[Discussion] I'd like to be an endorsee

[Amerion]

To clarify, by endorsee, you mean being on the Council on Lazarene Security yes?

[Milograd]

Actually fuck it. I'll try now.

There are two reasons you get involved in a GCR community, really:
1. You're roped in by someone or something
2. You seek the political intrigue and consequence that UCR's can't provide, by virtue of having founders and being replaceable

So, as a GCR -- and in particular, as a sinker -- I think it's very important that we have a set of endorsees who are chosen with a lot of focus and intention.

To understand why, I would point to Balder. Balder's endorsement situation has a ton to do with the region. As a player, I have no desire to join Balder, because the people they've chosen to have champion their region are boring and lack inspiration (in my eyes, but I respect them both). If I wanted to leave my mark on Balder, I'd need to work years at it -- years that wouldn't be fun for me. I can tell that by looking at who has already left their mark there.

In looking for a home, nations look for places where people like them thrive, and where they believe they can make an impact. And that's why I'm really convinced that we should make me an endorsee. While making me an endorsee would benefit the region (and I'm willing to write essays arguing why), I think the act of making me an endorsee under these circumstances is most important. I want to see Lazarus stop thinking of Lazarus as something we need to "protect" and "govern," and reimagine it for what it is: a friend group of NS players that we're in. If our group ("the Assembly") is cool with me being an endorsee, we should 100% do it. And that's how we should do everything.

[Harmoneia]

You know I adore you and have nothing against having you here as an endorsee in normal circumstances, but I can’t helpt but ask why you think we should believe that you will be loyal to this group of friends, as you put it, and not some other group? While I agree we shouldn’t think of a region as something to be “governed,” we do protect friends, and that can be tricky because it can be a matter of ranking hmgroups, not necessarily regions, based on principle, importance, or simply affection.

[Milograd]

You know I adore you and have nothing against having you here as an endorsee in normal circumstances, but I can’t helpt but ask why you think we should believe that you will be loyal to this group of friends, as you put it, and not some other group? While I agree we shouldn’t think of a region as something to be “governed,” we do protect friends, and that can be tricky because it can be a matter of ranking hmgroups, not necessarily regions, based on principle, importance, or simply affection.

Two reasons:

One, I don't think I pose a threat. What's the worst thing I can do? Objectively speaking, the worst thing I could do is form a government that gives me absolute power without any checks or balances, assemble a group of my friends as endorsees, set an authoritatively low endorsement cap, and then surrender the region's sovereignty to the NPO after building influence for several years. Something tells me Lazarus would prevail.

Two, I'm willing to promise you, as my friend, that I'll be "good enough" at being loyal. To my knowledge, I've never made such a promise on NS. 

Nonetheless, I obviously cannot promise that I won't ever overthrow the government. Sometimes you've just gotta overthrow the government, yknow?

I know that isn't assuring. So in the spirit of my love for games, I'll go so far as to offer a second promise. Consider this list of names, which I've chosen carefully:

1. WaterMuzik (Tubbius)
2. Kazmr (Codger)
3. Harmoneia (Spec)
4. Evil Wolf (Feux)
5. Great Bights Mum (A Slanted Black Stripe, or Tsunamy)
6. Cormac (Whoever is delegate of The Pacific)

If I overthrow the government, then you could reach out to every one of these nations. Names in parentheses are back-ups. I'll stop whatever I'm doing if at least 4 of the 6 names say "I believe it is best that Milo stop." If 3/6 say this, but the other 3 support me or are indifferent, then we'll flip a fair coin to see if I stop or not. If I lose the coin flip, I'll stop. If I win, then you'll have to beat me the old fashioned way (i.e. an in-game conflict).

I'd wager my entire credibility on this promise. The caveat is that only you can initiate it. If I'm lying, then my word means absolutely nothing and never will, for as long as I play NS -- and everyone can quote me on that.

[DaddyStalin]

I really like the new look at Lazarus. It's a game not a hyper-realistic political simulation.

With that being said, there is plenty you could do that would screw up Lazarus with the additional endorsements, but if you are willing to stick to the promise that you outlined above, I see no real major issue with it.

[Amerion]

While I appreciate the frank honesty, it would be foolish for Imki to nominate someone who cannot guarantee absolute loyalty to both her and her successors (Tubb, etc).

Granted, there is a very good argument to be made to have you become a member of the CLS and then, later on in the future, to mount a successful coup so as to continue the fun of GP - but ultimately, it isn't in the interests of the 12th Mandate.

Taking a step back, security councillors couping and replacing the status quo is so meh, it's overdone - sure, it'll blow up the GP forum for however long it lasts, but there's nothing that would make me go, 'woah, that's so impressive.'

[Constie]

Woah, Amerion. I disagree with your first line completely. A member of the CLS should be loyal to the region of Lazarus and the Mandate first, not to any singular person in power.

[treadwellia]

My advice: let the folks in charge think this proposal over and act accordingly. Trust has to be built, and the situation must be studied first.

[New Rogernomics]

Even the Cabinet should try to stay reasonably around the cap, and they are appointees of the delegate voted in by the legislature. Procedure and security wise it is reasonable and necessary for no one to exceed the cap without being someone trusted and within the government structure. You'd want the Delegate to have the most, followed by the Vice Delegate, Council of Lazarene Security, and the Cabinet. To exceed the cap substantially inside those groups, you'd expect to need express permission from the delegate on security grounds of a perceived or temporary threat.

I don't believe that Imkiville, as yet, is appointing people to the Council of Lazazrene Security, though that should happen eventually in the future.

Though I'd think exceeding the cap by itself shouldn't be open to anyone unless they are cleared to do so as an existing member of government, in this case at least part of the CLS, or at more of a stretch, the Cabinet.

Constitutionally there is no limit to the number of members of the CLS that may be appointed by the Delegate. So what you should really be asking for Milograd, and Cormac (if I am correct on your interest), is to be a member of the CLS. Which would allow exceeding a cap on basis of official support and trust. 

Several past administrations, though we are not bound to them, quarreled over what constitutes an acceptable cap. Generally though it makes sense to have everyone below the Vice-Delegate, and then those trusted by the government below that. 

Going forward, before discussing who could exceed a cap, we'd have to establish a technical cap below the Vice-Delegate, as right now we don't really have one beyond the 120 endorsements. After that, we could set up a CLS application thread, as we'd want plenty of members in the CLS over time, which Imkiville can look at and approve (or not) for a vote.

[Amerion]

Woah, Amerion. I disagree with your first line completely. A member of the CLS should be loyal to the region of Lazarus and the Mandate first, not to any singular person in power.

Ahhh, yes. My mistake, my choice of words was a poor one. I second Constie's view.