|
Post by Brezhnev on Jul 9, 2004 2:03:29 GMT -5
What's going on in the North Pacific? Last week they were up in arms about UPS Rail being elected delegate and not being one of them. Now they don't seem to like the guy (Great Blight) they picked. I heard he's now ejecting all of "them". Anyone know more about the situation?
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 9, 2004 3:34:45 GMT -5
As I understand it, UPS Rail picked Great Blight, and ejected any competition he might have had.
|
|
|
Post by Erratika on Jul 9, 2004 7:37:17 GMT -5
Apparently they don't like Great Bight because he is not "constitutionally compliant"...and he set an endorsement cap; ejecting anyone who comes near him in endorsements.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 9, 2004 7:51:56 GMT -5
All else aside, complaining because he's scrapped the constitution is a load of huey It's his perogative, no one elses.
|
|
|
Post by Brezhnev on Jul 9, 2004 14:06:30 GMT -5
Anyone know what he thinks about the NPO? Or what the Pacific's position toward him is? Right now their HQ is all "Great Blight = Francos Spain II"
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 9, 2004 17:16:35 GMT -5
All else aside, complaining because he's scrapped the constitution is a load of huey It's his perogative, no one elses. I am sorry, but I must disagree with that statement, SardaSSK. Yes, the rules of the NS game system does give him that perogative, but many of the regions have set up off-site board (as this is) and set up various rules for all members to follow. If a delegate choses to simply scrap a Constitution, he in essense states that he is above the law. This is the sign of a tyrant, one who feels he may not be held accountable for his actions.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 9, 2004 17:35:01 GMT -5
The standard argument against what the NPO and the Pacific is. Sorry Caer Rialis but the reasoning you use to say what is happening in the NP and historically here has no basis. There are offsite boards but they are people imposing their views on the game and attempting to make their own rules in the absence of or are in direct contradiction to what is stated in the FAQ's.
Not to sound condescending here as is usually the charge levelled at me by this point but the game is not democratic and never was. To imply otherwise means you've got a group of like minded individuals to agree to playing a specific way with no real binding rule to back them. They set up an imaginary mandate and then scream bloody murder when its all torn down quite in keeping with the rules of the game. Democracy has no default in this game, if it did Moderation would have given ejection power with more stipulations.
Endorsements aren't votes. If they were you'd have to renew every set period of time and you'd only have one. To try and set up a democracy in a feeder with no artificial protections like founders is tantamount to disaster. Its a question of time before its crushed. Norion was beat out only by virtue of his unwillingness to hold power and to use it with conviction.
The game is slanted to encourage movement out of the feeders to set up regions with like minded nations to experiment with democracies. Look at moderation rulings and you'll see the NPO is the very model of efficiency and order they could not provide elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 9, 2004 18:51:26 GMT -5
BA, no need to apologize. Two intelligent people can have differing views on a topic. I hope I didn't offend with my comments. I wasn't directing them at the NPO or the Pacific at all. I have never heard that Francos Spain considers himself above the Civil Coce of the NPO. I simply had to state, for the record, that leaders everywhere are subject to their own laws. Now, again (and you were not condescending) I think we are looking at this matter from different angles. Yes, when the NS game was formed, the ideas of democracy behind the delegates was afar from the developers minds, otherwise they would not have the power to eject members at will (and say what you may, the power to eject is always in an at will state). What they did not envision, perhaps, was the development of the off-site boards and the . That is what can make the game so interesting. Both of our regions have looked at this. In the Pacific, for example, there is a clear ceiling of endorsements. Go over that and you will suffer the consequences (I really would Uritsky to keep his end of our debate up in the SP--just an aside . Similarly, in the SP, if one reaches 70% of the delegate's endorsement level, one must declare their intentions, or face the music, boyo. Again, both not part of the rules of the broader game, but one enough members of the regions in question have felt important enough to put into place. I am a bit chilled, however, at your assertion that democracy is fated to defeat in the feeder regions. Certainly the NP experience seems to support you, but we in the SP have done well to maintain ours over a period of a year now, while last summer we had out share of troubles. Does democracy have to fail in a feeder region? I am not sure, but as long as the membership keep an eye on their delegate, it may have a chance. Exactly where would I find these moderation rulings you cite?
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 9, 2004 19:15:53 GMT -5
Tally Ho! The game's afoot!
Sorry couldn't resist, I love a good scrum and this is more of a reasoned fence match which is incredibly refreshing. I'm glad we can discuss without you resorting to the standard Franco's lap dog comments.
I disagree with your assessment regarding the Pacifics and democracy. I and quite a few people here have been in the game for a very long time and we remember when there was no ejection or password or founder controls. It was sheer chaos. Invasions everywhere, spammers and there was nothing that could be done. Moderation was overwhelmed. They brought in those controls initially to allow regions to deal with crashers. Pacifics were stripped of all power save to eject, saved Moderation alot of complaint time. I'm sure several wish Kandarin had a delete button to make their job easier.
When ejections started to be used to deal with power grabs the rulings have always been consistent. It's not nice but it is legitimate. Analogies about people being hauled out of ballot boxes and being shot on election day did nothing to sway them. They stopped short of saying the game wasn't democratic.
It may chill you but that is the way it is. As far as threads to research it may still be in Moderation, there were tons dedicated to that particular power. They refused to entertain even putting limitations on that power or justification requirements. Had they been serious about democracy they would have.
As far as the SP is concerned I have to disagree you are a democracy. You have elements of the system electing a cabinet or Privy council but LadyRebels is a Dictator by definition. A benevolent one but a dictator, you're closer to a constitutional monarchy than anything else. Her position is never up for election but passed on as in the Matt Duck transfer. The fact your cabinet stands for election doesn't make you ultimately a democracy, they have no recognized game power and exist solely at the benevolence of LadyRebels.The NP was an experiment doomed to fail because it relied on personal integrity. We recognize such a thing is elusive at best.
I think we see more similarities than most would care to between our respective systems.
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 9, 2004 19:56:46 GMT -5
Hey, why resort to name calling when you can have some fun debating? I remember those early days well, being around since March 2003. I remmeber last summer watching the SP shift from Killer Monkeys to XYZ to the Fathoms Below to Garylandia in the matter of weeks. There was a time when I'd get up to make my choices on the issues and then check to see just who was the delegate of my region. Good times Now, see, the problem I have with this statement is the general tenor of the system. Taking the position that a more radical/liberal (I'm schooled in 19th C political philosophy and refuse to change) viewpoint equals democracy, one can look at the controls given the UN. Many of the resolutions passed do so strongly support individual rights over that of the state, indicating that the system is bent to more individual choice, which can only exist in democratic systems. Whether or not the game is democratic, if those who play it wish it to be so, well, that's how it'll go, my friend. I'll look at the moderation threads when the NS fora go back up. That is, if past threads are included. Constitutional monarchy does work as a definition for the SP government . The importance to consider is would she be willing to accept another taking power in the SP through lawful means (lawful following the statutes of the SP board)? I have not seen her indicate otherwise in any of her actions. If one considers the Martial Law statute, (and again, this is not subject to NS rules, of course) if a nation in the SP wishes to seek the delegacy and decalres it, she may not eject the nation unless said nation is part of an invader region TEXT(which I never understood, mind you, why regions would want to invade others. Makes no sense to me with the ability to found new regions) TEXT. Now, it has not come to it, but this is the importance of a delegate being willing to abide by the rules of their own off-site forum. Steps can be taken to prevent this event from occurring, but it adds a bit more flavor if a delegate is willing to play by the rules of the off-site boards. Now, as to the idea of democracy in a region, I believe it firmly falls to keeping close look on who you endorse. One must consider correspondence held between nation, the ways a person speaks and responds on the NS and off-site boards, and personal intuition before endorsing a nation for the delegacy. It is quite similar to the real world where, in many cases, democarcy exists as the thin line between anarchy and dictatroship, neither of which I would want to spend my real time a part of. This is the important role of a citizen in a democracy: to make informed choices and to take steps to insure that their government will protect their fundamental rights. Why can this not be carried over into the NS game?
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 9, 2004 20:25:31 GMT -5
One can look at the controls given the UN. Many of the resolutions passed do so strongly support individual rights over that of the state, indicating that the system is bent to more individual choice, which can only exist in democratic systems. Whether or not the game is democratic, if those who play it wish it to be so, well, that's how it'll go, my friend. There is the massive problem with the system. They take the ideal but refuse to apply it. Its a bait and switch, they give you the idea its democratic by the UN vote but its not. You can vote once there but endorse numerous times, delegate as leader was thrust on them the moment they introduced ejection controls. And it never makes sense to me why people would want to try and impose an artificial democratic rule on a region when they could safely form a new region to do so. The game rulings and mechanics do not support the ideal and they are shocked and dismayed when its toppled? A little like being angry when your car is swallowed up by high tide when you fell asleep on the hood while it was parked on the beach. Again entirely artificial. You don't need to eat your dinner before dessert but you can. The world won't collapse but you may feel queasy because you did. You're asking people to conform to rules they didn't necessarily make and the game doesn't support. The game only supports power. Forget the game why not life? You ask too much of the common citizen. They don't vote, they choose brand recognition. Coke vs Pepsi, Bush vs Kerry, Ford vs Chev. Everything is packaged by name recognition, people are naturally loath to get motivated. In the entire time the SP boards have been active how many from the game (NS) signed up? 600? How many NS nations have been there over time? 10 000? Every feeder has the same problem getting people involved, so many are happy to answer issues because they aren't motivated. If you have a snappy flag you'll get more endorsements, its all a massive exercise in human futility. Majority of people aren't worthy of the vote, Its pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 10, 2004 0:49:59 GMT -5
Wow, you guys look like you have this covered, but I'll just add something regarding the initial argument against my statement: In politics there are governments and their are regimes. The government or the regime may change at the onset of new leadership or any other possible mechanism. When a new leader emerges in a region, it is not his responsibility to uphold the laws of the former government. In NS when leadership changes, it has the potential to not only be a regime change, but a government change as well. Creating off site boards adds no obligation to anyone It may make the person a tyrant, but he is not being unlawful
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 10, 2004 6:01:31 GMT -5
Thank you for popping back in, SardaSSK. I just get such a kick out of debating and I really wish others would jump into this. A well-rounded argument helps all out, as long as it is done without flaming and bitterness. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming Looking at this comment from you, SardaSSK, I understand exactly what you are saying but must pose this question, why must this be so? Certainly under existing game mechanics regional delegates have that authority. Some have used to it simply to maintain their own control, as it looks like GB is doing in the North Pacific. Others have used their authority to involve other nations within their region. I would pose that, to the savvy delegate, one WOULD find it his responsibility to uphold these (non-binding) off-site rules. After all, if the new delegate did this, he would find the reactions to his rule more amenable and would be better able to maintain his position. The old adage is true, after all; you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Now, Black Adder, I agree. The mechanisms behind the UN and the regional delegates does form a major philosophical flaw in the system. Here you have an umbrella organization which appears to foster the rights of individuals in a democratic framework while UN delegate are given potential autocratic powers (I use the term potential as it is up to the delegate as to how she uses those powers. Perhaps a reform to the game mechanisms is in order? Well, I would respond, if you park your car by the beach, don't fall asleep when the tides are due. Is it not the responsibility of the individual to keep an eye on what is going on, whether in the NS world or rl? I for one, keep an eye on what my government and others are doing, the better to keep myself informed and to prepare for change. As to establishing other regions, realistically I find the whole system more invigorating by remaining within a founder region. You find a wider cross-section of people bringing cultural and national differences together, placing people from a different philosophical and social background together, and adding a great deal of information to digest and understand. Sure, one can forma new region to suit their own individual needs, but when one surrounds oneself with like-minded people, group-think rears its ugly head. Make me question my beliefs, consider my philosophical underpinnings, and I will become the better man. Why is that too much to ask the common citizen? I am from the United States, where we cherish the freedoms which are our rights. At the same time, I recognize my responsibilities as a citizen, which include informing myself about my government and then making a reational decision. Does it trouble me when I see people voting for a candidate because he has the right last name, or she shares the same skin color as the voter? Yes, and I have discussed this with my students ad nauseum. Do I think this practice should strip the common citizen of the vote? No. It is the responsibility of society to point out to the citizens WHY they need to become better informed. That society has failed in this responsibility does not excuse it. Consider the comments made by Bill Cosby at Independence Hall. He may have taken some heat on this but he is right. Now, how does this apply to the NS game? Again, an informed body of nations should be ever watchful of the situation, taking the opportunity to educate themselves about individuals in the game and some of the power dynamics in the system. That is why, for example, I came to the NPO boards. I have observed the practices here and questioned some. Hopefully my questions have not offended, but merely helped to ferret out debate. If you wish, I shall stop this questioning, but I think you like the debate as well . I ask the same of others in the system, especially those in feeder region. Certainly, those who form their own region can go their own way with their own people. In the feeder regions, a responsible player will take it upon herself to try and understand what is going on in the NS world. Is this asking too much? ------------ modified to correct coding errors and spelling
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 10, 2004 8:29:44 GMT -5
Debate is just grand, especially with such a level-headed, clean debater like yourself That is what in the technical sense would be called a 'liberal' view of regional politics. The 'realist' view would be that, regardless of a delegate's nature of what he wants and expects from his region's constituents, it is not his or her responsibility, duty, or otherwise, to uphold any former document of law. BUT and I emphasize that for a reason, the founder may seek to uphold a specific set of laws, and act as an enforcer. THat is one of the benefits of a founder in a well managed and governed region. BUT, I emphasize again, it is no one's duty or obligation unless sworn otherwise, to do anything but serve out their own perogative in operating as a regional leader. If the UN Delegate wants to be a tyrannt, or if he or she wants to be a democratically elected and (by grace of his or her conscience and good will) constitutionally abiding, it is his or her perogative either way. Whether or not the founder ejects him or her, or the entire regions flees, is up to the individual founder or constituents Behind all of this though, there is a 'nation' in each region. Nation being a collective group of mutually oriented nations (nation-states nations now ), politically and civilly. The regional government, or the 'state,' is not necessarilly part of that. This is more of a sociological explanation for the politics of the region, but still valid I think
|
|
|
Post by Doppelganger on Jul 10, 2004 9:02:57 GMT -5
Ahh well, it would seem that some Mod decided to be hero for a day and ejected Great Bight from the UN, citing that he had violated game rules by ejecting people for no reason. And wasn't there a precedent on this? Whatever...this game is going downhill.....
|
|