A request regarding the Endorsement Cap.

Post by **Lord Ravenclaw** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:21 pm

I would appreciate it if someone would be kind enough to draft an amendment for Section 6-K to allow the use of tiered endorsement caps for nations endorsing the delegate and Vizier.

The aim would be an endorsement cap of 20 for those not endorsing me, with those endorsing me being able to go up to 45, or thereabouts depending on the amount of endorsements that I sit on.

This is the current version of Section 6-K:
(k) Citizens will have the right to be members of the WA or to decline WA membership, to be secure against requirement to endorse any WA nation, to be secure against any specialized endorsement limit below the general endorsement limit, and to be secure against punishment for endorsing any WA nation which has a number of endorsements below the endorsement limit lawfully and publicly established for that nation.

The results of this policy would be three fold:

1. Encourages people to endorse the delegate
2. Increases the influence pool in the region
3. Makes it harder for coups to succeed in the future

-Raven

Charles Cerebella · Post by **Charles Cerebella** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:51 pm

Sounds a reasonable plan though 45 is rather high given the low endorsement level at present.

Joshua Bluteisen · Post by **Joshua Bluteisen** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:46 pm

wouldn't it make more sense to work based off of percentages of the current WAD's endorsements? eg; non-WAD endorsers could pull 10% of the WAD's endorsements, while those who DO endorse you could be allowed 30%?

it'd be easy enough to toss in baseline limits (eg; 30% or 15, whichever is higher) and still accomplish what you want, without having to worry about people getting too close to you when your endorsement level is low.

Treize Dreizehn · Post by **Treize Dreizehn** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:16 pm

My preference here is to put the power in the hands of the Pharaoh. This will change based on the numbers, 30% of 80 is in striking distance of the delegacy, while 30% of 200 is mostly not. Same problem will be experienced with any hard caps. These need to be fluid and the Pharaoh needs the flex room to make this work. I agree though that there should be an allowance for two tiers of endorsement levels.

Post by **Lord Ravenclaw** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:12 am

Naturally, 45 would be incredibly high for an upper cap and I'd most likely set it at 30 or 35 given the amount of endorsements that I have.

This is more to actually allow tiered caps - as it was something that wasn't thought of when the state code was being written.

Charles Cerebella · Post by **Charles Cerebella** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:11 pm

Well I'm fully behind the principle.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:19 pm

I think we should at least establish a minimum endorsement limit for those who are endorsing the Pharaoh. We definitely don't need a Pharaoh with 100 endorsements imposing an endorsement limit of 10, as our low endorsement caps have in the past contributed to the ease with which we've been couped.

I'm fine with an amendment to allow tiered endorsement limits though. It's a good practice given the changes to influence in GCRs, and I wish I had considered it when drafting the State Code.