Limits on Endorsements Act

[Administrator Account]

This bill enters the floor for the consideration of Congress until November 9th, 2018

Legislation: Limits on Endorsements Act

Category: Legislation
Author: Ivory Rhodes

A bill to regulate World Assembly endorsements

Be it enacted by the Congress of the Democratic Socialist Assembly,

Chapter I: General Provisions
1.1 Title This act may be cited as the “Limits on Endorsements Act”.
1.2 Effective This act shall come into force upon its passage.

Chapter II: Limitations on World Assembly Endorsements for Residents
2.1 No resident not in the Cabinet may acquire a number of endorsements greater than 40% of
the number of endorsements held by the World Assembly Delegate at any given moment.
2.2 Should the proportion of endorsements held result in a non-whole number, the proportion of endorsements allowed will be rounded down.

Chapter III: Limitations on World Assembly Endorsements for Cabinet Ministers
3.1 The Minister of Justice may not acquire a number of endorsements greater than 75% of the number of endorsements held by the World Assembly Delegate at any given moment.
3.2 All other Cabinet Ministers may not acquire a number of endorsements greater than 60% of the number of endorsements held by the World Assembly Delegate at any given moment.
3.2 Should the proportion of endorsements held result in a non-whole number, the proportion of endorsements allowed will be rounded down.

Chapter IV: Punishments for Exceeding Limitations
4.1 Any Resident who exceeds the limitations as defined by this legislation shall be notified of their non-compliance.
4.2 The Minister of Justice, when not the Resident in violation of this law, shall be responsible for notifying the endorsing nations that they must withdraw their World Assembly endorsement from the Resident in violation.
4.3 If the Resident in violation of this law does not come into compliance within one week or a greater period as determined by the Minister of Justice, they will be asked to resign temporarily from the World Assemb

ly.

[Deleted]

2.1 and 2.2 can easily be one sentence instead of 2 . ("No non-Cabinet member may acquire a number of endorsements greater than 40% of the number of endorsements held by the World Assembly Delegate, rounded down to the nearest whole number, at any given time.")

Sames with 3.1 and 3.2, and 3.3 (which is listed mistakenly as 3.2).

Otherwise, cool beans.

[Dekks]

Has this ever been a problem?, as at first sight it just seems more administration for something that doesn't seem to be an issue.

[Alvero]

Full disclosure: I have the most endorsements after Ivory Rhodes, 68, and will be affected by this a lot. There's a reason though that I collect endorsements: they're important to the region. I think there's a good case to be made about why this is a bad policy. Here's the problems I have with it.


It Weakens the Region
Endorsements are the most important mechanic in NationStates. It's what determines control of a region, and each nation's influence within the region. Let's say we're targeted by a raiding group such as the Black Hawks. What they do is try to get more endorsements than the current WA Delegate, Ivory Rhodes. We already have sufficient protections such as a highly endorsed (over 100) WA Delegate, and an active founder loyal to this congress. Let's say that for whatever reasons they're no longer protecting us. What the Black Hawks would do is take control of the WA delegate and start ejecting nations. When they eject nations they use the "Influence" mechanic. This mechanic is generated based on your total endorsements. The higher your influence the less people they can eject. So developing high influence in your region is a great last minute defense in preventing mass ejections by raiders. Of course having high endorsement counts across member regions also allows for multiple options in retaking the WA Delegate. 

In addition, it weakens our place in the WA. I love the ILC, and that we act as a region when we vote. The higher our Delegate's endorsement count, and how many active WA members we have, the more influence we have in the World Assembly. I can't help but think of Europe. They're an insanely influential region on the World Assembly especially for their size. I would love to see that sort of endorsement culture spread here, within reason.


This Endorsement Cap is Confusing
Using percentages allows for the endorsement cap to fluctuate wildly. I think that if an endorsement cap were to be put in place it should be set at a static number, changeable by congress, that allows for easy and up front communication of our rules. What is suggested in this law is unnecessarily complicated.

This Endorsement Cap Discriminates Against Non-Cabinet Members
There's no good reason a cabinet member would need more endorsements than any other resident, it gives them no advantage when doing their job. The best argument I can see is that Cabinet members are trusted enough to be elected. I think the biggest flaw is that it creates an elitist culture in which Cabinet members are treated special in areas they have no reason to be. I think we're better than that as a region and any endorsement cap should be treated equal for all residents.

What I Think a Good Endorsement Cap Would Look Like
I understand that there are benefits to having an endorsement caps. It prevents say a sleeper agent from a raiding group from accumulating enough delegates to take over the region. I think there's a place for it. However I think what's suggested is too strict and confusing to make it benefitial to the region. I think any endorsement cap should be as high as we can reasonably allow, because of the benefits mentioned above, simple, and set the same for everyone. I think setting an Endorsement cap of 75 for everyone would make sense to me. I think that gives plenty of room for our 109 endorsement count delegate with a 34 endorsement buffer. We're growing like wildfire and I think that's a good number to currently protect us while giving us room to grow.  I think we should also encourage our residents to endorse more. Cross endorsements are a good thing and strengthen the regions defense and influence in the WA. 

Summary
Ultimately I think we should rethink this law with the suggestions I made above. I think we can find a reasonable solution to ease any fears, while allowing us to fully utilize NationStates' most important mechanic: endorsements. We should set a cap at 75 for everyone, and promote endorsements more in our region. I think this will be the best option to both protect and strengthen the region.

[Dekks]

I do generally with Alvero's criticisms, though what is being proposed relies on the current amount of endorsements ivory has, this may change with future WA-delegates depending on active the region will be. As if the Delegate only has 50 endorsements keeping a 75 cap would be ridiculous, and if the Delegate would suddenly have 200 endorsements a 75 endorsement cap would be quite unfair.
So having a certain number in the legislation would be unpractical.
So i do get the need for a certain percentage, but i would prefer a singular percentage that's quite generous, like 75% for everyone.

[jes5862]

How would you even inforce such a policy. From my understanding, the number of endorsements is affected by others and is thus out of our control. So it would be impractical without a significant and substantial change to the game functions. Maybe we should focus on enforcing the policy of endorsing the WA delegate and President.

Also I agree with Alvero. There should be no cap on endorsements.

[studentloandebt]

This could be so tediously difficult to implement.

If someone endorses me and that puts me 1 endorsement above 40%, I should just go "Hey, don't endorse me right now because the law forbids it"?

And what about the WAD's constantly fluctuating number of endorsements? That constantly raises and lowers the number to where it's safer to be around 30-35% rather than 40% so you don't have to constantly send out telegrams telling people to not endorse you, which effectively means that no one will even want to reach near 40%, which effectively makes a range not to be in rather than a specific percent.

Also, I can already see this turning people off where we have to explain a very specific law of

"Now, you have to endorse the WAD, but can't endorse people if they have 40% or more endorsements than the WAD, unless they are a Cabinet Member, in which case you can ignore the 40%, but make sure they don't have 60% or more endorsements than the WAD, unless they're a minister of justice, in which case you can ignore the 60%, but make sure they don't have 75% or more endorsements than the WAD. How do we expect you to know how much the percentages are? Well you should probably have the WAD's nation handily bookmarked in your browser to stay up to date on the daily changing and fluctuating numbers and percentages and you should have to calculate all of the different numbers whenever you have to figure out if you're out of compliance and making sure you're not making other people out of compliance, in which case you and the person you're endangering could be kicked from the region. Sound good? Anyway, welcome to our region! Home of all leftist ideologies..." etc etc more welcome telegram stuff

For first time players, that can be so confusing and turn people off immediately to either the region or NationStates. If I was confronted with this when I first joined, I know I would have been.

[Deleted]

I'll just repeat here what I posted on Discord:


I'm likely a minority opinion on this matter, but I feel the current inconveniences we endure during delegate transitions are worth the trouble. I have reservations about transferring to a system that less democratic GCRs employ. The freedom of endorsements can serve as a check on elected power, should there be any unforeseeable circumstances in which a despot rises to power through legal sketchiness. Even though we have democratically legislated safeguards against explicit infringements or foul play, there still can exist possibilities in which can lead to undesirable situations by a lack of enforcement, cabinet vacancy, and a gamut of other scenarios if you're willing to entertain your imagination.

If we do run into situations where a nation is posing a threat to the endorsement count, we could simply message the offending nation and endorsers to pull back. Worst case scenario, we offer a temporary ejection to the one before a crucial update.


So here's how I see it... no matter the situation or solution, we're going to have some kind of tradeoff in security.

I had a thought that instead of a cap, and I also like the cross endorsement idea, we could give the president and others with BC role more discretionary powers to eject non-elected nations during a transitionary period.

But we pretty much have to be extra careful with whatever we decide on.

[jes5862]

So I am guessing that since there is so much disagreement in the committee about how to proceed with this bill, that it will not be entering the floor?

[Administrator Account]

This bill is being held for revisions.