Change to the Endorsement Cap Act

The Magisterium
1

— Begin quote from ____

BE IT ENACTED by the Magisterium of the East Pacific:

SECTION I. TITLE

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

SECTION II. FINDINGS

…2.1 The Magisterium finds that:
…2.1.1- The stability of the in-game region is largely dependent on the influence and endorsement levels of the Delegate and Viziers, 
…2.1.2- Endorsements and Influence remain crucial tools with which to determine the in-game delegacy, 
…2.1.3- It is prudent that The East Pacific maintain flexibile endorsement caps to reflect the cultural initiatives and security situation of the region.

SECTION III. DEFINITIONS

…3.1- For the purposes of this act, the following terms are defined as:
…3.1.1- Region- “the NationStates region of The East Pacific”;
…3.1.2- Nation- “a nation within region, regardless of citizenship status”;
…3.1.3- Qualified Endorsement Cap- “a cap, with a qualifier to be subjected to it, that is set by the Delegate and confirmed by the Magisterium”;

SECTION IV. ENDORSEMENT CAPS

…4.1- The Delegate is empowered to propose to the Magisterium any number of Qualified Endorsement Caps, which shall be ratified by a majority vote. A proposal for a Qualified Endorsement Cap must include the following: a simple title, the qualification for that cap, and the number (or numbers) targeted by the proposed Cap.

…4.2- No Qualified Endorsement Cap may exceed the number of current Delegate Endorsements for any reason.

…4.3- Qualified Endorsement Caps may be repealed in the following ways:
…4.3.1- At the request of the Delegate, with a majority vote of the Magisterium; or
…4.3.2- Without the consent of the Delegate with a 2/3 majority vote of the Magisterium.

SECTION V. GENERAL PROVISIONS

…5.1- The Delegate must display the current numerical value of all Qualified Endorsement Caps the Non-Delegate-Friendly and Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Caps on the Region’s World Factbook Entry.

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

…5.3- The Delegate, any Vizier, member of the Eastern Pacific Police Service, or other designee of the Executive may choose to act as a Compliance Officer for the purposes of this Act.

…5.4- The top four endorsed Viziers shall be entitled to the in-game Regional Officer power “Border Control” if they opt-in to act on an ejection or banishment order made under this Act by the Delegate. The Delegate may revoke this power if the Vizier refuses a legitimate ejection or banishment order under this Act.

SECTION VI. VIOLATIONS OF ENDORSEMENT CAPS

…6.1- Any nation found to be doing the following commits a summary offence:
…6.1.1- Maintaining endorsements in excess of the endorsement cap to which it is subject;
…6.1.2- Soliciting additional endorsements beyond the endorsement cap to which it is subject.

…6.2- To enforce a banishment or ejection under this act, the offending nation must be “Notified” by a Compliance Officer via a ‘tag’ on a publicly available list of offenders for at least 3 days.

…6.3- Any nation, having been under Notice in accordance with 6.2 and remaining in violation of this Act shall be subject to summary ejection OR banishment. Citizens reserve the right to to appeal to Conclave.

…6.4- Any nation, found soliciting additional endorsements beyond the applicable endorsement cap while under Notice in accordance with 6.1 shall be subject to summary ejection OR banishment. Citizens reserve the right to to appeal to Conclave.
…6.4.1- The Delegate must submit notice of this action to the Conclave.

…6.5- The Delegate may temporarily suspend punitive action under this Act if the offending nation has proven a willingness to comply with the cap, at the Delegate’s discretion.

SECTION VII. ENACTMENT

…7.1- This bill shall be enacted upon its signature by the Delegate, except if the Magisterium votes to override a veto of this bill by the Delegate.

…7.2- Upon Enactment of this bill, the Simplified Endorsement Cap Act is repealed.

…7.3- Upon Enactment of this bill, the following Qualified Endorsement Caps are established until their repeal or replacement:
…7.3.1- The “Non-Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Cap” shall cap the endorsements for nations not endorsing the Delegate at 10 20.
…7.3.2- The “Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Cap” shall cap the endorsements for nations endorsing the Delegate at 400. 
…7.3.3- The “Government Officer Endorsement Cap” shall cap the endorsements for Magisters, Arbiters, and certified Executive Staff endorsing the Delegate at 375.. at 25 endorsements above the “Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Cap”. 
…7.3.4- The “Senior Officers Endorsement Cap” shall cap the endorsements for Executive Staff Ministers, EPPS Senior Officials, and EPSA Generals endorsing the Delegate at 400 at 50 endorsements above the “Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Cap”.

— End quote

Rationale For Changes:

5.1: I never saw the Qualified Endorsement Caps on the WFE ever since I joined NS (a year ago.) Since no one has thought to enforce this section of the law, I felt it was supposed to be changed. The two caps mentioned in 5.1 are the most widely known and followed ones. Both have been on the WFEs in times past, so they have not been forgotten in the way of mentioning the Caps on the WFE.

7.3.1: Bit of a controversial one. The discussion began in the Executive Discord, with enough valid points to believe the proposal worthwhile. I won’t reveal opposition arguments in order to extend thoughts and ideas discussed in the following posts. The reason I feel that this change is valid is that nowadays, nations who don’t do anything usually gain at least 15-20 endorsements from hopeful endorsement swappers. Unfortunately, these nations become apathetic to everything NS except issues and WAs, so they do not endorse anyone. I don’t believe this change would hurt the region at all, since the Delegate-Friendly Cap is at 400, and our Delegate is currently around 750-800 endorsements.

7.3.3 & 7.3.4: This is not a much-needed amendment, but admittedly, I made a mistake which caused the Senior Officers Cap and the Delegate-Friendly Cap to be the same amount in the last amendment to this act. With these changes, it will help prevent the mistake I made occur. If it happens once, it can definitely happen again.

Additionally, I am unsure if 4.1.1 should be worded differently according to the changes of 7.3.3 & 7.3.4; input would be welcome.

I welcome all Magisters and citizens willing to discuss this proposal.

2

I like the amendment to 5.1 (from what I understand it requires the caps to be displayed on the WFE for both delegate friendly and non-delegate friendly).

I don’t love the language of “delegate friendly” and “non delegate friendly” which I believe means “endorsing the delegate” and “not endorsing the delegate” - why not keep it that or make it less ambiguous?

7.3.1 basically increases the endorsement cap for those not endorsing the delegate to 20, which I guess keeps from pushing out people who might just need some convo to get them endorsing? Seems fine.

7.3.3 & 7.3.4 - basically see the note above the language otherwise I see no issue with increasing the caps.

3

— Begin quote from ____

I like the amendment to 5.1 (from what I understand it requires the caps to be displayed on the WFE for both delegate friendly and non-delegate friendly).

I don’t love the language of “delegate friendly” and “non delegate friendly” which I believe means “endorsing the delegate” and “not endorsing the delegate” - why not keep it that or make it less ambiguous?

7.3.1 basically increases the endorsement cap for those not endorsing the delegate to 20, which I guess keeps from pushing out people who might just need some convo to get them endorsing? Seems fine.

7.3.3 & 7.3.4 - basically see the note above the language otherwise I see no issue with increasing the caps.

— End quote

I don’t love that language either, but I tried to keep the law to what needed to be changed.

As for 7.3 and 7.4, I’m trying to fix the endorsement caps, not actually raise them. Before the cap was raises, the 7.3 cap was 375, and the 7.4 cap was 400. However, due to a mistake on my part, the General Delegate friendly cap was changes to 400 and the other caps were not updated.

What I’m trying to do is to make sure that my mistake doesn’t occur again.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

4

As stated before, so I am stating now. I am opposing idea of increasing endocap for those, who do not endorse our Delegate. Being too lazy to do so, is their own problem, not our. If there is a group, that constantly breaks our law, we should execute it on them, not change it for them. Besides, whether they are in our region or they are kicked, this is of no difference for us. This is just a number, they don’t work in government, they are not Magisters, they are probably not even citizens and not doing as little as endorsing the Delegate.

As stated, I’m against liberalizing this part of endocap.

5

Keeping the “non-delegate friendly” cap at 10 puts pressure on people to endorse the delegate who would not otherwise bother.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

6

The fact is that some people just don’t care about endorsing the Delegate.

Are we really going to waste our valuable time banjecting people who just don’t care about endorsements?

We should be accommodating for all play styles, even the ones that don’t give two hoots about anything but roleplay and WA votes.

Otherwise, we become one of those “if you’re WA, endorse the Delegate or be banned”. A newbie naturally gains around 15-20 endorsements without doing anything nowadays.

So basically, we are stating that the issue playing style is illegal because they are being prosecuted for not doing something they do not wish to bother with.

This is like saying we should ban rmb rpers for not doing doing forum rp, if forum rp was mandatory.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

7

I don’t think that has been happening. The issues only crowd has been happy to endorse the delegate.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

8

There is still a minority who don’t wish to endorse anyone. So I guess you can say just the minority of people don’t care. However, is it not happening to them?

I’ve always thought that the non friendly endorsement cap was meant to just let nations gain 10 endorsements from endo-swappers, so EPPS wouldn’t have to deal with them. Adding 10 more endorsements is not a large number; the point of getting 400 endorsements if you endorse the Delegate is still extremely viable.

Perhaps the reason people don’t endorse the Delegate is this: maybe they don’t understand game mechanics/don’t care too, and see the large number of endorsements the Delegate has and say “oh, I don’t need to endorse the Delegate.” Remember that the game’s view point of endorsements is saying “oh, I like your nation.” Maybe this + the fact that some people just don’t care to have more than the amount of endorsements they have makes people unwilling to endorse the Delegate. They see no benefit to wasting a second of their time, because to them, TEP has a large security force already and they don’t care much about endorsements.

My point is, while having 10 endorsements for nom-friendly endorsement cap can make a good point to endorse the Delegate, some people just view Endorsements as useless and needless to their style of play. Thus, as I didn’t realize and what you said, the issue crowd has been willing to endorse you. This is because it doesn’t matter to them if they do so or not. In the same vien, people who don’t care about it won’t be inclined to do it, even with the most incessant of pinging. These people are a minority but are around 40-50 people.

So we are basically forcing the minority of people in our region who wish to have nothing to do with endorsements to care about endorsements or get banned.

The only reason I can think of for not raising the endorsement cap is that people may not care of they’re in TEP, as Lib said. But there will still be people who don’t want to care about anything about endorsements but remain here, albeit a miniscule, miniscule, very tiny minority.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

9

The endorsement cap causes people to care who would not otherwise care.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

10

How would it loose it’s ability to have people endorse the delegate if it is raised?

People who want more than 20 endorsements will still endorse the Delegate.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

11

It just makes those people wait longer before they start to care

To clarify, a large number of people only endorse the delegate because they find themselves unintentionally breaking the endorsement cap so they endorse the delegate to put themselves in compliance.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

12

But what about the people who will never care?

Who aren’t nessecarily raiders but judt don’t wish to deal with endorsements at all?

13

I guess if they don’t care then being required to have a max ten shouldn’t matter? Like I can see both sides to this but if you really don’t care about endos then you won’t mind having 1-10?

14

Yep, I’ll reverse that change then.

Im assuming there is no other wanted changes to any of the changes I made. :stuck_out_tongue:

But never hurts to be sure. I’ll do it later today.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

15

— Begin quote from ____

BE IT ENACTED by the Magisterium of the East Pacific:

SECTION I. TITLE

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

SECTION II. FINDINGS

…2.1 The Magisterium finds that:
…2.1.1- The stability of the in-game region is largely dependent on the influence and endorsement levels of the Delegate and Viziers, 
…2.1.2- Endorsements and Influence remain crucial tools with which to determine the in-game delegacy, 
…2.1.3- It is prudent that The East Pacific maintain flexibile endorsement caps to reflect the cultural initiatives and security situation of the region.

SECTION III. DEFINITIONS

…3.1- For the purposes of this act, the following terms are defined as:
…3.1.1- Region- “the NationStates region of The East Pacific”;
…3.1.2- Nation- “a nation within region, regardless of citizenship status”;
…3.1.3- Qualified Endorsement Cap- “a cap, with a qualifier to be subjected to it, that is set by the Delegate and confirmed by the Magisterium”;

SECTION IV. ENDORSEMENT CAPS

…4.1- The Delegate is empowered to propose to the Magisterium any number of Qualified Endorsement Caps, which shall be ratified by a majority vote. A proposal for a Qualified Endorsement Cap must include the following: a simple title, the qualification for that cap, and the number (or numbers) targeted by the proposed Cap.

…4.2- No Qualified Endorsement Cap may exceed the number of current Delegate Endorsements for any reason.

…4.3- Qualified Endorsement Caps may be repealed in the following ways:
…4.3.1- At the request of the Delegate, with a majority vote of the Magisterium; or
…4.3.2- Without the consent of the Delegate with a 2/3 majority vote of the Magisterium.

SECTION V. GENERAL PROVISIONS

…5.1- The Delegate must display the current numerical value of all Qualified Endorsement Caps the Non-Delegate-Friendly and Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Caps on the Region’s World Factbook Entry.

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

…5.3- The Delegate, any Vizier, member of the Eastern Pacific Police Service, or other designee of the Executive may choose to act as a Compliance Officer for the purposes of this Act.

…5.4- The top four endorsed Viziers shall be entitled to the in-game Regional Officer power “Border Control” if they opt-in to act on an ejection or banishment order made under this Act by the Delegate. The Delegate may revoke this power if the Vizier refuses a legitimate ejection or banishment order under this Act.

SECTION VI. VIOLATIONS OF ENDORSEMENT CAPS

…6.1- Any nation found to be doing the following commits a summary offence:
…6.1.1- Maintaining endorsements in excess of the endorsement cap to which it is subject;
…6.1.2- Soliciting additional endorsements beyond the endorsement cap to which it is subject.

…6.2- To enforce a banishment or ejection under this act, the offending nation must be “Notified” by a Compliance Officer via a ‘tag’ on a publicly available list of offenders for at least 3 days.

…6.3- Any nation, having been under Notice in accordance with 6.2 and remaining in violation of this Act shall be subject to summary ejection OR banishment. Citizens reserve the right to to appeal to Conclave.

…6.4- Any nation, found soliciting additional endorsements beyond the applicable endorsement cap while under Notice in accordance with 6.1 shall be subject to summary ejection OR banishment. Citizens reserve the right to to appeal to Conclave.
…6.4.1- The Delegate must submit notice of this action to the Conclave.

…6.5- The Delegate may temporarily suspend punitive action under this Act if the offending nation has proven a willingness to comply with the cap, at the Delegate’s discretion.

SECTION VII. ENACTMENT

…7.1- This bill shall be enacted upon its signature by the Delegate, except if the Magisterium votes to override a veto of this bill by the Delegate.

…7.2- Upon Enactment of this bill, the Simplified Endorsement Cap Act is repealed.

…7.3- Upon Enactment of this bill, the following Qualified Endorsement Caps are established until their repeal or replacement:
…7.3.1- The “Non-Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Cap” shall cap the endorsements for nations not endorsing the Delegate at 10.
…7.3.2- The “Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Cap” shall cap the endorsements for nations endorsing the Delegate at 400. 
…7.3.3- The “Government Officer Endorsement Cap” shall cap the endorsements for Magisters, Arbiters, and certified Executive Staff endorsing the Delegate at 375.. at 25 endorsements above the “Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Cap”. 
…7.3.4- The “Senior Officers Endorsement Cap” shall cap the endorsements for Executive Staff Ministers, EPPS Senior Officials, and EPSA Generals endorsing the Delegate at 400 at 50 endorsements above the “Delegate-Friendly Endorsement Cap”.

— End quote

Sorry for being so late with this!

Changed it back to the original Non-Delegate Friendly Cap. Anything else needs to be changed?

Edit

Was going to another discussion and saw the EPPS stuff, which no longer exists. O_o

Changed it up a bit! Tell me what you guys think. :slight_smile:

16

I think it is time to do this. The Viziers are mostly non-active (as shown by my tarting way past the existing cap a number of times) and the Cabinet contains the most active people in the region. Although the Cabinet members do not have the same authority as the Viziers, they act as pseudo-Viziers and have for quiet some time. A higher endorsement cap for them would help maintain regional stability.

Therefore, I propose that we immediately raise the Endorsement Cap for Cabinet members to 500.

17

Unless I am mistaken, doesn’t this effectively defeat the purpose of having Viziers in the first place? Aren’t they supposed to exist in order to “maintain regional stability”?

18

— Begin quote from ____

Unless I am mistaken, doesn’t this effectively defeat the purpose of having Viziers in the first place? Aren’t they supposed to exist in order to “maintain regional stability”?

— End quote

In a perfect world, our Viziers would be a lot more proactive than they are, but many have fallen into stagnancy or a state of complacency.

Ideally, we’d have a more effective way to remove Viziers for more-or-less dereliction of duty, but the current legal hoops to do that would be annoying. While I think that’s a route to pursue eventually, I believe raising the endorsement cap of Cabinet members to 500 would allow for more proactive security officials to maintain a greater impact on regional security. If we want to take a Vizier-positive approach to this, it would also let the Viziers save even more Regional Influence for when more problematic threats arise than the sort of marsupials folks like Davelands and myself have been dispatching

19

Firmly against.

The caps we have now are fine and I see no reason to, as a rule, let any and all cabinet members (which isn’t even a thing in TEP law) go to 500 and act as de facto Viziers.

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

20

I honestly don’t really know what to say.

If there really is a problem, then I don’t believe this is a solution, because, in the end, it’s supposed to be the Viziers who are meant to protect the region. If you believe they are inactive, then it should warrant that you seek a removal (I am not saying I believe Viziers are inactive, I am just stating what I believe should be done.)

As Bach says, there really isn’t much mention of the cabinet in law, more “advisors to the Delegate” and “appointed persons” which could give more people the mentioned 500 endo-cap than the cabinet itself. (Ex: Deputy Ministers).

In the same vein, there is a dead discussion that I plan to move to vote that fixes the Endorsement Cap Act from my mistakes made when it was last put to vote. The Cap itself gives “Ministers, EPPS Senior Officials, and EPSA Generals” around 50+ endos than the cap. Besides the RMB Ambassador and a few others, the cap in itself covers most of the Cabinet.