If a nation is not logged into for seven days, it stops gaining influence until it’s logged into again. Ejecting and banning nations requires spending influence to do so. I think, especially in light of Kringle’s brief dance with CTEing, this is a reasonable requirement to make.
Points of discussion I would like to bring up here are:
Leave of Absence Requests
Effects on OOC moderation
Should the Coral Guard see a similar requirement
With LoAs, in my opinion the person can simply just not hold the RO position if they’re going to be away, and pass it on to someone else temporarily. If they’re that inactive that they can’t log in even just once a week then whether they should be occupying an RO slot is a question to be had. They can always be given it back when they return.
With effects on OOC moderation, I think there is enough IC security reasoning behind this that it is not an unreasonable requirement, and again if someone can’t even log in once a week then there are bigger questions.
The CG is a security apparatus in the event of an attempted coup. It costs more influence to eject or ban someone they more influence they have, so it is also in our interest if the CG is held to the same requirement. I don’t think we need to legislate this however, as the CRS should already have this kind of requirement. The charter states the CG must, “Meet the requirements for influence and endorsements set and published by the Council on Regional Security.” (Article IX(13)d of the Charter)
This amendment is not intended to be a requirement of activity for regional officials outside of the direct mechanical security of the region. That is why it only effects Border Control officers.
(1) Border control officers ordered to perform a border control action by an institution they are not a member of are granted immunity for executing that order.
(2) Border control officers may unilaterally perform a border control action to prevent probable imminent invasions of the South Pacific in the minutes leading up to the game update of the South Pacific, which they must report to the Council on Regional Security immediately.
(3) Border control officers are required to log into their nation no less than once a week to ensure they do not lose the ability to gain influence.
(4) Border Control officers must continuously maintain World Assembly membership on their nation.
Stemming from a conversation on the Discord, it was brought up that Regional Officers cannot ban effectively if they do not gain large amounts of influence. I added a clause that mandates border control officers to continuously maintain World Assembly membership so they can more effectively gain influence.
Also, I’m also not sure if it’s worth the churn and potential confusion to swap people in and out. And I think there are cases where, if there’s an RO slot available anyway, there can be value in having someone who is currently on LoA but could be reachable on an emergency basis, as opposed to having nobody at all in that slot.
I disagree. RMB moderators can be granted Border Control powers to support OOC moderation, not IC regional security. I don’t see why they should be subject to this requirement for IC reasons. If there are ‘bigger questions’ about their status as a RMB moderator, then that can and should be an OOC conversation, not a discussion about ‘IC security reasoning.’
True, but in order to fulfill their OOC role, they need to gain a decent amount of influence in order to actually use their border control powers, especially against higher-influence nations.
Unless someone is going to either manually check this or build a tool to automate checking, and then manually verify who is running afoul of the requirement, I don’t see how this is remotely enforceable.
I agree with this. It’s not like we have dozens of people lined up with the trust to give them BC powers, nor does it benefit us to add any instability in who has what when. If someone is so inactive that them making any use of that power is unlikley, then the conversation should be about their removal from whichever body they hold BC powers by.
I think the point was that the Assembly doesn’t really have juristiction to regulate OOC bodies, regardless of how much those bodies would or would not benefit from the rule.
For what it’s worth, these tools do exist. Defenders use a discord bot that sends us a message when we don’t log into sleepers for 7 days to ensure they continue to gain influence.
I support addition of section 3, but I think section 4 should be an internal CRS policy that is self evident.
Besides, if the intent is to grow influence among BC nations, then merely mandating WA Membership but not also mandating active raising and maintenance of endorsements then the section becomes useless. If we do intend to grow endorsements/influence among BC nations then we need to transfer BC powers to the group specifically created and intended to hold endorsements/influence.
We can value the CRS for their security, knowledge, and ability to direct BC nations without requiring them to hold endorsements when they explicitly divested themselves of that power.
I imagined they would exist, but I’m generally not a fan of having laws that require (whether by explicit mandate or by practicality) automation to exist and be maintained.