Greetings to the CRS,

Over the past several weeks, members of the Local Council (namely Local Councillors Evinea and Drystar) and the current Delegate (@Penguin) have been expressing frustration in the #pieclave channel of the TSP Discord about the lack of available border control regional officers (BC ROs) to perform standard ejections/bans of RMB spammers and trolls. Effectively, only Delegate Penguin and Local Councillor Drystar (per this authorization) are regularly undertaking border control actions. From the perspective of the LC and Delegate shared on Discord, the limited availability of BC ROs results in a spammier RMB and makes the job of moderating the RMB via suppression extremely burdensome. This results in an excessively spammy and uninviting RMB for new members. Due to the constraints of real life and time zones, the status quo does not allow anywhere close to full-time coverage in terms of banning RMB spammers. While it's understandable if a few things slip through the cracks, it's certainly not ideal, which brings us to the current situation.

Initially, several community members suggested CRS members simply ban of RMB spammers if they are available and requested to do so by a majority of the LC, pursuant to the Border Control Act. However, there was considerable pushback against this from some CRS members (namely @sandaoguo and @Kris Kringle) who argued they were not selected for the job of conducting routine moderation practices. This is an understandable position, but it creates a difficult situation: the LC requires additional support, but the CRS is not in a position to give it. Other community members suggested that the Local Council should by default receive border control powers, a solution which was widely dismissed as a security risk (given the lack of trust and security checks for LC).

Fortunately, a solution can be found within the current Regional Officer Act without compromising regional security. Article 3(2) of the Regional Officer Act gives the Council on Regional Security the power to grant Border Control powers to region members as they see fit. In the past, this has been used to alleviate some of the border control pressure on the Delegate alone (as demonstrated by Drystar's appointment). The needs of the RMB, as explained by the Delegate and Local Council, necessitate this kind of action be done with greater frequency.

This having been said, giving away Border Control authority is not something to be done lightly. It does give a nation incredible power over the in-game region and does require a higher level of trust. That said, this should not prevent the Council on Regional Security from appointing any additional BC ROs pursuant to its existing powers. Additionally, steps can be taken to lower the negative impact of a rogue BC RO in several ways. The Council on Regional Security could choose only to authorize granting of border control powers to nations that are not WA Members, and thus do not carry substantial influence on the nation. This would still allow those nations to do the overwhelming majority of routine border control actions against spammers (who often carry incredibly low-to-no influence on their nations) but prevent them from misusing border control powers in ways that may substantially harm the region (e.g. extrajudicially purging a significant number of nations, banning a CRS or CG member, etc.). As a result of this decreased mechanical ability, the level of trust required of a border control officer could be substantially lowered, settling on an intermediate amount of trust between allowing largely unvetted Local Councillors to have border control and only permitting nations of the highest level of trust (i.e. CRS members) to have border control.

Of course, appointment power would still rest with the CRS, and even if this system were adopted it begs the question of who might be interested in having BC RO powers. To assess this, the CRS could open applications and nominations to members of the community to see who may be interested, allowing South Pacificans to make their case for why they (or another TSPer) have both the time and energy for the role and the level of trust necessary. Right now, few people would suggest themselves for this, as they likely do not believe such an arrangement to be available. If the CRS opened applications, then people would know to self-nominate or nominate others for the role, thus potentially finding suitable candidates. BC ROs selected for this purpose would not even need to be active on the RMB. Instead, they would need to be available if notified ("pinged") to ban spammers by the Local Council.

When this idea was floated by @Nakari (who deserves the credit for this specific formulation of the idea) in the #pieclave channel, Glen said it should be circulated as a formal proposal via the forum. This is me doing so. I would appreciate a response from the CRS on a reasonable timeframe, hopefully ending with the CRS naming new BC ROs and/or opening applications for the position, or explaining clearly what the security and/or practical concerns are with such a move.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Is this proposal under discussion?

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Since I don't want this to seem like a complete dereliction of duties, I'll say unofficially the CRS has been discussing this internally.

It seems like the general sentiment is that it is not warranted at the moment given the amount of security concerns that might be at risk by handing out BC powers, but that is simply my read of the discussions and should not be taken as an official stance of the CRS.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

What security concerns is the CRS worried about that are not addressed by the requirement that any appointed BC ROs be a low-influence nation?

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Has the CRS had time to address this proposal further?

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

It has now been one full month since this suggestion was formally raised on the forum. At what point can we expect an answer?

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Apologies for the extended delay in formally responding in this forum thread. As discussed in Discord yesterday, there was a misunderstanding as to whether the matter could be considered addressed by discussions had in Discord channels by a number of Council members. In the future, forum threads will receive a more prompt response as opposed to relying on our communications in Discord to address the issues raised by South Pacificans.

This has been a matter that has continually been discussed within Council chambers since the matter was first broached. We have held extended discussions internally and consider the following statement to represent the general consensus and majority position of the Council.

COMMUNIQUÉ GRANTING BORDER CONTROL POWERS 12 July 2022 Fellow South Pacificans, We appreciate the matter raised in this thread, Addressing Lack of BC ROs, and while Members of the Council on Regional Security have partaken in general discussions on the issue at hand in Discord, we nonetheless submit the following statement as our official position. It is pertinent in considering the role of the Council that it is primarily if not exclusively a security-orientated body whose responsibilities lie in maintaining the integrity of the Coalition's fundamental structure as detailed in the Charter. To that end, Members of the Council are delegated with responsibilities of Border Control (BC) to act in dire situations. While this game mechanism is purposed towards fulfilling the Council's security role, it nonetheless has a tangential effect in that BC actions can at times be required for non-security-related instances such as spamming. For this purpose, members of the public along with the Local Council (LC) have at times requested BC actions in response. The intent behind the request in this thread is duly noted with respect and thanks. However, the Council evaluates that the granting of BC to non-Members is not required at this time; the issue of how that might come about, as stipulated in the Opening Post's latter paragraphs is for a later discussion, if and when this need is judged to be required. Moving forward, should the LC wish to do so, the Council encourages the LC to submit a written request on these forums formally petitioning for a reconsideration of this matter. This should include an overview of the rationale for the need to increase Border Control access, along with tangible examples of the need such as requests for BC action going unattended and why those instances significantly harmed or disrupted meaningful RMB discussion. Additionally, this request should explain what the LC can do alternatively to work with the resources available to them already (suppression, making a request to the Delegate as outlined in current laws, lodging Getting Help requests, etc.), particularly in terms of moderation policy and practices, and why those avenues would not be sufficient. The Council will reevaluate this request as needed. Faithfully yours, The Council on Regional Security

Admiral General of the South Pacific

Reply