Establishing a reasonable influence requirement to join the Security Council

[Gorundu]

A few months ago @Sil Dorsett made this observation in his Vice Delegate's report:

Fun Fact: Did you know that The North Pacific has zero nations that qualify for the alternative influence requirement to apply for the Security Council? That's right! The influence requirement to apply to the Security Council is currently 182,500 OR an influence rank of Apprentice. We have no Apprentices! The next level down is Squire, and we have 122 of those. Also, did you know that in order to maintain 182,500 influence, you need 507 endorsements?

I'm not sure how many people saw this, I personally only found it some time later because I accidentally changed pages while viewing the Vice Delegate's Desk thread and this was conveniently located at the bottom of Page 14. In hindsight this was pointing to an obvious problem, but I didn't notice it until I began endotarting myself and looked at the numbers more closely.

Given we still don't have anyone with the rank of Apprentice in the region, anyone applying to the Security Council needs to maintain an average of 507 endorsements over the preceding 6 months to have the amount of influence required. In the current state of the region, that is rather a high number for anyone who is not Delegate, Vice Delegate or Security Council. As it stands, the only people who would be eligible to apply to the Security Council are Simone, the former Delegate, and Halsoni, the current Vice Delegate. That is presumably not a state of affairs that we want as a region. I will note that it is still entirely doable for a regular citizen to reach the influence requirement, provided a bit of effort is put into endotarting and they give it the full 6 months wait. However, if WA numbers in the region does drop even slightly more, that might soon become impossible.

I believe a new influence requirement is needed, ideally one that is flexible and not a hard number like it currently is. Lowering the influence rank down to Squire could be an option, although we do currently have in excess of 100 of those, which might be too many for some people's liking. Otherwise the most sensible solution I could think of it a percentage of the most influential nation in the region (usually either the Delegate or a long-serving Security Councillor). Right now, 50% of that would be 125,000, making almost 100 nations eligible, 60% would be 150,000, making 30-ish nations eligible, and 70% would be 175,000 making only about 5 nations eligible. Obviously 60% looks like a good middle ground as it stands, though future WA activity changes could change that balance.

Personally I don't mind a relatively low requirement, because this is not really a security issue since applications still need to gain the approval of the Security Council (usually) and Regional Assembly. The purpose of setting higher requirements is mostly to stop nuisance applications, but I don't really foresee that happening with much frequency - in any case the Security Council can dismiss these kinds of applications fairly easily.

Interested to hear everyone else's thoughts on this.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

While I do think the current requirements are indeed high thanks to Sedgistan's obvious efforts to nerf TNP, a floating requirement is not exactly ideal either. It isn't ideal to have marginal qualifiers floating in and out based on an ever-changing number. I do support lowering the endorsement and influence requirements given the environment we're in, but I don't support the requirements being constantly floating numbers.

 

[Pallaith]

I think making it hard for people to apply is a good thing, actually, and the only people likely to have a shot are precisely the small band of people who tend to be eligible under current rules. Maybe it makes sense to drop the names influence category entirely since it’s never what counts for applicants anyway.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Thanks for bringing this up, Gorundu. I agree a change is in order. Additionally, if the downward trend in WA nations continues, the minimum endo requirement could exceed the maximum allowable. While entry barriers ought to be high, they shouldn't be impossible.

I would suggest lowering the minimums for endorsements and SPDR. We could eliminate specifying a rank. I think we still need the SPDR, so brand new tarts would still not be eligible for consideration.

With the introduction of F/S, we could be looking at having WA numbers at 50% of what they were before. If we work from that assumption, where do we want the minimums to be? What numbers would people be comfortable with?

 

[Gavriel]

Abolish the Security Council.

 

[Comfed]

Why do we need influence or endorsement requirements for Security Council applicants in the first place? The real barrier to entry isn't so much those requirements as it is approval by the Security Council and the Regional Assembly. I would be comfortable with removing these requirements from the law altogether, and leaving it to the SC to vet applicants.

I agree that we don't want to make it easy for people to get on the Council, but if the endorsement/influence standard is low enough that anyone can meet it... well, then it's not much of a barrier to entry, is it?

 

[El Fiji Grande]

How about we raise the influence requirement? /s ... Uhh, yes, I'll show myself out.

In all seriousness though, I think I would support a percentage-based requirement, perhaps updated monthly by the VD.

To @Comfed 's point, the influence requirement exists to eliminate spurious applications by well-meaning but ill-informed citizens who really don't know the first thing about regional government. It exists as a barrier to entry that means people have to spend a considerable time in the region building influence and experience.

 

[Comfed]

To @Comfed 's point, the influence requirement exists to eliminate spurious applications by well-meaning but ill-informed citizens who really don't know the first thing about regional government. It exists as a barrier to entry that means people have to spend a considerable time in the region building influence and experience.

I understand that, but if check the last few pages of the Security Council application thread those applications are already relatively infrequent. In fact, many applicants do meet the endorsement and influence requirements to join the Council, even though no one would say that they had the level of trust necessary to sit on the SC--because ability to endotart, while important, isn't really a measure of knowing anything about regional government. Those spurious applicants were generally politely invited to withdraw their applications.

A floating requirement would make sense too, I just don't really see much of a point.

 

[Simone]

I understand that, but if check the last few pages of the Security Council application thread those applications are already relatively infrequent. In fact, many applicants do meet the endorsement and influence requirements to join the Council, even though no one would say that they had the level of trust necessary to sit on the SC--because ability to endotart, while important, isn't really a measure of knowing anything about regional government. Those spurious applicants were generally politely invited to withdraw their applications.

A floating requirement would make sense too, I just don't really see much of a point.

If the past is any guide, knowing anything about regional government is not actually a requirement to win elections in TNP.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Why do we need influence or endorsement requirements for Security Council applicants in the first place? The real barrier to entry isn't so much those requirements as it is approval by the Security Council and the Regional Assembly. I would be comfortable with removing these requirements from the law altogether, and leaving it to the SC to vet applicants.

I agree that we don't want to make it easy for people to get on the Council, but if the endorsement/influence standard is low enough that anyone can meet it... well, then it's not much of a barrier to entry, is it?

We don't want it to be too low, and we can't let it remain too high. I don't think getting rid of it altogether is preferable. Having standards goes hand in hand with the RA's desire to require SC members to maintain high levels of endorsements and influence. Let's try and figure out where the levels ought to be, given our expectations for future WA decline.

 

[Owenstacey]

I think I am generally in support of the idea of lowering the requirements in some way. I would agree with removing the rank requirement altogether because, as has been said, it appears to now be quite obsolete.

In terms of where the influence requirement is lowered to, while I agree that it should be lowered, I still think that it needs to be kept fairly high. While I appreciate that the SC will quickly filter out nuisance applications, I still think we should be keeping the influence requirement high in order to keep the expectation of SC member's influence as high as possible when they join the SC, rather than leaving it to build once they have joined, and keep the number of eligible nations low and the elite few nations that can get to this high level.

On the idea of the floating requirement, I am not a fan of this idea for the same reason as Sil set out with regards to having marginally eligible nations floating in and out of compliance with the eligibility requirement.

 

[Simone]

I understand that, but if check the last few pages of the Security Council application thread those applications are already relatively infrequent. In fact, many applicants do meet the endorsement and influence requirements to join the Council, even though no one would say that they had the level of trust necessary to sit on the SC--because ability to endotart, while important, isn't really a measure of knowing anything about regional government. Those spurious applicants were generally politely invited to withdraw their applications.

A floating requirement would make sense too, I just don't really see much of a point.

A few months ago @Sil Dorsett made this observation in his Vice Delegate's report:

I'm not sure how many people saw this, I personally only found it some time later because I accidentally changed pages while viewing the Vice Delegate's Desk thread and this was conveniently located at the bottom of Page 14. In hindsight this was pointing to an obvious problem, but I didn't notice it until I began endotarting myself and looked at the numbers more closely.

Given we still don't have anyone with the rank of Apprentice in the region, anyone applying to the Security Council needs to maintain an average of 507 endorsements over the preceding 6 months to have the amount of influence required. In the current state of the region, that is rather a high number for anyone who is not Delegate, Vice Delegate or Security Council. As it stands, the only people who would be eligible to apply to the Security Council are Simone, the former Delegate, and Halsoni, the current Vice Delegate. That is presumably not a state of affairs that we want as a region. I will note that it is still entirely doable for a regular citizen to reach the influence requirement, provided a bit of effort is put into endotarting and they give it the full 6 months wait. However, if WA numbers in the region does drop even slightly more, that might soon become impossible.

I believe a new influence requirement is needed, ideally one that is flexible and not a hard number like it currently is. Lowering the influence rank down to Squire could be an option, although we do currently have in excess of 100 of those, which might be too many for some people's liking. Otherwise the most sensible solution I could think of it a percentage of the most influential nation in the region (usually either the Delegate or a long-serving Security Councillor). Right now, 50% of that would be 125,000, making almost 100 nations eligible, 60% would be 150,000, making 30-ish nations eligible, and 70% would be 175,000 making only about 5 nations eligible. Obviously 60% looks like a good middle ground as it stands, though future WA activity changes could change that balance.

Personally I don't mind a relatively low requirement, because this is not really a security issue since applications still need to gain the approval of the Security Council (usually) and Regional Assembly. The purpose of setting higher requirements is mostly to stop nuisance applications, but I don't really foresee that happening with much frequency - in any case the Security Council can dismiss these kinds of applications fairly easily.

Interested to hear everyone else's thoughts on this.

There are exactly two people who would eligible for the Security Council right now, as Gorundu said - Halsoni and myself. I have no plans to join the Security Council after Picairn completed their transition back in September, and Halsoni is currently in charge of security (to some extent anyway) as VD. If the Security Council does not particularly want to expand itself (see Ghost's comment above), I think this discussion is largely moot.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Simone, I beg to differ. The legal code also states:

"5. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so."

With the continued erosion of WA members, the SC has seen influence decline. As the current rate of decline is expected to continue, the SC is possibly 6 months away from having to suspend or remove members. We have to update the numbers used in the legal code so they reflect the current reality.

 

[Pallaith]

There are exactly two people who would eligible for the Security Council right now, as Gorundu said - Halsoni and myself. I have no plans to join the Security Council after Picairn completed their transition back in September, and Halsoni is currently in charge of security (to some extent anyway) as VD. If the Security Council does not particularly want to expand itself (see Ghost's comment above), I think this discussion is largely moot.

I never said the SC was against expanding its numbers. Flexibility in membership is important and the membership should meet the needs of the region. I’m in favor of it being hard and favorable to certain individuals likely to be more preferable for the spots, which is not mutually exclusive from expanding membership.

 

[Gorundu]

While I do think the current requirements are indeed high thanks to Sedgistan's obvious efforts to nerf TNP, a floating requirement is not exactly ideal either. It isn't ideal to have marginal qualifiers floating in and out based on an ever-changing number. I do support lowering the endorsement and influence requirements given the environment we're in, but I don't support the requirements being constantly floating numbers.

It doesn't really matter if people float in and out of threshold, because the only time it needs to be checked is when someone actually applies, which is not very frequent. Also, the endorsement requirement for an eligible application is already a floating requirement, being 50% of the Delegate's endorsements.

I don't think setting a fixed bar is ideal because we are more uncertain than ever about what could happen in the future. Endorsements counts and influence could really go up or down and we could find ourselves having to change it again very soon. I'd like to avoid that.

Why do we need influence or endorsement requirements for Security Council applicants in the first place? The real barrier to entry isn't so much those requirements as it is approval by the Security Council and the Regional Assembly. I would be comfortable with removing these requirements from the law altogether, and leaving it to the SC to vet applicants.

I somewhat agree with this but predictably this is a minority opinion. One thing I did notice though is that back when the numerical requirements were easier to meet, it seemed like we had more unqualified applicants (as in, people who meet the numerical requirements but were clearly too inexperienced for the Security Council). It's hard to say if that's a causal effect though.

 

[Simone]

Simone, I beg to differ. The legal code also states:

"5. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so."

With the continued erosion of WA members, the SC has seen influence decline. As the current rate of decline is expected to continue, the SC is possibly 6 months away from having to suspend or remove members. We have to update the numbers used in the legal code so they reflect the current reality.

Agreed. But with the qualification that I would also suggest doubling down on recruitment. I got our WA share up when I was Delegate.

I never said the SC was against expanding its numbers. Flexibility in membership is important and the membership should meet the needs of the region. I’m in favor of it being hard and favorable to certain individuals likely to be more preferable for the spots, which is not mutually exclusive from expanding membership.

OK I see what you mean.