My concern is if the game-side government and the forum government become too detached from each other, there will be a real push within the region for the Coalition to be entirely replaced with the game-side government. It could turn into a situation not unlike that of the West Pacific, in which the game-side community becomes so detached from forum government that an autocrat or oligarchy is able to persuade them no forum government is even necessary or desirable. Such a shift toward total game-side governance, especially when promoted by an autocrat or an oligarchy, is very often accompanied by a shift toward the primacy of game mechanics, i.e., the replacement of democratic self-government with rule by a Delegate who is only passively "elected" by game-side endorsements and manages any opposition or attempt to "elect" someone else with generous use of the eject and ban buttons. In other words, detachment of the game-side community from the forum government can be, and has been, detrimental to democracy.

This potential problem could become even more aggravated by expanding the Coalition to include other regions, if our focus shifts too far toward the interregional coalition and the South Pacific game-side region is neglected. To again use the West Pacific as an example, the death of their forum community was a long, complicated process, and it would be oversimplification to blame just one factor, but a definite contributing factor was the "NationStates Republic" that was led by the West Pacific from 2011(?)-2012. It was a coalition of regions too and it took attention entirely away from the West Pacific. It was also a total failure from start to finish, but that is less relevant as its failure was due to reasons specific to its structure, leadership, and member regions, which we would not duplicate.

I'm not saying "this idea is bad, kill it with fire," but I do think we need to be careful that whatever we set up doesn't lead to these outcomes. There may be ways of doing this that wouldn't lead to such outcomes. On the other hand, I think there is something to be said for modest, deliberative, gradual change. The Local Council is not yet that old as an institution and, I would argue, has not yet found its footing in regard to what local governance should mean. Modest reform, and continuing to encourage and assist the Local Council in continually improving, may be better than wholesale change like this. There should also be much more focus on getting residents involved forum-side, and that should be true even -- and especially -- if we decide to pursue these changes.