Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 05-02-2016, 08:04 PM

(05-02-2016, 07:46 PM)Omega Wrote:
(05-02-2016, 07:30 PM)Roavin Wrote:
(05-02-2016, 06:15 PM)Omega Wrote: Why can the High court not declare a Constitutional Law void if it violates the charter but can declare a General Law void if it violates the charter?

The Charter defines the constitutional laws. So if the High Court were to declare a constitutional law void, then against what reference frame would it do that?

What the High Court can explicitly do is resolve conflicts in constitutional law (VIII.5).

(05-02-2016, 06:15 PM)Omega Wrote: Why is it that the provisions for election would be put into a general law and not into a constitutional law?

What would be the benefit of having it in constitutional law vs. general law?

Okay I'm missing something here. What is the point of having 2 different tiers of laws?

Generally speaking "constitutional/higher" tier laws deal with fundamental/structural elements, like the different branches and powers of the government, the bill of rights, etc, and require a higher threshold to alter. "Normal/lower" tier laws deal with the specifics of what is mandated by the first tier, as well as less important topics like regional holidays. The first is for things that should be hard to change, and that broad consensus is required on, whilst the second is stuff that can be changed by a simple minority. We don't want 51% of the region eliminating something the other 49% considers to be fundamental/vital.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 05-02-2016, 08:05 PM by Belschaft.)

***sandaoguo*** · 05-02-2016, 08:17 PM

@tsu: I'm responding to this, in addition to another post that conflated the membership requirement and endorsement cap.

(05-01-2016, 01:54 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The Council on Regional Security is one of the areas I would like to see alteration as well; the application requirement, as currently proposed, are such that no one who isn't already a member would be able to meet them. Obviously we're going to want to increase the endorsement cap significantly, if not remove it entirely, but I'd like to see lower application requirements at this point in time as the existing requirements mean that it will be a very long time before anyone else will meet them.

Omega · 05-02-2016, 08:25 PM

(05-02-2016, 08:04 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Generally speaking "constitutional/higher" tier laws deal with fundamental/structural elements, like the different branches and powers of the government, the bill of rights, etc, and require a higher threshold to alter. "Normal/lower" tier laws deal with the specifics of what is mandated by the first tier, as well as less important topics like regional holidays. The first is for things that should be hard to change, and that broad consensus is required on, whilst the second is stuff that can be changed by a simple minority. We don't want 51% of the region eliminating something the other 49% considers to be fundamental/vital.

Well then by measure we should make the election act or whatever it is named a constitutional law.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

**Belschaft** · 05-02-2016, 08:31 PM

(05-02-2016, 08:17 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: @tsu: I'm responding to this, in addition to another post that conflated the membership requirement and endorsement cap.

(05-01-2016, 01:54 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The Council on Regional Security is one of the areas I would like to see alteration as well; the application requirement, as currently proposed, are such that no one who isn't already a member would be able to meet them. Obviously we're going to want to increase the endorsement cap significantly, if not remove it entirely, but I'd like to see lower application requirements at this point in time as the existing requirements mean that it will be a very long time before anyone else will meet them.

I didn't conflate them Glen, I'm well aware of what the difference is. But the currently proposed membership requirements are sufficiently onerous that, considering the vast difference between the influence level they require and the influence level anyone can currently legally attain, it would be a very long time until anyone would qualify under them. As such I'd like to see lower requirements, at least initially.

I think both topics are relevant as part of a broader discussion on regional security, as well as being linked.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 05-02-2016, 08:37 PM

I suppose that depends on what you think a "very long time" is. My goal isn't to increase membership, but rather to make the requirements more objective. It would take a while for some to gain enough influence *under our current region-wide distribution*. But it's imperative that we improve our endorsement and influence spread.

I don't see any benefit in lowering requirements so that more people will be eligible immediately. I think it's actually been a mistake that we kept adding people because we wanted "more gameside representation" or because somebody was well-liked and considered trustworthy. In my perspective, that didn't serve us well at all. The CRS should be filled with high influence, high endo players who can be knowledgeable and responsive about security, be trustworthy to oppose coups, and who can't be banjected without great (ideally prohibitive) cost.

Is there a lower influence level that would fit the last goal?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 05-02-2016, 08:54 PM

I agree in the long run, but in the immediate term it's going to take a while for people to acquire 73000 influence considering that we're all sitting bellow a cap of 120 endorsements right now, which leaves us with a CRS that's membership is static and undermanned. I've been saying for ages now that we want to have as many high endorsement/high influence nations as possible, and the only way to do that is to raise the endorsement cap; until we've done that reaching the required level is not realistic, which massively limits the number of eligible members. TNP only moved to the current model they use for their SC after they had had a vastly higher endorsement cap than we do.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 05-02-2016, 11:58 PM

Why do you consider it to be 'static and undermanned'? Under the requirements as they're currently written, 8 players meet the influence requirements. At least another 2 or 3 are on the cusp of reaching the Vassal rank. (It's not just 73000, but also can be Vassal ranking, which is as low as ~51000 in TSP.)

In contrast, TNP's Security Council is 9 people. When I get time, I plan on graphing their influence distribution. What I can say now is that it's far more distributed than ours. The lesson here, in my opinion, is that we need a program that encourages influence dispersion. The CRS will be well-staffed with the current members who would meet the influence requirements. To me, there isn't a good reason to include players with less influence. Increased membership doesn't help if the influence requirements are lowered to the point where those members can be ejected or banned by a rogue delegate.

***Tsunamy*** · 05-03-2016, 11:18 AM

(05-02-2016, 11:58 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Why do you consider it to be 'static and undermanned'? Under the requirements as they're currently written, 8 players meet the influence requirements. At least another 2 or 3 are on the cusp of reaching the Vassal rank. (It's not just 73000, but also can be Vassal ranking, which is as low as ~51000 in TSP.)

In contrast, TNP's Security Council is 9 people. When I get time, I plan on graphing their influence distribution. What I can say now is that it's far more distributed than ours. The lesson here, in my opinion, is that we need a program that encourages influence dispersion. The CRS will be well-staffed with the current members who would meet the influence requirements. To me, there isn't a good reason to include players with less influence. Increased membership doesn't help if the influence requirements are lowered to the point where those members can be ejected or banned by a rogue delegate.

I think the goal has all (if not, at least, usually been) that putting someone on the CSS/CSR would lead to higher endos and higher endorsements. Aram is actually a great example of that, too.

Again, I'll ask, is there a way that we can implement this longer term and simply nominate and raise the endo cap in the short term?

Finally, again, I'd like to question the 6-month legislator status. We simply don't have enough people that meet that requirement, as well as, all the others.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***sandaoguo*** · 05-04-2016, 11:35 AM

I don't think we should be putting low endo, low influence people on the council, at all. A promise for increasing it isn't always fulfilled, and until they fulfill it they're useless in a coup as they can be banjected easily. If we can demonstrate that a lower influence requirement would work, then I'd be okay with it.

But I don't think it's a good idea to lower requirements just because you want more people on the council. They're not useful from a security perspective. If you just want their advice, then the council can always ask them for it. They don't actually need to sit on the council, if they can't serve as a bulwark for the legitimate government during a coup. With Aram in particular, it's useful to point out that he wasn't a low endo nation-- didn't we add him exactly because he already had high endo and high influence?

As for the 6 month status, I don't personally see the issue. I wouldn't vote for anybody who has been a member of these forums for less than that. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure they're reasonably long-term members who really know the community.

I don't think you should be judging these requirements based on who you can nominate for membership on day 1.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***Tsunamy*** · 05-04-2016, 02:53 PM

(05-04-2016, 11:35 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: As for the 6 month status, I don't personally see the issue. I wouldn't vote for anybody who has been a member of these forums for less than that. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure they're reasonably long-term members who really know the community.

I don't think you should be judging these requirements based on who you can nominate for membership on day 1.

Well, EVERYONE's status has lapsed at one point or another — and this has also been a long simmering tension on the forums. (See also: B&N.)

This is a situation where your judgement isn't the only thing to take into account. Curlyhoward is a completely trusted member of the region, but doesn't come to the forums. Under this current situation they only way he could keep endos would be to join the forums and be legislator for six month, despite the fact that he has been in the region nearly as long as (or longer than) me, and probably without a several year gap. That's a problematic situation.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]