Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 05-01-2016, 02:19 PM

For obvious reasons, the cap needs to be at least the same number as that required to apply for the CRS.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

W. Charlesfort · 05-01-2016, 02:23 PM

(05-01-2016, 02:19 PM)Belschaft Wrote: For obvious reasons, the cap needs to be at least the same number as that required to apply for the CRS.

leads to the old question: do we really need a cap, or is it just so that some ppl want a cap; for which reasons ever?

**Belschaft** · 05-01-2016, 02:31 PM

(05-01-2016, 02:23 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote:
(05-01-2016, 02:19 PM)Belschaft Wrote: For obvious reasons, the cap needs to be at least the same number as that required to apply for the CRS.

leads to the old question: do we really need a cap, or is it just so that some ppl want a cap; for which reasons ever?

TNP doesn't use one anymore, and I'm fairly certain that they're not effective and actually counter-productive, but if people do want one I'm okay with it assuming it is sufficiently high.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

W. Charlesfort · 05-01-2016, 02:34 PM

(05-01-2016, 02:31 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(05-01-2016, 02:23 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote:
(05-01-2016, 02:19 PM)Belschaft Wrote: For obvious reasons, the cap needs to be at least the same number as that required to apply for the CRS.

leads to the old question: do we really need a cap, or is it just so that some ppl want a cap; for which reasons ever?

TNP doesn't use one anymore, and I'm fairly certain that they're not effective and actually counter-productive, but if people do want one I'm okay with it assuming it is sufficiently high.

You just said it: 'if people want one'. the point there is: did someone ever ask the 'ppl' about this? and with people I dont just mean a handful of representatives who had the most to loose if it gets removed; but actually the broad mass of TSP-ers.

**Belschaft** · 05-01-2016, 02:46 PM

(05-01-2016, 02:34 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote:
(05-01-2016, 02:31 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(05-01-2016, 02:23 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote:
(05-01-2016, 02:19 PM)Belschaft Wrote: For obvious reasons, the cap needs to be at least the same number as that required to apply for the CRS.

leads to the old question: do we really need a cap, or is it just so that some ppl want a cap; for which reasons ever?

TNP doesn't use one anymore, and I'm fairly certain that they're not effective and actually counter-productive, but if people do want one I'm okay with it assuming it is sufficiently high.

You just said it: 'if people want one'. the point there is: did someone ever ask the 'ppl' about this? and with people I dont just mean a handful of representatives who had the most to loose if it gets removed; but actually the broad mass of TSP-ers.

I think an endorsement cap is reasonable, just counter-productive; I don't have any objections to one on principle.

Right now I'd want to see a cap of somewhere between 250-300, if we are to have one.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 05-01-2016, 02:47 PM

I don't think there is a case for not having an endorsement cap. As I see it, the real discussion is how high it should be and how violations should be dealt with.

Here we have a relatively low cap, when considering how Tsunamy has been gathering much more endorsements. Our current cap was instituted when the Delegate had around 220 endorsements, so it made sense to keep the cap at its current levels. With the Delegate currently averaging 360 endorsements, it makes sense to raise the cap to at least 200 endorsements, and perhaps even more.

However, there should be no case for letting someone remain (and again this is for the sake of argument) within 10 endorsements of the Delegate, a range that is dangerously close and could result in someone illegally, though possibly inadvertently, taking the delegacy. If we take this example to its logical conclusion, we would have to say that nobody should be within 10 endorsements of the Delegate. That is cap. One so high that it would be meaningless in 99% of all cases, but a cap nonetheless.

Regarding TNP

Their Security Council monitors nations exceeding (a) 2/3 of the Vice Delegate's endorsement count (b) the endorsement counts of the Council © rapidly gaining endorsements (d) belonging to notable groups or (e) who raise some kind of suspicion.

That is in some way an endorsement cap, even if not in the same way we have historically implemented it in this region. It's a soft cap that relies on common sense, friendly interaction and reasonable leeway, but it's a cap nonetheless. Those nations are eventually asked, in a friendly manner as per their regulations, what their intentions are, and given advice on getting involved in regional governance, or on how to keep a secure endorsement count.

That is an approach that I have actually suggested our own Committee for State Security adopt, as anyone with access to Lubyanka might confirm. I don't think we are in a situation where we should simply warn and eject an endorsement cap violator, when making them partners in maintaining regional security would be a much more effective approach. That means encouraging them to accumulate a reasonably high endorsement count, while having them understand why exactly it is important to stay clear of, most notably, the Delegate's count.

The bottomline is there should be a common sense limit to how many endorsements a nation should gain in order to not risk overtaking the Delegate's count. It need not be NPO low, it may well be TNP ambiguous/high, but it needs to be there, so there's something people can look up when in doubt.

--

Having said this, the specifics of an endorsement cap are something not really pertaining to this Great Council, and would probably be best discussed in the CSS public area.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

**Belschaft** · 05-01-2016, 02:52 PM

I think the specifics of the endorsement cap is relevant Kris, if, as this draft would, you're going to link application to the CRS to it.

I also think it's relevant as part of a wider discussion re; regional security, which is part of this GC.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

W. Charlesfort · 05-01-2016, 02:54 PM

(05-01-2016, 02:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
If we take this example to its logical conclusion, we would have to say that nobody should be within 10 endorsements of the Delegate. That is cap. One so high that it would be meaningless in 99% of all cases, but a cap nonetheless.

I would actually say that this would be an acceptable way to implement such a cap (if there is anything like an acceptable cap).

**Belschaft** · 05-01-2016, 07:15 PM

The second issue I'd like to raise is the Local Council and the concept of the "block vote". My concern here is that such a vote won't actually be representative of the in game region, and will simply put considerable legislative power into the hands of whoever can win a popularity contest on the RMB. I think I demonstrated, as Livia, how easy it can be to win an election to the LC by combining a populist agenda and an active and friendly persona. The opinion of the region at large is often divided on issues, and simply allowing a select member of the assembly to cast an extra X number of votes doesn't adequately represent this. It isn't going to be based on polling or regional input, it isn't going to be split multiple ways to represent divided regional opinion, it's going to empower one specific legislator to act as a kingmaker.

I think that we should be empowering the region-at-large legislatively, but the way to do that is the exact same dual-ballot system proposed for electing the Delegate. We should be having a discussion about what matters the region-at-large should be voting on to confirm the assemblies decision.

There's also a larger question about whether or not the Local Council needs to still exist at all, if we're transferring real political powers to regional WA members.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Awe · 05-01-2016, 10:47 PM

Spotted a small loophole here. The ineligibility of a legislator arising from frequent suspensions can be declared as such by the High Court, except it's not illegal to be an ass Tounge

I agree with the provision in principle, but in practice it can be a little weird, so we might want to insert a provision on this matter in the responsibilities of the High Court.

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information