[AMENDMENT] Endorsement Caps Act

Codex Memorial Garden The Magisterium
,
1

I was looking into EPPS and the endorsement cap law. I thought of a few improvements.

Considering that we only have a single “qualified” cap, I think we can just remove that and move on. I think it makes it easier for bookkeeping, as it limits the number of caps to one. I believe there is no reason to have the clause about the Magisterium abolishing caps present, as there is only one cap—the Cap.

I also propose making adjustments to how the Cap is enforced. I think that a day is enough time before in-game action should be taken, without a vote of the Viziers—security situations can evolve quickly. I also do not see why you need to be mentioned in a dispatch when you also get notified via a telegram—it seems like more work for the Viziers for no reason.

In addition, I do not see why you should need three intentional Cap violations within one year for it to be an indictable offense, when just one incident is an intentional breach of regional security. It is also important to note that residents can already just be banned for going over the cap.

SECTION I. CITATION

…1.1-This act shall be known and cited as the “Endorsement Caps Act”.

SECTION II. DEFINITIONS

…2.1. For the purposes of this act, the following terms are defined as:
…2.1.1. Qualified The Endorsement Cap- “a cap with a qualifier to be subjected to it, that is set by the Viziers and confirmed by the Magisterium”;
…2.1.2. Endorsement Cap Violator- “a nation that has more endorsements than the cCap set for that particular nation”;
…2.1.3. Unendorsement Campaign- “the in-game action of reducing a nation’s endorsements using actions including, but not limited to, telegrams, dispatches, private messages, and general off-site announcements”;
…2.1.4. Compliance Officer- “the Delegate and any member of the Eastern Pacific Police Service”;
…2.1.5. Corrected- “a nation that has been brought below their Qualified the Endorsement Cap through the action(s) of Compliance Officers”

SECTION III. ENDORSEMENT CAPS

…3.1. The Viziers may, following a confirmatory vote of the Praesidium, propose to the Magisterium any number of Qualified the Endorsement Caps. These This proposals shall be confirmed via a normal majority vote by the Magisterium.

…3.2. No Qualified The Endorsement Cap may not exceed the number of current Delegate Endorsements for any reason.

…3.3. The current Qualified Endorsement Caps are as follows: for all nations in The East Pacific is 250 endorsement.
…3.3.1. The “Qualified Endorsement Cap” shall set the cap for all nations in The East Pacific at 250 endorsements.

…3.4. Any Qualified Endorsement Cap may be repealed by a ⅔ majority vote of the Magisterium.

…3.54. The Delegate must display the current numerical value of all Qualified the Endorsement Caps on the Region’s World Factbook Entry.

…3.65. The Delegate and the Viziers are not subject to any Qualified the Endorsement Caps.

…3.76. An individual whose term as Delegate has elapsed and is still occupying the in-game Delegacy shall be exempt from any Qualified the Endorsement Caps until the current Delegate or a Vizier takes the position.
…3.76.1. The Praesidium may nullify this exemption prior to its natural expiry if a) the individual, while not having voluntarily resigned from being Delegate, has been lawfully removed from the Delegacy before their term ended or b) if the individual refuses to cooperate with the Praesidium in handing the in-game Delegacy over to the Delegate or Praesidium.

SECTION IV. VIOLATIONS OF ENDORSEMENT CAPS

…4.1. Any nation who becomes an Endorsement Cap Violator shall be “Notified” by a Compliance Officer via an in-game telegram and a mention in an in-game dispatch for at least 3 a days before any in-game action is taken.
…4.1.1. If an emergency situation exists in which Viziers believe the Delegacy is in danger, the Viziers may waive the 3-day any response time and provide an explanation to the Conclave as to why.

…4.2. Any nation, having been under Notice for three a days and remaining in violation of this Act, shall be subject to an unendorsement campaign, ejection, OR banishment at the discretion of Compliance Officers in order to be Corrected.
…4.2.1. Ejections and bans may be conducted by any Compliance Officer with the power of Border Control. Influence-spending concerning these actions shall be relegated to those who aren’t Viziers, or else to the Delegate, when reasonably possible.

…4.3. The Viziers may temporarily suspend punishment under this Act for no more than fourteen days if the offending nation has proven a willingness to comply with the Cap.

…4.4. If a Any Resident is found to have purposefully violated their the endorsement cC apon three separate occasions within the span of one year, they shall have committed an indictable offense with a maximum sentence of permanent banishment.

2

Was this not proposed a while back by AMOM, but it never made it to vote? /genq

EDIT: It was. May I ask what the differences between your proposal and AMOMs are?

3

My apologies, I did not see that proposal. However, that does not mean that the Endorsement Caps act does not need amending. So I still think this proposal is worth debating.

4

The differences are:

  • A few minor grammatical differences that aren’t either correct or incorrect (I prefer this in some things and AMOM’s in some others)
  • Notice before action is reduced from three days to one day
  • Indictable offense threshold is reduced from three violations in a year to one violation

I’m okay with all of these changes.

5

Great minds think alike. I’ve been underwater and haven’t submitted mine, but mine similarly eliminates “qualified endorsement cap”, etc. I can either submit mine first or we can work to combine them both into one. Since I’m currently underwater I don’t mind if you take this over. I’d like to compare the two amendments soon (this weekend?) and see if we can combine them for a “best of both worlds” outcome, or I could just drop mine.

6

I’d say combine the two, both are great ideas imo

9

Does anyone have suggestions on how to best merge the two proposals?

10

I prefer your edits for the majority of the works, with the exception of 4.1, 4.1.1 and 4.2 where I think a courtesy period of 3 days would be preferential for those who aren’t available every day.

Also noting that in 4.1.1 you could probably remove the any that was added so it just reads as “[…] the Viziers may wave the response time […]”

With that said, in addition to the proposed changes, while this is being amended, could I also suggest axing 2.1.2 then change 4.1 to…

…4.1. Any nation who becomes an Endorsement Cap Violator violates the Endorsement Cap shall be “Nnotified” of their violation by a Compliance Officer via an in-game telegram and a mention in an in-game dispatch for at least 3 a days before any in-game action is taken.

and axing 2.1.5 before changing 4.2 to…

…4.2. Any nation that remains in violation of the Endorsement Cap despite having received the proper notice as defined in 4.1, having been under notice for three a days and remaining in violation of this Act, shall be subject to an unendorsement campaign, ejection, OR banishment at the discretion of Compliance Officers. in order to be Corrected.

IMO it helps reduce the needless complexity of some of the sentence structure and makes reading and comprehending those passages easier.

I also think that the definition of “Unendorsement Campaign” (2.1.3) could be scrapped as the term is sufficiently clear.

I also think that 4.3 and 4.4 might be better as

…4.3. Any Resident found to have purposefully violated the Endorsement Cap shall have committed an indictable offense with a maximum sentence of permanent banishment.
…4.4. The Viziers may temporarily suspend punishment for violations ofunder this Act for no more than fourteen days if the offending nation has proven a willingness promptly takes appropriate actions to once again comply with the Endorsement Cap.

IMO if rewritten as that, the notice period can probably get dropped back to one day.

11

Personally, unless I’m blind and Compliance Officer is defined in the act itself, I feel that the term should be replaced with “member of the EPPS or Praesidium”

13

I don’t think a three day mandatory courtesy period is appropriate or necessary. A day is enough. It should be the discretion of whoever is enforcing the endorsement cap whether or not to give grace further grace, depending on the circumstances.

If you endorse and send a bunch of telegrams, you could get really high in endorsements, real quick. We should be able to dynamically respond to security threats without having to wait three days.

Regarding the fourteen day suspension, we shouldn’t allow indefinite suspensions of enforcing the endorsement cap. We cannot allow the cap violators to violate the cap indefinitely. In addition, if it is too hard for someone to lose endorsements, they can always resign WA and immediately reapply, resetting the cap.

14

I don’t think a three day mandatory courtesy period is appropriate or necessary. A day is enough. It should be the discretion of whoever is enforcing the endorsement cap whether or not to give grace further grace, depending on the circumstances.

People have lives outside of NationStates and a courtesy period of longer than one day increases the ability for a Nation to receive notification and respond under their own volition instead of having to have action taken against them.

Additionally, having such a punitive minimum and relying on someone’s discretion leaves the cause open to abuse. A defined “this is the notice period” ensures that everyone is treated the same.

If you endorse and send a bunch of telegrams, you could get really high in endorsements, real quick. We should be able to dynamically respond to security threats without having to wait three days.

Can you please explain why having a courtesy period of three days hinders a dynamic security response when the Viziers can waive the response time anyway, as per 4.1.1?

Regarding the fourteen day suspension, we shouldn’t allow indefinite suspensions of enforcing the endorsement cap. We cannot allow the cap violators to violate the cap indefinitely. In addition, if it is too hard for someone to lose endorsements, they can always resign WA and immediately reapply, resetting the cap.

Then the clause needs to be rewritten to make it clear that it relates to the enforcement of the Act. If someone takes proactive steps once they’ve breached the Endorsement Cap to return to compliance; such as notifying the EPPS and asking to be un-endorsed (especially if this happens before even receiving notification), and then returns to compliance within an acceptable timeframe, then punishment under the Act, which is the sole focus of this clause, should be able to be suspended.

15

As you stated in first post on this thread, we can just change the wording of 4.4

So let’s look at 4.4. However, it should still have a time limit of fourteen days. I believe this limit was to stop people form saying they would comply with the cap and then never do. You cannot just say, “I am taking steps to fix this,” and then two weeks later you still are over the cap. There is no excuse for that.

Something like:

…4.4. The Viziers may temporarily suspend punishment for violations of under this Act for no more than fourteen days if provided that the offending nation has proven a willingness promptly takes appropriate action to comply with the Endorsement Cap and comes into compliance with the Endorsement Cap within fourteen days.

16

I think the first part of the act already allows the viziers to jump on those who break the cap after day 1, so the 14day is unecessary.

Appropriate action to come within endocap will be decided by the viziers whether they want to pursue a court case after. Less words, more meaning