|
Post by Brezhnev on Jul 12, 2004 7:40:54 GMT -5
OK, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 13, 2004 4:31:18 GMT -5
Sorry, I was distracted over the weekend, and, well, the continuing turmoil within the North Pacific is good drama, if anything, but I'd like to steer this back to debate, if no one minds?
***seeing no looks of 'No! No! God, No!', I'll continue***
I'd like to rehash the points, as its been a time. BA and Sarda, I hope you don't mind the generalities here. If I miscontrued your meaning, again, it is debate.
To me, this debate centers on the aspect of the delegate and the rights and responsibilities of member nation:
Black Adder, from your arguments, one would asume that the sole purpose of the delegate is to amass power, through the rules and precedents established bythe mods. Individual UN nations have only the right to endorse others or form their own regions.
SardaSSK, to you it seems the delegate has no real responsibility beyond her own self-interest. As you stated, several times,
Individual nations have no right to expect anything other than such self-interest from the delegate. Anything more or anything less is pure pipe-dream on their parts.
Now, for me, it boils down to responsibility. I believe that the delegate is responsible to uphold the rules fairly and to look to the needs of his constitunents. Individual naitons are responsible for supporting their delegate while he does his part, and removing him if he fails in this.
|
|
|
Post by Pierconium on Jul 13, 2004 4:55:39 GMT -5
And thus it is the responsibility of the constituents to remove the Delegate, not outside invader forces like those of the RRA and ALL.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 13, 2004 4:59:03 GMT -5
Its a symbiotic relationship. Delegate needs the constituents and the members nations need the leadership of the delegate. Democracy is a poor venue to provide this. I see us demonized repeatedly for pursuing an Authoritarian regime which is entirely stable. No pathetic dramas weekly with a new pretender who seeks to have a swanky delegate tile. You look at the entirely 'respectable' RRA who hold such sway in the world and they are organized along Authoritarian lines, no one questions the little circle of Kandarin, GreyMarshes, Siggi and Phoenix Gres (if he ever wakes up). Why the difference? They historically have been most active invading then decided to switch hats. The argument is there that being so heavily represented in the ADN they still are. Power resides with the delegate, there is no binding contract to honour a constitution which has no backing by the NS rules. It is a dangerous illusion which far too many cling to. You are correct, endorsements are a special thing which should be dispensed with caution. The reality is they are not. One must make sure those who do not take part in the process (offsite boards) influence on events they do not participate in is severely controlled. You contact the majority of them to tell them about a region's offsite boards and they are not interested. The argument that an authoritarian regime cramps these people's ability to play is nonsense. They have little idea as to what's going on whether its a democratic region or not. Bad propaganda from weak regimes paint it otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 13, 2004 10:14:32 GMT -5
Is it really symbiotic? Certainly, the delegate needs the endorsements of the constituents in order to carry out his agenda, no matter its direction. but do the members need this leadership? One can conduct oneself in the game quite ably without getting involved in some of the more grand political upheavals. After all, you and I were both active before the various off-site boards came into existence. I, for one, was part of none of the major groups (AAC/ADN/Fark/NPO) before the boards and I participated in the off-site fora. Was there upheaval? Sure, until the rules were amended. I do question your assertion that: Have deocratic systems led to upheaval, chaos, and the 'Delegate-flavor-of-the-month"? Certainly in a true democracy, which would fail no matter the rules. But there are other democractic systems (republics/constitutional monarchies/etc.) which can and do provide good leadership. I do not seek to demonize the NPO in this. I simply recognize that there are ways to provide stability which do not require an authoritative hand. Ah, well, I'll cling to that danger, thank you very much, rather than surrender my rights to make my own choices freely. Power does reside with the delegate, but that is why the wise player will pay close attention to her delegate and those close to the position. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, if I might draw on the phrase. That's not the argument I am making. After all, if one does not participate in the off-site boards, they really wouldn't realize where one can find a democratic or authoritarian system. No, it's more those who form the core constituents of the region by participating in the off-site boards. It may sound elitist, but consider political parties in real life. Are there voices outside the parties? Yes. Will they be heard in electoral terms on selecting candidates? No, if they are not involved. That is what I see in those who do not participate. I encourage them to look over the SP boards and hope they get involved. What else can I do? and Pierconium, glad to see you join us True, but in cases where the delegate uses his powers to eject large numbers of members, who then is the invader force? Those who seek a return, or those who simply take advantage of the turmoil? --------- edited as BA caught a spelling error.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 13, 2004 11:15:52 GMT -5
Of course the relationship is symbiotic. Not nice obfuscating one argument for another. You can't say the delegate affects nothing with game play then say the constitution does. If you play to answer dilemmas it matters not. If you play such as the rest of us in the offsite forums it matters alot. Two different games. We are arguing for the necessity for a delegate.
Democratic systems have certainly lead to upheavals in various forms. Your SouthPacific was plagued by Harkinnen. He was looking for endorsements and being very matter of fact. We have no issues with that. The North Pacific elected UPS Rail so they put it. When he didn't honour the constitution they cried foul. I'm not overly concerned by that act since there's no guarantee a delegate will. You are choosing a tyrant, it remains to be seen if they are benevolent or not.
Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty. We have chosen vigilance in the form of the NPO. Justice is swift and unremorseful. We do not hide behind farcical procedure such as many have. We act quickly to neutralize the threat to the Revolution, offenders are free to plead their case in the High Court. You are free to cling to your constitutions which protect nothing. The people of the former elite of the NP have discovered the danger in that choice.
The Delegate must make hard choices. Ejection is one. Comrade Franco is not happy to use it when he is forced but if the NPO is to be preserved he must. I trust Franco as if he were my own kin because I have made the contract to do so in correspondance and communication. We do not eat babies contrary to the propaganda. I know you do not insinuate this. We are hard people not afraid to make the hard choices to protect Mother Pacific. We remember the days before the Revolution, the upheavals, the foolishness. Other regions saw the results, they may not agree with us or they way we conduct ourselves but they saw the benefit of much that we put into place.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 13, 2004 14:40:39 GMT -5
That's a purely liberal view No one is obligated to anything, beyond what the NS rules obligate them to.
|
|
|
Post by IAD on Jul 14, 2004 16:47:44 GMT -5
That's a purely liberal view No one is obligated to anything, beyond what the NS rules obligate them to. I am going for more of a insane-ly liberal state. Hey if you dont have any laws you cant break any. Crazy I know rule through insanity I say.
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 14, 2004 19:05:39 GMT -5
I am sorry. I should have stated that better. Honestly, I was not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. What I meant was that the members did not necessarily need the leadership of the delegate, especially in regions with more of a choice than one can see, at least at first look, within the NPO. Certainly within the organizatrion formed here a strong delegate is needed. Is that necessary elsewhere? I am not sure.
You see, this is where I am coming from. What are the responsibilities of the delegate? BA, from what you have said here, a delegate must show strength, to better display his power. SardaSSK, you feel that self-interest is the only obligation of the delegate. I must disagree.
A delegate, in systems either more authoritative or more democratic, must use his power wisely. Certainly he can eject people willy-nilly, using this ability to remain in control of the region. That will, of coure, earn him emnity and fear and can, of course, cause him to spend much of his time concerned over whether or not someone will do the same to him. Look at the work of Great Bight in the North Pacific in this regard.
At the same time he can abide by whatever off-site procedures that have been developed. Which will remain delegate longer? I do not think I need to state the answer.
This is the obligation I feel is part and parcel of the delegacy, the obligation to the members of the region. By showing that he is willing to accept rules set away from the NS system, the delegate will be able to maintain the support of the region. Without that support, the delegate will fall. If this is a liberal view, I welcome the appellation. After all, Locke is not bad company to have, is it?
Now, BA, as an aside, your assertion:
is puzzling. Is not your civil code the constitution of the NPO? Does it not protect your region? So, too, does the charter of the South Pacific. Having served on several juries and having been par tof the government for some time now, I see nothing farcical about it.
and, umm, IAD, liberal and libertarian are bords of different colors.
---------
modified for spelling. Maybe I should run spell-check before posting, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 15, 2004 1:29:58 GMT -5
Certainly within the organizatrion formed here a strong delegate is needed. Is that necessary elsewhere? I am not sure. You see, this is where I am coming from. What are the responsibilities of the delegate? BA, from what you have said here, a delegate must show strength, to better display his power. SardaSSK, you feel that self-interest is the only obligation of the delegate. I must disagree. A delegate, in systems either more authoritative or more democratic, must use his power wisely. Certainly he can eject people willy-nilly, using this ability to remain in control of the region. That will, of coure, earn him emnity and fear and can, of course, cause him to spend much of his time concerned over whether or not someone will do the same to him. Look at the work of Great Bight in the North Pacific in this regard. I see the essence of that argument thusly. Any delegate who has enjoyed longevity has done so employing the same tactics. We have Governors, the SP has their Intelligence service. Both identify possible threats in the populace and they are watched. Ours is far more busy due to the number looking to overthrow Franco. I'm sure if the SP had the ADN and every other defense Organization looking to overthrow the ban list there would have been better used. In both cases its the delegate ultimately which rallies their people around them, until recently LadyRebels in the SP and Franco here. If the delegate wasn't strong enough they would be overcome. I can. The one who decides to play NS longer. We withstood the fury of the collective NS world despite the criticism of the outside. If people weren't happy they would leave and Franco would be rattling about alone here. It is not a constitution, it is a civil code. It makes no checks and balances on the Government nor pacts or artificial divisions of government like your constititution does. Ultimate power is recognized to lie with the Delegate and it has been written as such. I find constitutions to be dangerous, it beguiles the populace into a false sense of security and misleads them into thinking they have protections. They don't. The civil code however is in complete accordance with the power of the delegate and outlines their tolerances before action is taken.
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 16, 2004 10:41:09 GMT -5
Any delegate who has enjoyed longevity has done so employing the same tactics. We have Governors, the SP has their Intelligence service. Both identify possible threats in the populace and they are watched. At first I was a bit taken aback that you would imply that the South Pacific and the NPO use the same tactics, but then I realized that tactics and the background that forms them are two different things. Any region which did not look at potential threats to their governing structure and their freedoms would be foolish indeed, but I must caution any who would equat the South Pacific with the NPO. Ours, through a variety of philosophical and historical factors, is a more free region, allowing those who find fault with our delegate to seek the position for themselves. It is telling that when LadyRebels faced a coup d'etat in the beginning of the year, it failed, not because she employed draconian tactics, but the loyalty she inspired through her handling of the very charter which grants us within the South Pacific to question her rule. In fact, following paterns of naked force and self-interest advocated about the NS world, had she not instilled that loyalty through upholding our institutions, she would have fallen, as she was out of town during that coup attempt. Would other delegates have been able to do so? I honestly cannot say. And it is true that the delegate of the South Pacific has not had to employ the ban list as much as has been used in the Pacific. I will not bring up the North Pacific as, well, that is a conflict still in process. In fact currently our ban list is empty. A fine kettle of fish for those who believe that only the use of power can maintain the delegacy within a feeder region. But I ask this, BA, why are more trying to overthrow Franco than trying to take power in a more democratic South Pacific? Certainly he and the NPO made enemies in the way in which he seized power in the Pacific some 10 months ago, but, as is stated in Sir Paul's history and the interview Franco gave to the Meritocracy, this was simply in reprisal to previous bannings done by those then in power. Was Franco's use of the eject power too strong, earning him and the NPO bitter enemies to this day? Would a more conciliatory, a more open approach, to his political rivals have served the same purpose of stabilizing the Pacific without earning these bitter attacks by the ADN and other groups? You see, the South Pacific suffered similar chaos last summer, where delegates rose and fall. When I began to play, Killer Monkeys ruled my region, then the XYZ Affair, the Fathoms Below, Alpha C, and Gatren, all within the space of four months. Did we in the South Pacific resort to the authoritarian tactics used by the NPO? No. Have we remained stable? Yes. Too true. I spoke in haste. However, it does give a rough outline of what the governing structure of the NPO is like. It establishes the supremacy of the Delegate, it dicussing the fact that government ministries exist, and it describes some methods in which courts will hear cases. What your civil code does, since I cannot find a constitution for the NPO, if one exists, is describe an unwritten constitution, much as the r/l constitution of the UK is unwritten. Now, I think you have already guessed my response to this. Responsibility. It is the responsibility of the populace to know their government, to be aware of the world around them, and to examine those threats to that which protects their liberty. Be responsible for your actions and be alert for that which may threaten you. Apologies must be rendered here. SardaASSK, I have been misspelling your name in my posts here. I am heartily sorry for that.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 16, 2004 14:06:21 GMT -5
Unfortunately Caer, most of Francos' internal political rivals have expressed themselves in less than dignified manners. The only other route they go is as idiots saying, "make me delegate and everyone can have free cheese and a picture of my cousin naked." I applaud Francos for creating a stable government, that though harsh in its reprisals against legitimately bad natured nations, has created a region that is all the more stable and consistently active for it.
Seriously, we get fewer regional recruiters, no invaders of note, and none of the crap that ensues for delegacy hand overs. The only benefit of democracy in a region as large as the Pacifics, is the people that think it's absolutely necessary for legitimacy, shut up.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 22, 2004 11:51:53 GMT -5
Sorry for neglecting this Caer.
We approach the rule of the delegate in entirely different manners and philosophy. You speak of LR of avoiding an overthrow in the Fall. As I recall it was a very close affair, too close. To point to this as a triumph is foolish, it was by sheer luck you all avoided disaster to your regime. What would have been the scenario had LR's Internet access gone down? Or if she received an allergic reaction to a bee sting? Look at the NP and you'll get your answer.
Reversed the threat would never have been. We may not be much in the way of your idea of political reform but we are very stable, and very orderly and entirely allowed to speak our minds within the rules of civilized company. That is a trade off we have all been happy and willing to make. Platitudes from Ben Franklin aren't keeping the NP warm in their beds tonight. It might be said Machiavelli provides a wonderful, unassailable hearth for us.
I respect your choice, I hope you respect mine. We aren't holding the natives here captive. No exit visas are required so if we're not what the average player wants they can move on. We're not jackbooted goons. We're the NPO and we're very happy about it. You're always welcome to set up a dacha here for the summer if you'd like. *grin*
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 22, 2004 20:14:40 GMT -5
No need to apologize, BA. The pair of us have been active elsewhere so no worries. No, let me get back dug in, so to speak Sarda, before I can respond to your post, could you please clarify this: I honestly am unclear on what you mean here. Actually, BA, I was referring to the unpleasantness when Savage Lands Reloaded attempted to seize control of the SP in January. I will tell you this, on the day of the greatest activity in this coup, LR did NOT have Internet access. Our defense efforts were coordianted and led by Bistmath. Now, obviously things did not get too out of hand there, as it did in the NP with Magicality. That is why a region needs a good, trusting structure, one that only a delegate and government fostering mroe demcratic attitudes can provide. And it is a trade-off I am not willing to make. To me, having a freedom to select and participate in my government is vital; I would not deny this to others. Benjamin Franklin was correct on is ideas about right. Never surrender them. And, though the people of the NP may ot be warm in thier beds, they can remember that "damned atheist" as Teddy Roosevelet said of Thomas Paine: "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered." Recall, too, in his Discourses With Livy (written four years after The Prince, Machiavelli favors republican systems of government. Stabilty by your model has costs I find too high to bear. Do I, as other do, consider the NPO jack-booted thugs? No. I am concerned over your methods and your civil code. Do I respect the stability your have forged here? It is stable, but at a price. Do I respect what the NPO has done? Certainly. I trust , however, you do not expect me to endorse the system you have created as I am too 'liberal' to accept this system. Now,a summer *dacha* Well, when I develop the taste for kvas I will let you know
|
|
|
Post by ConservativeFront on Jul 22, 2004 22:24:17 GMT -5
Caer, off the topic, but you do not need to put summer in front of dacha. Dacha includes summer in the noun. Summer house = dacha Summer dacha would be summer summer house.
|
|