[Discussion] Guardian Endorsement Limit
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:39 pm
I get that - the Vizier could be negligent, or even worse, if the Vizier and Pharaoh are in on it together, which is constitutionally more likely given the latter appoints the former, the Vizier could stay deliberately low in order to devalue the power of the Guardians relative to the Pharaoh. I agree with you the scenario you outline where a large gap exists between Vizier and Pharaoh, with the Guardians behind the VIzier, is thus unfavourable. However there is a balance to be had and I think cramming everyone together so close to the delegate in unwise.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.
By forcing the Vizier so close to the Pharaoh in endorsement count, quite possibly within 10-20, in order to stay above the Guardians as mandated in law - they could also take over relatively easily. Of course it depends entirely on the relationship between the individuals involved, and in reality a coup could well involve more than 1 person from the Pharaoh, Vizier & Guardians. I don't think the Delegate alone is the main threat though, and I do believe that they can be overturned so long as they don't have support from Guardians or the Vizier. At the end of the day the system exists to provide a deterrent, it will never be a 100% foolproof system in Osiris's position and I think trying to make it so like you are is opening more new risks than it mitigates.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.
Your points on The North Pacific are fully understood, but the difference is stark. In % terms they are more closely packed. But in absolute terms there's a gap of over 80 endorsements between the Delegate and Vice Delegate, and then another 50 down to the highest Security Councillor, with the rest of the Security Councillor's over 100 from even the Vice Delegate. That's a significant difference, and they don't have the problem we have of these small gaps in absolute terms. There's a big difference between having a gap of 130 endorsements between the highest Guardian and the Pharaoh, and your proposal of allowing it up to 30.
What's the right answer? Well I think we're both fairly versed with GCR security theory, but I don't think there are right or wrong answers, there isn't enough data or modelling available so its mainly a matter of opinion. I can understand why you as a Guardian would want more influence. But my opinion is 30 is too close and is asking for trouble. I would either keep it at 66% but remove the 10 below Vizier provision, or at the very least change 30 to 40.