Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
- The Humane Republic of Lazarus
- →
- Citizens' Square
- →
- The Grand Assembly of the Phoenix
- →
- Past Discussions & Proposals
- →
- Endorsement Cap Amendment
| Welcome to the forums of the Humane Republic of Lazarus. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features |
| Endorsement Cap Amendment | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 4 2015, 12:47 AM (543 Views) | |
| New Rogernomics | Nov 4 2015, 12:47 AM Post #1 |
|
Ghost of Kitties Past
|
Note: In amending this, it should be noted that the current Mandate will allow the Grand Assembly to legislate additional caps, and that this is a basic cap:
Edited by New Rogernomics, Nov 18 2015, 03:19 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Powthran | Nov 4 2015, 06:50 AM Post #2 |
|
Lazarene
|
Looks great to me. Simple and clear. No convuleted rules. Freedom and securit, in one package. Huzzah. |
|
|
|
| Kazmr | Nov 4 2015, 09:18 AM Post #3 |
|
Lazarene
|
I know its a bit unorthodox but perhaps we could put this to the wider region just for an opinion, since its something that affects everyone? Maybe a poll on which only WA can vote? |
|
|
|
| Amerion | Nov 4 2015, 10:24 AM Post #4 |
|
President Stewie
|
I think this is a good idea 
Edited by Amerion, Nov 4 2015, 10:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
| New Rogernomics | Nov 4 2015, 04:00 PM Post #5 |
|
Ghost of Kitties Past
|
We could do that, but it wouldn't be binding. I will put forward the poll and the reasons to support it, and point out the following, though in clearer wording: 80 endorsements is referred to in the Grand Advisors Act, and the 10 WA cap is something I have being defacto enforcing due to the reality of current endorsements. So what I am really asking you to support is the endorsements policy we have had in place for many months. But under the existing law I am required to reduce endorsements to 30%, 60%, and 70% below the Grandee Secretary, which is rather harsh, and I hope you think so too. Edited by New Rogernomics, Nov 4 2015, 04:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| New Rogernomics | Nov 4 2015, 06:37 PM Post #6 |
|
Ghost of Kitties Past
|
Going to have to wait till the current poll ends, as I don't want to delete the poll. |
|
|
|
| Benevolent Thomas | Nov 4 2015, 08:59 PM Post #7 |
|
Blessed of the Vale
|
I don't like grand Advisers being able to pass the Grandee Secretary. Why even have the role of Grandee Secretary if they are unable to immediately ascend to the delegacy if the need arose? Making a gap of only 10 WAs between the Sovereign and any nation just makes us vulnerable to outside trolling (Benevolent Thomas looks at ToddCoup 2014). Letting all forum members get within 10 endorsements of the Sovereign also renders much of a Grand Adviser's responsibility meaningless. |
|
|
|
| New Rogernomics | Nov 4 2015, 10:06 PM Post #8 |
|
Ghost of Kitties Past
|
Right now Courlany exceeds the Grandee Secretary. Could ask him to drop some endorsements but he won't be happy about it.  And The Grand Advisors Act still applies, so only Grand Advisors can really go close to the Sovereign's endorsement level. Edited by New Rogernomics, Nov 4 2015, 10:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Cormac | Nov 4 2015, 10:09 PM Post #9 |
|
Lazarene
|
I largely agree with this entire post. I'd support a cap of 10 below the Grandee Secretary, maybe, but not the Sovereign. This isn't just a matter of potential trolling, it makes us much more vulnerable to an actual coup -- especially with Border Control Regional Officers in play. All a couper has to do in this scenario is sit 10 below the Sovereign for a while, get a half dozen of his friends to do the same, get an update force of 10+ (not that hard to do), and boom: You have a rogue Delegate with a fully functional rogue security council, all of whom can be empowered to eject and ban without even having to slingshot. Nope. Incidentally, TNP's cap -- and our security policy is derived from TNP's -- is based on the Vice Delegate, not the Delegate. I don't see any reason for us to "fix" what isn't broken in TNP's security policy, since that's essentially what we decided to adopt. I also agree that Grand Advisers shouldn't pass the Grandee Secretary. We can make dispensation for transitions, obviously, but under normal circumstances a Grand Adviser should not be allowed to deliberately exceed a Grandee Secretary whose endorsement count is already higher than their own. I can't see myself voting in favor of this amendment at all. Edited by Cormac, Nov 4 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Benevolent Thomas | Nov 4 2015, 10:13 PM Post #10 |
|
Blessed of the Vale
|
Its part of his duty to remain below the Grandee Secretary. He signed up for the job, so he should be happy to comply. |
|
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Past Discussions & Proposals · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:08 PM Apr 4
|
Theme by Sith - Recolored by Seth of Outline