Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 05-01-2016, 10:48 PM

Two address two separate points:

I don't think we have high enough endorsements right now to do away with the limit ... right now. I think we can agree that's where we should go, but we need to ease into it ... since we have significantly less endorsements than TNP overall.

Second, re: the LC, I'm all for giving power to the in-game nations. But, we also have to see what is useful and what they'll use. (And, since we don't have a lot of RMB-only nations here ... it's hard to judge.)

That said, I'm with Bels in questioning the need for the LC. In the draft I pitched, I gave WA nations the power to vote for the delegate and also to have a direct say in anything that would change their responsibilities or powers.

Maybe we should reach out to the RMB to see how useful they feel the LC is?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

W. Charlesfort · 05-02-2016, 08:08 AM

(05-01-2016, 10:48 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Two address two separate points:

I don't think we have high enough endorsements right now to do away with the limit ... right now. I think we can agree that's where we should go, but we need to ease into it ... since we have significantly less endorsements than TNP overall.

Second, re: the LC, I'm all for giving power to the in-game nations. But, we also have to see what is useful and what they'll use. (And, since we don't have a lot of RMB-only nations here ... it's hard to judge.)

That said, I'm with Bels in questioning the need for the LC. In the draft I pitched, I gave WA nations the power to vote for the delegate and also to have a direct say in anything that would change their responsibilities or powers.

Maybe we should reach out to the RMB to see how useful they feel the LC is?

There´s no room for half-assed experimentation with the endorsement-cap; either we do away with it, or we implement right away that ppl are not allowed to be close to the delegate for a certain amount of endorsements. otherwise it will never happen, because there are always ppl who´d say 'it´s not safe right now' just to postpone it forever.

***Tsunamy*** · 05-02-2016, 09:51 AM

(05-02-2016, 08:08 AM)W. Charlesfort Wrote:
(05-01-2016, 10:48 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Two address two separate points:

I don't think we have high enough endorsements right now to do away with the limit ... right now. I think we can agree that's where we should go, but we need to ease into it ... since we have significantly less endorsements than TNP overall.

Second, re: the LC, I'm all for giving power to the in-game nations. But, we also have to see what is useful and what they'll use. (And, since we don't have a lot of RMB-only nations here ... it's hard to judge.)

That said, I'm with Bels in questioning the need for the LC. In the draft I pitched, I gave WA nations the power to vote for the delegate and also to have a direct say in anything that would change their responsibilities or powers.

Maybe we should reach out to the RMB to see how useful they feel the LC is?

There´s no room for half-assed experimentation with the endorsement-cap; either we do away with it, or we implement right away that ppl are not allowed to be close to the delegate for a certain amount of endorsements. otherwise it will never happen, because there are always ppl who´d say 'it´s not safe right now' just to postpone it forever.

That's not *exactly* what I'm saying — and certainly the intention isn't to postpone it forever.

It's somewhat just a matter of numbers. My endorsements — which are some of the highest of recent memory — are still only half of TNP's number (what this system is modeled after). Because my endorsements are so low, you can get half of my numbers with a good day/two of endotarding.

The CSS had been discussing raising the endocap by percentages of the delegate's total. The idea would be that we'd continue to raise it incrementally while the overall number of endorsements (i.e. WA members) rise — until we have a situation where it's not needed.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

W. Charlesfort · 05-02-2016, 01:44 PM

(05-02-2016, 09:51 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(05-02-2016, 08:08 AM)W. Charlesfort Wrote:
(05-01-2016, 10:48 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Two address two separate points:

I don't think we have high enough endorsements right now to do away with the limit ... right now. I think we can agree that's where we should go, but we need to ease into it ... since we have significantly less endorsements than TNP overall.

Second, re: the LC, I'm all for giving power to the in-game nations. But, we also have to see what is useful and what they'll use. (And, since we don't have a lot of RMB-only nations here ... it's hard to judge.)

That said, I'm with Bels in questioning the need for the LC. In the draft I pitched, I gave WA nations the power to vote for the delegate and also to have a direct say in anything that would change their responsibilities or powers.

Maybe we should reach out to the RMB to see how useful they feel the LC is?

There´s no room for half-assed experimentation with the endorsement-cap; either we do away with it, or we implement right away that ppl are not allowed to be close to the delegate for a certain amount of endorsements. otherwise it will never happen, because there are always ppl who´d say 'it´s not safe right now' just to postpone it forever.

That's not *exactly* what I'm saying — and certainly the intention isn't to postpone it forever.

It's somewhat just a matter of numbers. My endorsements — which are some of the highest of recent memory — are still only half of TNP's number (what this system is modeled after). Because my endorsements are so low, you can get half of my numbers with a good day/two of endotarding.

The CSS had been discussing raising the endocap by percentages of the delegate's total. The idea would be that we'd continue to raise it incrementally while the overall number of endorsements (i.e. WA members) rise — until we have a situation where it's not needed.

The inherent flaw of that train of thought is, to assume that the number of WA-Nation in TSP would continually rise. Which is under the actual conditions at which the Assembly operates rather delusional, to say the least. Therefore we actually have no ground to base a cap-increase on a percentage model.

ProfessorHenn · 05-02-2016, 02:14 PM

A percentage based cap is not a flawed concept. A lot of UCRs use it, some with a considerable amount of endorsements. A good example off the top of my head is Spiritus.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

**Farengeto** · 05-02-2016, 02:33 PM

As long as the endocap remains at at least 200 or half of Tsu's (which is rapidly approaching 200 anyway) this policy for requirements will work. Same with influence, as far as I can tell at current numbers you only need around 130-140 endorsements to maintain the vassal requirement.

***Tsunamy*** · 05-02-2016, 02:33 PM

(05-02-2016, 01:44 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote: The inherent flaw of that train of thought is, to assume that the number of WA-Nation in TSP would continually rise. Which is under the actual conditions at which the Assembly operates rather delusional, to say the least. Therefore we actually have no ground to base a cap-increase on a percentage model.

It's not a flawed-model — the idea behind switching to the model proposed is, in part, to increase the number of WA members. In fairness, I believe TNP were using this model when they were much lower ... in like the mid 400s? (Someone who's better informed could provide better info.)

There's the theory behind this and then there's the hard numbers. It's easier to get a force of 10 people together than it is a force of 100 and a force of 300. The fact that I've literally watched a nation raise to 170-plus endos in a matter of days says we need to a bit careful here.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Farengeto** · 05-02-2016, 02:46 PM

(05-02-2016, 02:33 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(05-02-2016, 01:44 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote: The inherent flaw of that train of thought is, to assume that the number of WA-Nation in TSP would continually rise. Which is under the actual conditions at which the Assembly operates rather delusional, to say the least. Therefore we actually have no ground to base a cap-increase on a percentage model.

It's not a flawed-model — the idea behind switching to the model proposed is, in part, to increase the number of WA members. In fairness, I believe TNP were using this model when they were much lower ... in like the mid 400s? (Someone who's better informed could provide better info.)

There's the theory behind this and then there's the hard numbers. It's easier to get a force of 10 people together than it is a force of 100 and a force of 300. The fact that I've literally watched a nation raise to 170-plus endos in a matter of days says we need to a bit careful here.

For those who aren't in the CSS that last part isn't even some exaggeration. We had a nation no more than a couple weeks old get as many endorsements as some CSS members, which is pretty much the definition of a red flag for us. Tounge

**Belschaft** · 05-02-2016, 03:13 PM

(05-02-2016, 02:46 PM)Farengeto Wrote:
(05-02-2016, 02:33 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(05-02-2016, 01:44 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote: The inherent flaw of that train of thought is, to assume that the number of WA-Nation in TSP would continually rise. Which is under the actual conditions at which the Assembly operates rather delusional, to say the least. Therefore we actually have no ground to base a cap-increase on a percentage model.

It's not a flawed-model — the idea behind switching to the model proposed is, in part, to increase the number of WA members. In fairness, I believe TNP were using this model when they were much lower ... in like the mid 400s? (Someone who's better informed could provide better info.)

There's the theory behind this and then there's the hard numbers. It's easier to get a force of 10 people together than it is a force of 100 and a force of 300. The fact that I've literally watched a nation raise to 170-plus endos in a matter of days says we need to a bit careful here.

For those who aren't in the CSS that last part isn't even some exaggeration. We had a nation no more than a couple weeks old get as many endorsements as some CSS members, which is pretty much the definition of a red flag for us.

Yup, I've been paying attention. Tarting is very easy in NS right now due to the large influx of newer players.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 05-02-2016, 04:39 PM

Would lower requirements make the region more secure, or is the goal simply to increase the size of the CRS?

As for the endorsement cap, it's not actually tied to the application. The endorsement cap can be higher. The 200 endorsement/half the Delegate's isn't a cap-- it's a minimum for what we would consider to be nations that would improve security by being in the CRS. The endorsement cap would be separately set by the CRS, and enforcement would be lenient.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk