[Discussion] Guardian Endorsement Limit

North East Somerset · Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:27 am

What could possibly go wrong?

No, but seriously, I would be interested to hear whether the Pharaoh supports this initiative.

The Almighty Jesus Whale · Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:02 am

North East Somerset wrote:Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:27 pmWhat could possibly go wrong?

No, but seriously, I would be interested to hear whether the Pharaoh supports this initiative.

While I do support the amendments, I am curious as to what Tim thinks of them.

The Almighty Jesus Whale · Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:02 am

Ignore accidental double post.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:51 pm

North East Somerset wrote:Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:27 pmWhat could possibly go wrong?

No, but seriously, I would be interested to hear whether the Pharaoh supports this initiative.

I'm interested to hear the Pharaoh's view on this too, though I did link him to this via Skype when I first posted the idea and he raised no objections. I wouldn't have moved forward with a draft without at least showing him the idea and seeing if he had any objections first. As you can see, he did remove the Guardian endorsement limit from the WFE as I suggested, so he has seen this thread.

I'm curious what you believe could go wrong, NES. 30 fewer endorsements than the Pharaoh isn't really in the range of a feasible update operation for a Guardian to coup, but a 40-60 endorsement gap between the Guardians and the Pharaoh could prove to be an insurmountable gap against a rogue Pharaoh. During the July 2013 coup, it was a significant problem that Priests of Ma'at were so far below Douria in their endorsement counts.

Post by **Tim Stark** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 12:23 pm

Sorry, yeah, I fully support Cormac's proposal

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:28 pm

Cormac wrote:Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:26 amIt looks like we have fairly broad agreement, and no expressed disagreement, so here is a legislative draft:

Guardian Endorsement Limit Amendment

Section 1: Amendment

1. Section 2.10(a) of the State Code of Osiris will be amended as follows:

Current Text wrote:(a) Guardians of the Atef may only exceed the general endorsement limit up to 66% of the Pharaoh's endorsement count or ten endorsements less than the Vizier's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
Amended Text wrote:(a) Guardians of the Atef may only exceed the general endorsement limit up to thirty endorsements fewer than the Pharaoh's endorsement count.

I move for a vote on this draft.

Motion suspended. See below.

Joshua Bluteisen · Post by **Joshua Bluteisen** » Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:54 pm

I second.

The Almighty Jesus Whale · Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:07 pm

Second.

North East Somerset · Post by **North East Somerset** » Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:27 pm

This amendment will create conflict with Section 2:11:

11. The Vizier will serve as Vice Pharaoh of Osiris, holding the second most WA endorsements in the region. The Pharaoh will appoint, with the approval of the Deshret, a citizen to serve as Vizier.

So taking the current situation, with the Pharaoh on 148, and the Vizier on 107, Cormac's amendment will allow Guardians to go up to 118 endorsements, considerably in excess of the Vizier.

Who is in then in the wrong? The Guardian for surpassing the Vizier, or the Vizier for not having over 118 endorsements? It's not clear. Your subsection states the Guardians can have up to 30 less than the Pharaoh, but then 2:11 says the Vizier will hold the 2nd most WA endorsements. Is a Guardian above the Vizier count in the wrong, and if they did not reduce their count below the Vizier, would action be taken to remove them - and if so, how?

I'm curious what you believe could go wrong, NES. 30 fewer endorsements than the Pharaoh isn't really in the range of a feasible update operation for a Guardian to coup, but a 40-60 endorsement gap between the Guardians and the Pharaoh could prove to be an insurmountable gap against a rogue Pharaoh. During the July 2013 coup, it was a significant problem that Priests of Ma'at were so far below Douria in their endorsement counts.

As long as there is a large enough pot of influence in the Guardians collectively they can enforce the Constitution against a Rogue Delegate. I agree it doesn't make sense to have them too far away in endorsements. My issue with the new proposal is firstly and foremost the contradiction between 2:11 and the proposed amendment, but also that having the Pharaoh, Vizier and Guardians so tightly bunched up together near the Pharaoh could create frictions, which could exacerbate any underlying tensions, making a coup by one of the parties, not necessarily the Pharaoh, more not less likely.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:39 pm

North East Somerset wrote:Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:27 amThis amendment will create conflict with Section 2:11:

11. The Vizier will serve as Vice Pharaoh of Osiris, holding the second most WA endorsements in the region. The Pharaoh will appoint, with the approval of the Deshret, a citizen to serve as Vizier.
So taking the current situation, with the Pharaoh on 148, and the Vizier on 107, Cormac's amendment will allow Guardians to go up to 118 endorsements, considerably in excess of the Vizier.

Who is in then in the wrong? The Guardian for surpassing the Vizier, or the Vizier for not having over 118 endorsements? It's not clear. Your subsection states the Guardians can have up to 30 less than the Pharaoh, but then 2:11 says the Vizier will hold the 2nd most WA endorsements. Is a Guardian above the Vizier count in the wrong, and if they did not reduce their count below the Vizier, would action be taken to remove them - and if so, how?

There is no contradiction. 2.11 entitles the Vizier to hold the second most endorsements and establishes a positive, normative responsibility for the Vizier to maintain the second most endorsements in the region. What 2.11 says is that the Vizier a) can, and b) should hold the second most endorsements in the region, and taken together with this amendment, that means the Vizier should have less than 30 endorsements fewer than the Pharaoh. That responsibility is obviously on the Vizier, since there is no legal requirement for Guardians to remain below the Vizier's endorsement count if the Vizier is below the Guardian cap.

The current law is problematic because, no matter the Vizier's endorsement count, Guardians must always have 10 fewer endorsements than the Vizier. If the Vizier is lazy and allows a gap of 50 to exist between the Vizier and the Pharaoh, the Guardians are legally required to have 60 endorsements fewer than the Pharaoh. That is not only not good security policy, it is asking for a rogue Delegate. It's up to the Vizier to maintain the second most endorsements, and if he doesn't, the entire regional government shouldn't become endangered by the Vizier's negligence.

North East Somerset wrote:Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:27 am
I'm curious what you believe could go wrong, NES. 30 fewer endorsements than the Pharaoh isn't really in the range of a feasible update operation for a Guardian to coup, but a 40-60 endorsement gap between the Guardians and the Pharaoh could prove to be an insurmountable gap against a rogue Pharaoh. During the July 2013 coup, it was a significant problem that Priests of Ma'at were so far below Douria in their endorsement counts.
As long as there is a large enough pot of influence in the Guardians collectively they can enforce the Constitution against a Rogue Delegate. I agree it doesn't make sense to have them too far away in endorsements. My issue with the new proposal is firstly and foremost the contradiction between 2:11 and the proposed amendment, but also that having the Pharaoh, Vizier and Guardians so tightly bunched up together near the Pharaoh could create frictions, which could exacerbate any underlying tensions, making a coup by one of the parties, not necessarily the Pharaoh, more not less likely.

No, "a large enough pot of influence" will not ensure that the Guardians can protect the OFO against a rogue Delegate determined to overthrow it. If there is too great an endorsement gap, a competent rogue Delegate will be able to keep even influential Guardians from unseating him, provided he has enough foreign support and enough influence to knock off Guardians' endorsements as his own endorsements fall due to unendorsement campaigns. If he appoints his own rogue "guardians," especially now with Regional Officers and no need to slingshot, as they build influence they can help the rogue Delegate eject the Guardians. At that point it would be game over.

There is always a possibility that conflict between a Delegate and regional security endorsees could lead the latter to coup, but that doesn't stop other regions -- like The North Pacific, arguably the most secure Feeder -- from ensuring that their security endorsees have sufficient endorsements and influence to stop a Delegate, or one of their own, from sustaining a coup. A coup is more likely to come from an elected Pharaoh, given how often elections occur and how frequently the Delegacy changes hands, than it is to come from long-term Guardians, several of whom are relatively apolitical and unlikely to come into conflict with the Pharaoh in any case.