Regional imput is requested at this time.

Would those nations currently over the proposed endorsement limit (i.e Ishmiel, Parkplace, Ess, Canpan) be required to drop endorsements if they meet the other conditions of the law and choose not to formally run for delegate?

Nitpick: Decision is spelled incorrectly in section six.

Odd ... it says that there are 12 replies to this, but I only see one. Yay Invision.

Roveria immediately springs to mind as well.

Blackshear, it is actually quite impossible to drop endorsements on NationStates. One does not control who endorses them and one cannot delete endorsements given to them. Only the person who gave the endorsement can erase the endorsement.

And that is a nice little quagmire ... how do you force someone to drop endorsements? How do you pick whose endorsement stays and who gets taken off?

This Law doesn't hold any form of safety netting at all, which is why I am personally 100% against it.

The way this law is stated, it would make it easy for a small group of people to band together and mass endorse a nation that they don't like and have it booted from the Region due to it having over the threshold of endorsements.

This law is actually more harmful to Canada than it does good. There are too many loopholes in this that need to be hashed out.

I still see this as a bandaid solution to the problem ... at yet I still can't personally think of anything better.

Nations gathering together to endorse a single nation would be noticeable, and in a region with low if no prejudice levels I doubt that would ever happen.


People get framed for murders they didn't commit; sometimes the evidence that the CRDF/Cabinet provide is all we have to go by. From the angle you are stating, every nation is completely and utterly innocent until completely and utterly proven guilty; I'd rather have a Canada safe from possible invasions than one that gives protection to corrupters (like taking on the appearance of an innocent nation in such a ploy as being endorsed by non-endorsed nations. There's no way to tell the innocent from the guilty from this position.)

I approve of this law, although I do see the point that you have raised.



(There should be a code function to manually remove endorsements from yourself to make it easier.)

1. It wouldn't be too noticeable at all honestly. We don't keep track of who has what endorsements when, so how would we know when there is a spike in endos? Alternately, a group of people performing malice against another user can do it over a slow period of time, not just all at once. As a member of Cabinet, you should be looking out for the member nations of Canada ... not just assuming something won't happen because it hasn't before.

2. There is prejudice in Canada ... just usually not with the "major" players. Don't underestimate 300+ people.

3.

Ummm ... this law is harmful to member nations of Canada ... ALL of them. It gives member nations the right to screw over another member nation with absolutely no form of consequence. It only saves Canada from possible invasion by treating each and every member nation like a pleeb.

I don't ask for endos. In fact, it's been a dang long time since I've handed one out ... but I'm still getting them. With this law, a few more endos and I'm over the limit. How does this law help me in any way?

Any law that we have that is supposed to help the Region should help EVERYONE equally. This law does not do that.

I would much rather stitch up the open wound rather than placing some medical guaze over it and hoping that it closes by itself.

Here are my initial concerns. I thought it best the region be aware of these rather than just Cabinet. Please be aware that a lot of the input is taken from experiences as Minister of Defence and also offering consultative services to other regions during that time - specifically during Delegacy changes.

I also think that this should not be a piece of standalone legislature but an addendum to the Consitution as it is this that deals with the role and responsibilities of the Cabinet and Delegate. Finally, if this is to go through as either a separate peice of legislature or Constitutional Amendment, I feel it needs to be air tight.

I think that this is a nice introductory paragraph. It sets the scene and lays out the justification for such a piece of legislature.

I suggest 'ability' as that is what it is or more specifically, what is being offered. Exercising one's rights is different - if only semantically. It is possible, should it be a right, that the region be constantly in a state of Delegacy contention. In my opinion, this could be detrimental to regional stability.

1) In the introductory paragraph, the language is United Kingdom English. I think, perhaps, for flavour, that we should ascertain and use the indigenous written language for Canada, should this be ratified.

Aside from one small niggle, this also sets the scene, pace justification well.

The reason I suggest must is because something that needs to be done doesn't necessarily mean it is or it has to be done. In this context, it is not optional. The statement of intent is a prerequisite that must be fulfilled or it will invoke later clauses. This will be discussed in more detail during the relevant clauses.

This is inherently flawed. The section in green should be attached to clause 2. in my opinion, rather or even be a separate entry. This particular clause is stating what will happen once one of the criteria (the gaining of a pre-set number of endorsements) is met.
I also do not think that remaining silent should not be amissable in this case to consider a statement not being made or a statement being made saying that they are not running. I think that for the purposes that this law is trying to fulfil that an answer is required in either the negative (no I am not running) or positive (yes I am running).

I also question as to whether this clause should be able to be applied again. There is an example below of the hole created for regional integrity, security and stability in cases of a non declaration of running for the Delegacy, negative statement of intent or silence.

1) This is a neat loophole that potential invaders could use. They read this law and remain under sixty percent whilst troops move in. In addition, they remain silent intimating that there is no intention to run. They reach a percentage of fity-nine percent and hold for an indeterminate period of time whilst sufficient endorsees either move in or apply to join The United Nations.

At a given point (in this case sixty percent - and by using this law does not warrant ejection or is considered a regional threat), the nation recieves enough additional endorsements in conjunction with any troops who may be endorsing the sitting delegate, remove their endorsements from the sitting delegate. This would take the silent nation (who could be considered in this context a sleeper agent) over the sitting delegates endorsement total at the server update.

I think that this clause should also be able to be reapplied as and if necessary - unless a statement in the positive (yes I am running), when the nation reaches an endorsement count of fifty-percent, is made. I am not sure as to where and how, but I will consider this and post a suggestion either later this evening or tomorrow after work. An intial thought would be to apply it at sixty-percent. If the nation responds in the negative (no I am not running) at this point, they may (to use the terminology here) be considered a threat to the region and ejected either using this law of the relevant sections of Canadian Ejection and Board Suspension Guidelines.

Hindsight: Even this won't work as it is theoretically possible to remain at fifty-nine percent. Admittedly, the organistation for such a strategy would need to be superb, but it is how many invader groups operate. At the fifty-percent mark I think an additional clause is required. It may be percieved as restricting, but as noted in the opening statement, this would fall under regional security.

I am not sure how to proceed here as this is a major first for the region of Canada - hence my vehemence at times. This needs to be, for the want of a better word, perfect.

2) Question: Why are they to be ejected? It doesn't say. I think the citeria warranting an ejection should be dealt with concurrently and consecutively. My immediate suggestion would be to combine the latter sentence of clause 3. and clause 4. The suggestion is in blue in clause 4. below.

Sorry for the repeat, but to rieterate: I do not think that remaining silent should not be amissable in this case to consider a statement not being made or a statement being made saying that they are not running. I think that for the purposes that this law is trying to fulfil that an answer is required in either the negative (no I am not running) or positive (yes I am running).

This could be difficult to both monitor and enforce in cases where the endorsement total of each nation fluctuates (for whatever reason). It might be worth considering taking the percentage total from when the telegrams or personal were first sent (as that is when the contention began).

I agree with this clause.

---

If thought viable (a list of names) we could approach the Moderators to see if this could be included in the game code.

clickie on jolty

did a quick search on jolt, closest thread that i could find

Heck if I knew 2 months ago all I had to do to get a cabinet member to post on this was to post it in public I would of posted it in HoC sooner. :rolleyes:

Now you know for next time! :yes:

:P

As a one-time delegate of The North Pacific, I do understand how endorsements work.

You can drop endorsements by asking some of those that have endorsed you to remove them. Not everyone will respond, but surely enough will to comply with the law. Additionally (and more extremely) a nation can leave the region for an update.

If a nation isn't interested in attaining the delegacy what need do they have for 70+ endorsements?

As a member of region that has been thrown into chaos three times by a rogue delegate and witnessed the irreparable harm this did to the community, I support the spirit of this proposal. I need to chew on the details for a bit, though.

This could happen at 40% or even 30% this could happen now with no law in effect. What if they say they are running and do this? How could we stop this? Nothing will be perfect, well unless we want to be a dictatorship.

Basically I want to see nations post their intent. I want the members to know this nation is climbing in endorsements. I want them to know when cabinet votes for the delegate to hit the eject button it is because cabinet feels they are a threat and not because cabinet is ejection happy.

It is true that many of the forum members have high endorsement counts (me included) Personally I would welcome someone that is active on the forum and has Canada's best intrest at heart, someone who recognizes the role of delegate as defined by The Constitution of Canada to be our delegate. Many of the members here probably have no idea that UN nations unknown/inactive to the forum are gathering staggering amounts of endorsements in Canada as I post this. I have no idea what their intent toward Canada is and personally I would not welcome them to be the Canadian delegate.

Right now Carb has 138 endorsements.
Nations unknown/inactive to the forum off the top of my head:
The Democratic Republic of Canpan - Endorsements Received: 75
The Commonwealth of Roveria - Endorsements Received: 74
The Protectorate of Ishmiel - Endorsements Received: 88

I don't know these nations. In no way do I know that they are loyal to The Constitution of Canada or if they have ever even read it. Personally I would not want them to be the Canadian Delegate, but they very well could be if they use the method that Carb just laid out.

Not Me :shrug:

although there are loopholes I support this

Sorry to derail the discussion but...WHY DON'T WE? I find this incredible in a founderless region.

Perfect question for the MoD, as it would fall under their jurisdiction.

I have all of the nations which held a high number of endorsements over the last 6 months dossiered on my main nation; I check daily (and there hasn't been much change in endorsement numbers over the last two weeks)

Actually I just shot off three nations with higher endorsement counts off the top of my head, so you know I'm watching them. :cananim:

So, you know, if I've been a forum member for two and a half years, and suddenly reach the 60% limit but say I'm not interested in being delegate, I *may* be ejected? Who makes that call?

I think the biggest thing is that anyone who wants to be Delegate should be a member of good standing in the forums, and the endorsement cap should only be enforced on nations with under "x" amount of time/activity serving on said forums. This makes it easy to figure out clear intent of folks we don't "know" like the three that Shay mentioned.

If you see a loophole we haven't covered, poiont it out--I wouldn't want to endorse something I had any reservations about.

I knew we could count on you. :fonz:

I don't feel it should be completely left up to cabinet and the Delegate. This is my main reason for wanting a statement. I am hoping the comments from the members of Canada after said nation posts their intention would be the biggest weighing factor toward any action being taken.

Personally if someone has an issue with my endorsement count all they have to do is let me know. It's not a problem for me to leave for one update and wipe them all out. Basically anyone who has Canada's best intrest at heart would do as the members wish.

Cabinet makes up for (approximately) 1/50th of the opinions of the region. The HoC is a way of making up for that; the Delegate has to make the choice and they may take the opinions of forum members in their decision.

Note the word 'may' in 5. This is not a done deal. Only those who do not state their intentions (in 4) or go back on their word (by climbing in endorsements above 60% despite declining to challenge for the delegacy) face the definite possibility of ejection.

Exactly. This process is, by far, one of Canada's greatest assets and is exactly what is occuring now. There is, however, always a but. Cabinet or the Canadian Regional Defence Force (simply by being) have access to additional information in certain instances. While it may not be preferred in disclosing such information into a public forum, one of the inalienable rights is to know what information led to a decision being made. Albeit, at times, a black marker version, the core of the information is there (certain details sometimes need to be omitted to prevent identification outside of the game or cause damage to another region or individual (propganda). But I digress.

I still maintain that silence is not an admissable course of action. "I didn't know" is, in my opinion, a lame excuse when the processes and procedures are clearly laid in in the Canadian statute (Law Library).

The statement is asking a black and white question: "Are you or are you not running for the position of regional delegate. I think that the process for answering should be in the same character - yes or no.

Clearly this would have to be considered in conjunction with available information although it would be, to a degree, circumstantial and subjective.

Perhaps a qualifier, such as with consideration of available fact needs to be inserted.
To quote Red:

This was briefly discussed during the intital Cabinet discussion, but challenges were met in trying to decide upon a suitable time frame. I seem to recall that a period of regaular activity for one Cabinet term was discussed quite extensively. The only problem is how to quantify this if this were to be adopted into this Law, should it be ratified.
And also to quote Parrrrtay:

To an extent. Hence why I feel an answer is required. That way, this propsed piece of legislature or addendmum to The Consitution has more recourse in carrying out its actions (ejection). A silent party could claim that they simply did not know or did not understand. The personal messages and telegrams from the Minsiter of Regional Affairs will clearly state what is beginning to occur and the reply (statement of intent) will be a declaration (of sorts) that the contacted nations understands the process and prcuedures that are beginning to be invoked.

I humbly request that all sovereign member nations of Canada weigh in on this with any concerns, ideas or proposals for inclusion.

This has been knocking around for some time now (mainly in Cabient) and, from a personal perspective, the issue needs complete and proper closure one way or the other.

I still don't like it ... but I still can't think of something that fits better. Arg.

Maybe this should just go up for a vote to see where everyone stands...

Agreed. There is still time left next term to maybe reconsider any options.

Many thanks, especially to our current Minsiter of Justice, for the work put into this legislative proposal.

A few suggestions relating to minor detail:

Changes in bold.

While it is recognised that every nation in the region of Canada has the right to run for the position of regional delegate should be While it is recognised that every UN nation in the region of Canada has the right to run for the position of regional delegate


In number 2

posted on the on the Canadian has an extra "on the".

In number 6

appeal the decsion should be appeal the decision.

---

I really like the general shape of the Law. It seems balanced and fair. Much more balanced and fair than many of the endorsement caps I've seen in other regions. The work has most certainly paid off. I really like how Number 5 settles a lot of the doubt and also the double cap of 50% and then 60%. I'm open to any new approaches but if none come up, this law has my full support. Congrats guys. I think it's a job well done.

Here's our latest revision:

(Edited for typo)

Any comments are welcome.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I like it.

I missed something.

In number 2

posted on the on the Canadian

Extra "on the".

Looks good to me! :yes:

What would prevent invaders from simply endorsing all members in Canada who are long-time members to push their endorsements over that 60%, which by law would would cause those regulars to get ejected?

For example, let's pretend I'm an invader. If I see that P has any power in the region, I get my invader buddies to endorse her until she is over the 60% mark. By law, she would be ejected or is it that she may be ejected (if the delegate decides)?

This is a good point, and have some concerns about this myself. There is, that I can see, no perfect solution. Under the circumstances I think this is about the fairest a law like this could be made. I for one, would have no objection to leaving the region for an update to clear my endorsement count, and fail to see why anyone else would unless they have intent in becoming delegate or hostile invasion.

Hopefully the 'may' will cover this occurance if it happens. I feel if said nation is a long time member, active on the forum, and not a threat to the Canadian Constitutional Rule then the members and cabinet MAY allow the endorsement count above 60%. Not everyone above the 60% is an automatic hostile force.

As Diemetricus stated above he wouldn't have a problem clearing his endorsements. I wouldn't either. Anyone who really cares about Canada, in my opinion, would not have a problem with leaving for an update to wipe out their endorsement count if the members felt uncomfortable with their %.

Here here. :yes: