Regional Honorary Awards Proposal

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 for any reason, or without giving any reasons at all.
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 on the TNP side (for example, tech guild etc) 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.
3. This also makes it easier to count who has been "officially" commended, and makes it easier to compile lists of commendees.

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.

Simone:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Robespierre:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Cloud:

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

Click to expand...

I am very much open minded at this stage.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Simone:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I look forward to your feedback.

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Attempted Socialism:

(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.)

Click to expand...

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

Attempted Socialism:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Attempted Socialism:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Simone:

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.

Click to expand...

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

St George:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Simone:

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.

Click to expand...

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

As mentioned, the Legal Code is to make it easier for aspiring writers - a trick I copied from WA obviously. This gives them a template to draft commendations and to remove commendations on a legal basis without too many difficulty.

What I struggle with in current proposed execution is related to MJ’s point. What does this do that we could not do under the current paradigm by means of a non-legislative motion?

Hulldom:

What I struggle with in current proposed execution is related to MJ’s point. What does this do that we could not do under the current paradigm by means of a non-legislative motion?

Click to expand...

It's basically to allow newer authors not to have to write a preamble and to declare that the award can be removed at any time at the discretion, and for any reason (and without any reason). So the RA is in a position to pass a resolution revoking the award without giving any reasons at all. I can spell that out more clearly.

It's a legal protection in case we have OOC issues making it necessary for an award to be revoked in-character without any reason stated.

So it's not actually really clause 23 that's important, it's the ability to revoke an award via clause 24 that's the more important aspect. Clause 25 is just for avoidance of doubt that the IC award is honorary only.

Also this makes it easier to have a template for commends. And to have a list of "official" commendees. In addition, the writing of SC commendations has become very fixed into a single format and it is very difficult to replicate that format without a lot of training.

I still don't see a need for legislating this - all of the supposed justifications for putting it in law can easily be worked around or are, respectfully, not actual problems. If authors can't write a preamble or come up with a justification for why a person should be recognised by the RA beyond the fact that the law allows for it, then that person has no business authoring such a motion.

St George:

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

Click to expand...

I am looking at the Delegate Directives and it's being drafted in terms of Ministry-level Ribbons.

Simone:

I am looking at the Delegate Directives and it's being drafted in terms of Ministry-level Ribbons.

Click to expand...

This has been proposed. (I know that Delegate Directives don't need consultation, but I would like feedback on this).

Note the changes from Draft 1:

1. I've removed the bits on Ministry Awards. I'd leave that for either another Delegate Directive or for each Ministry to set it out themselves, especially as the NPA already has their own awards.

2. I've removed the tiering on Ministry Awards. They are now simply called Polaris Ribbon and Polaris Service Award for simplification.

3.

Draft Delegate Directive (Draft 2)

This Directive sets out conditions for awarding members and formers of the Executive of The North Pacific for their contributions to the region.

Article 1: Polaris Ribbons

1. The Delegate (Serving Delegate) may give out ribbons, known as Polaris Ribbons, as an award for outstanding service to the region over a sustained period.
2. A recipient can receive multiple ribbons for their contributions to the Executive.

Article 2: Polaris Service Awards

1. The Delegate may give out awards, known as the Polaris Service Awards, for excellent service by a member of The North Pacific on a particular project.
2. A recipient can receive a Polaris Service Award (or multiple awards) for different projects in addition to receiving Ribbons for their other contributions to the region.

Article 3: Delegate Hall of Fame / Vice Delegate Hall of Fame

1. The Delegate Hall of Fame (D-HoF) is an award established to recognize the achievements of past Delegates of The North Pacific. A similar Vice Delegate Hall of Fame (VD-HoF) is established to recognize the achievements of past Vice Delegates.
2. Only Delegates and Vice Delegates that have been duly elected under the democratic process of TNP may be eligible. This includes interim delegates.

Article 4: Other Conditions

1. All awards are granted at the sole discretion of the Delegate.
2. Delegates may not give awards to themselves.
3. A proposed recipient may reject an award. This has no effect on whether a proposed recipient is subsequently offered another award.
4. A subsequent Delegate may, by way of a public announcement, revoke an award granted by a previous Delegate.
5. A recipient must currently be, or have previously been, a member of the Executive of The North Pacific to be eligible for the awards. They need not be a current member of the Executive, but cannot be subject to sanctions under TNP laws.
6. A recipient need not be a citizen of The North Pacific at the time an award is made.
7. All awards will be displayed at TNP University and will become a part of the permanent record of The North Pacific.

END


Version 1 below.

Creating Initiatives to award staffers and increase participation in the Executive hmm. You see, the idea is quite good but execution might be a problem. Earlier, I think in 2023 Kaschovia had introduced Staff ratings and rewards in the Ministry of Communication https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9197033/ . But as of latest I believe it is abandoned. Turns out It was difficult to maintain it when they were already struggling staff-wise. Do keep a mental note of this Simone.

Otherwise, Full support!

Simone:

1. No Delegate may not give awards to themselves or to anyone to whom they are related to IRL.

Click to expand...

This feels awkwardly worded. Not sure how I'd fix it.

I hope the final draft uses language substantially similar to existing directives because it doesn't read right from a formality standpoint.

Pallaith:

I hope the final draft uses language substantially similar to existing directives because it doesn't read right from a formality standpoint.

Click to expand...

Um, I have a fairly informal style of writing. Do you have any copyediting suggestions?

Simone:

Um, I have a fairly informal style of writing. Do you have any copyediting suggestions?

Click to expand...

The point of this public review is the substance of the directive, I would be happy to go into the weeds on this but I think that’s best suited in the usual environment. I just wanted to mark the comment here for the record so that there wouldn’t be any publication without a chance to polish up the style of the document.

Pallaith:

The point of this public review is the substance of the directive, I would be happy to go into the weeds on this but I think that’s best suited in the usual environment. I just wanted to mark the comment here for the record so that there wouldn’t be any publication without a chance to polish up the style of the document.

Click to expand...

If you can go into the weeds and edit this, I think that's good. I tend to end up writing really legalese stuff (for work) or really chatty stuff. I'd try to tighten the language a bit.

As per the suggestions of @Comfed and @Picairn I am thinking of calling the Delegate Ribbons "Sapphire" and "Polaris", and I'd run a design competition in TNPU for a design. (Edit: so at least we have some ribbons to consider).

Why run a design competition through TNPU when Comms’ design team exists?

Robespierre:

Why run a design competition through TNPU when Comms’ design team exists?

Click to expand...

I kind of prefer a broader process. I could have put this out as a Delegate Directive directly (as you'd know) but I ended up consulting quite widely.

I've also started the Design Competition.

This Directive sets out conditions for awarding members and formers of the Executive of The North Pacific for their contributions to the region.

Article 1: Polaris Medal

1. The Delegate may give out ribbons, known as Polaris Medal, as an award for outstanding service to the region over a sustained period.
2. A recipient can receive multiple Medals for their contributions to the Executive. Medals can be worn as a Medal and/or as a Ribbon, as desired.

Article 2: Delegate Service Awards

1. The Delegate may give out awards, known as the Delegate Service Awards, for excellent service by a member of The North Pacific on a particular project.
2. A recipient can receive multiple DSAs for multiple projects.

Article 3: Eligibility

1. The sole party determining who is granted the recognition outlined above is the serving Delegate.
2. No Delegate may extend recognition to themselves.
3. If a nominee rejects recognition offered by the Delegate, that recognition will not proceed.
4. All recognition will be publicly declared and in the manner of the Serving Delegate’s choosing. Any recognition that is subsequently revoked will also be publicly declared.
5. Recipients must not be serving a judicial sentence for violations of the criminal code or be otherwise sanctioned or in disrepute, such as by serving an ongoing administrative punishment. Recipients must also not have been removed or barred from the executive staff.
6. All awards will be displayed in the TNP University and will become a matter of public record in The North Pacific.
7. “Delegate” refers to the Serving Delegate.
8. All awards will be displayed at TNP University and will become a part of the public record of The North Pacific.

END

Please note that, to avoid conflicts of interest, I will not accept any subsequent Polaris Medals from a subsequent delegate.

In addition, this has been published as Delegate Directive #12.