracted by conscientiously awarding honours despite a lack of publicity or public acclaim for the service performed, and restraint if an honoured person later disappoints by not removing their honour without good cause. It is also very plausible that such an honour, while prestigious, is simply not so prestigious as to crowd out current reasons for service. We have seen people step up and take positions with high workload, little public acclaim, and lots of public scrutiny if something goes wrong (E.g. the Election Commission). If we are mindful of this we might even make our honours system work in our favour, if the RA gives extra credit for widespread, long-term, diligent service in otherwise non-celebrated roles.

I would say "defer to the wisdom of the RA". The election for Delegate itself is a popularity contest anyway. My own nominations would definitely more concentrate on the "unsung heroes of TNP". I assume I would urge people to make our honors system work in our favor by honoring more of the "unsung heroes of TNP".

(A thought that occurred to me after writing this is how such an honour should take IC/OOC actions into account. The RA is IC, but some very important work has been done OOC -- such as rebuilding our tech infrastructure -- and we can all definitely imagine OOC actions that would warrant retracting IC honours.)

That's one of the suggestions I made in the Discord as well - hard to give honors for OOC actions.

For the executive honours I see a different pressure. If it is bestowed by the Delegate, presumably it can also be removed by the Delegate (Or Minister, in case it is a Ministerial honour). If one Delegate bestows the honour selectively, but the next grants it to everyone, it cheapens the honour not just for the many recipients of the second Delegate but also for the few of the first. And while not likely at the moment, we might see a Delegate retract honours granted to a predecessor's favourites if factionalism gets too out of hand. We could also see it used as a reward/punishment system if not planned for. This latter risk might need an illustrative example. Think back to Gorundu's recall, where a number of Ministers resigned or voted for the recall. A less scrupulous Delegate in that situation could have used honours as carrot and stick to whip votes on the recall motion.

If the honors can be rescinded quickly by the next delegate, then it's pretty cheapening anyway, and I suspect any delegate who hands out honors willy-nilly or who rescinds honours willy-nilly will face the wrath of the RA. And a Delegate is always sitting on a hot stove, after all 2/3 of the RA can vote for a recall. I think it's an honors system thing (pun not intended) that the Delegate is not going to use honors to play politics.

Like above, however, I can see several countermeasures to this. First, in order to curb inflation in honours I suggest it is limited to a few per term. A Delegate may bestow fewer honours but not more honours. Second, a recipient can't have their honour retracted by the Delegate acting unilaterally, but has to have a sign-off from some other institution (RA vote most likely, though RA Speaker or Justices are also possible). Third, a Delegate's picks for the honours should get 'locked in' only toward the end of term, but before voting starts. Fourth, any honour should come with a general description of the recipient's service, analoguous to how the RA would have a debate thread with a justification for the motion put.

I'm in favour of the general idea as long as it is implemented right, so my comments are geared towards how to avoid pitfalls and not a critique of the concept.

One possibility is to hand out Delegate related honors so that they are available only as "end of office" honors only (so similar to Resignation Honours in the British government). This does not really matter if the Delegate resigns of their own accord (as happened in 2023), their two terms come up (as happened this May) or they choose not to run for a second term (happened numerous times in recent years).

In this scenario, a delegate that lost a bid for re-election can hand out awards (and the incoming Delegate has to award those, as the changeover in Serving Delegate takes place pretty quickly). But striking out the awards require an RA vote. I think RA vote is simplest, because ultimately the Delegate is responsible to the RA - the RA votes for the Delegate and the RA can recall the Delegate.

I don't see how a formal awards system, enshrined by law, is desirable in any way. It's one of those vapid Europeia-style things that leads to people recognised beyond their talent level or achievements because they did things the established regime liked, even if those things were objectively or morally bad.

It's a consultation at this stage, but I lean towards having one at the regional level, largely to recognise folks who won't get NSSC recognition for one reason or another.

 

[St George]

It's a consultation at this stage, but I lean towards having one at the regional level, largely to recognise folks who won't get NSSC recognition for one reason or another.

So establish one - you have the power. It doesn't need to be legislated on.

 

[Simone]

So establish one - you have the power. It doesn't need to be legislated on.

I've revised the OP and left the previous texts in spoilers. Basically I am now thinking that the only one involving RA is if RA wants to really recognise someone, it makes sense to amend the Legal Code to do so, so as to make it clear that (1) honorary awards don't confer any additional privileges and (2) whatever RA gives, the RA can take away.

This would make writing the citations/commendations considerably easier.

 

[St George]

I've revised the OP and left the previous texts in spoilers. Basically I am now thinking that the only one involving RA is if RA wants to really recognise someone, it makes sense to amend the Legal Code to do so, so as to make it clear that (1) honorary awards don't confer any additional privileges and (2) whatever RA gives, the RA can take away.

If the RA wants to recognise someone, it can already do so, by passing a motion recognising them.