[Image: VdZp9NA.png]

OPINION: Looking Ahead, Not Backwards
by Tsunamy

Recently, Sandaoguo found it appropriate to write a long-winded opinion piece arguing against an effort to create a bicameral legislature within The South Pacific. He suggested that there are “security flaws galore” in the proposal, that the regional message board is “unsuitable for legislative activity” and that there is no “unified community” within The South Pacific.

I would like to explain where Sandaoguo goes wrong with these points, and explain why more inclusive efforts toward governing are appropriate and useful at the current time.

First and foremost, the security risks Sandaoguo has cited can be easily remedied by requiring World Assembly membership and native status. While some have portrayed that members can simply stack the vote, those voters that no longer fit the criteria are removed during the updates thereby making it as safe as anything else in-game.

Second, while Sandaoguo has harped on the idea that the proposal is intended to “get more people involved,” the point is to provide a second means to governing. Coincidentally, this would give more individuals a voice in the process, since they would have more ways to get involved. The argument is not that 4,000 nations need to be involved, but rather that we have the means to get more involved and should do it.

Third, who is to say that the regional message board is not suitable for legislative activity? We discuss legislature in vastly different realms from the off-site forums to Skype and IRC. Using the regional message board along with dispatches would provide ample space for discussion -- perhaps a change from the current discussion, but ample space nonetheless.

Finally, Sandaoguo has repeatedly suggested that there are two communities at work: the off-site forum community and the in-game community. (Eliminated 'Unfortunately') That is factually inaccurate and ahistorical to The South Pacific.

Let’s consider for a moment that one of the earliest positions the off-site government created were “board watchers” to spot spam, recruiting and other issues on the RMB. Likewise, for a number of years, delegate elections were held in the region through the Brave Little Toaster system. To suggest that there is a connection that is unreconcilable is willful ignorance of the centrality of the in-game region to The South Pacific.

The off-site forum was created to accommodate functions that the in-game experience didn’t allow. Now that NationStates proper has added functions for greater regional involvement, it is only right for us to revise our system of governing. 

The way I view this, The South Pacific has a choice.

We can stick our heads in the sand and hope nothing in NationStates ever changes – which is what Sandaoguo is advocating – or we can embrace the changes that come.

The South Pacific has always pushed for more democracy and advancement in government. The mere idea of a Great Council is for The South Pacific to update the government when needed.

I’m not promising that this solution is perfect. 

I’m not promising that it won’t need revising.

But, The South Pacific has never embraced the backward mentality advocated by opponents of this legislation, and I certainly hope citizens will find it fitting to continue embracing progress.

Disclaimer: this publication is the opinion of its author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Southern Journal or the Ministry of Regional Affairs.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

A nice article. I'm enjoying the back and forth between you to, to be honest.

Ambassador from The North Pacific

Reply

It's nice to be a stargazer every once in a while huh

---

I am a Super Villain

Animefan666 (me): One day I'd like to wipe out humanity...and maybe conquer the city. Ya know, the usual.
Then, once everyone is a zombie, we all starve and Serling dies. A perfect end to a doomed city.
Zombie61: /Rename Animefan666 to The-Brain.
Animefan666: So, now that we've established that I am Brain, who will be my not so brainy sidekick Pinky?

---

Kris: You suddenly remind me of Magneto's White House Speech in Days of Future Past.
TAC: So who's gonna be my right hand mutant?

---

Fortunado: And now i need something to restore my faith in humanity... been a struggle to stop losing it.
LeSageStupide: Have you ever just stared at TAC's avatar for a while? It helps a lot.

Reply

I support the idea of creating a board watcher team to monitor this closely. (As a matter of fact, I had a similar idea a few weeks ago, but the time didn't seem right.)

Darkstrait  :ninja:

Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek

"Hats is very fashion this year."

RP Info

The Socialist Federated Democracy of Darkstrait
Ruled by Archchancellor Ridcully
Member nation of the United Front
[Image: 4ma0p5y.png]

Reply

First and foremost, the security risks Sandaoguo has cited can be easily remedied by requiring World Assembly membership and native status. While some have portrayed that members can simply stack the vote, those voters that no longer fit the criteria are removed during the updates thereby making it as safe as anything else in-game.

In which case, it will be much more difficult to become a member of the lower house, while all it takes to become a member of the upper house is forum registration and applying for citizenship. Again, you've cut off your nose to spite your face. In the pursuit to address myriad security flaws, you've come up with an idea that blows a massive hole through your entire reason to give the RMB legislative authority.

Second, while Sandaoguo has harped on the idea that the proposal is intended to “get more people involved,” the point is to provide a second means to governing. Coincidentally, this would give more individuals a voice in the process, since they would have more ways to get involved. The argument is not that 4,000 nations need to be involved, but rather that we have the means to get more involved and should do it.

No, what I've said is that I believe you're doing this just because of a numbers game. And you've confirmed this. Why does having the "means to get more involved" make it so that we should pursue this reform? It's simply because the polls are there and you want more participants. You haven't given a reason why it's a good idea in itself to thrust governance onto the RMB, other than that it's just somewhat possible now.

Third, who is to say that the regional message board is not suitable for legislative activity? We discuss legislature in vastly different realms from the off-site forums to Skype and IRC. Using the regional message board along with dispatches would provide ample space for discussion -- perhaps a change from the current discussion, but ample space nonetheless.

This is patently false. To test this theory, I propose we only discuss everything on these forums in a single thread. Let's see how that works out.

Finally, Sandaoguo has repeatedly suggested that there are two communities at work: the off-site forum community and the in-game community. (Eliminated 'Unfortunately') That is factually inaccurate and ahistorical to The South Pacific.

Let’s consider for a moment that one of the earliest positions the off-site government created were “board watchers” to spot spam, recruiting and other issues on the RMB. Likewise, for a number of years, delegate elections were held in the region through the Brave Little Toaster system. To suggest that there is a connection that is unreconcilable is willful ignorance of the centrality of the in-game region to The South Pacific.

You are stuck in history, then, and refuse to recognize that things that happened 10 years ago have no bearing whatsoever on how the game exists today. We have a forum community that has evolved over the years, and you want to basically get the ball rolling on throwing this community away. Our community is separate, and that's not a bad thing. You are starting from the premise that it's horrible to acknolwedge that the two communities don't mean very much to each other, so you have this warped view that the forum community is somehow an anti-democratic oppressor of the RMB. The truth is that both communities co-exist peacefully, but this reform will thrust regional politics onto the RMB for no good reason.

The off-site forum was created to accommodate functions that the in-game experience didn’t allow. Now that NationStates proper has added functions for greater regional involvement, it is only right for us to revise our system of governing. 

Again, you have proven my point that there is no other reason to do this than simply because it's now possible. That's not a good reason. You can label me as anti-change or whatever you want. But you are literally trying to change the fundamentals of two communities just because you think polls are a neat new feature. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way our two communities co-exist. I do think the haphazard way you want to go about melding the two together for no good reason comes with tremendous costs to both communities, costs that you are neither willing to admit or address, and costs that are likely irreversible.

(This post was last modified: 01-15-2015, 01:20 PM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

There is only one community, and it's called the South Pacific.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

First and foremost, the security risks Sandaoguo has cited can be easily remedied by requiring World Assembly membership and native status. While some have portrayed that members can simply stack the vote, those voters that no longer fit the criteria are removed during the updates thereby making it as safe as anything else in-game.

In which case, it will be much more difficult to become a member of the lower house, while all it takes to become a member of the upper house is forum registration and applying for citizenship. Again, you've cut off your nose to spite your face. In the pursuit to address myriad security flaws, you've come up with an idea that blows a massive hole through your entire reason to give the RMB legislative authority.

GR -- that is the logic you've put on this argument. While it would be nice to get more nations involved, its important to offer ways for people to get involved. Yes -- offering a second means of governance will increase numbers, but that's not the point. The point is that we shouldn't oligarchically decided that other actives don't have a say, if it's not to your liking.

Second, while Sandaoguo has harped on the idea that the proposal is intended to “get more people involved,” the point is to provide a second means to governing. Coincidentally, this would give more individuals a voice in the process, since they would have more ways to get involved. The argument is not that 4,000 nations need to be involved, but rather that we have the means to get more involved and should do it.

No, what I've said is that I believe you're doing this just because of a numbers game. And you've confirmed this. Why does having the "means to get more involved" make it so that we should pursue this reform? It's simply because the polls are there and you want more participants. You haven't given a reason why it's a good idea in itself to thrust governance onto the RMB, other than that it's just somewhat possible now.

I understand you don't progress in this area, but with increased mechanicisms in-game, it's important for the government to keep up. This is hardly a new concept and The South Pacific has a long history of updating itself when appropriate.

Third, who is to say that the regional message board is not suitable for legislative activity? We discuss legislature in vastly different realms from the off-site forums to Skype and IRC. Using the regional message board along with dispatches would provide ample space for discussion -- perhaps a change from the current discussion, but ample space nonetheless.

This is patently false. To test this theory, I propose we only discuss everything on these forums in a single thread. Let's see how that works out.

Fine. Do you want to combine all the threads or should I?

You're also ignoring the use of dispatches, which work remarkably well to share information. Even Sopo can speak to that as he used one for the Euro "Run to TSP."

Finally, Sandaoguo has repeatedly suggested that there are two communities at work: the off-site forum community and the in-game community. (Eliminated 'Unfortunately') That is factually inaccurate and ahistorical to The South Pacific.

Let’s consider for a moment that one of the earliest positions the off-site government created were “board watchers” to spot spam, recruiting and other issues on the RMB. Likewise, for a number of years, delegate elections were held in the region through the Brave Little Toaster system. To suggest that there is a connection that is unreconcilable is willful ignorance of the centrality of the in-game region to The South Pacific.

You are stuck in history, then, and refuse to recognize that things that happened 10 years ago have no bearing whatsoever on how the game exists today. We have a forum community that has evolved over the years, and you want to basically get the ball rolling on throwing this community away. Our community is separate, and that's not a bad thing. You are starting from the premise that it's horrible to acknolwedge that the two communities don't mean very much to each other, so you have this warped view that the forum community is somehow an anti-democratic oppressor of the RMB. The truth is that both communities co-exist peacefully, but this reform will thrust regional politics onto the RMB for no good reason.

I'm not "stuck in history" but I understand what is needed to have a community that is still growing 10 years later. You need to adapt and change or your die. You can't separate the offsite government from it's life blood and expect it to continue.

The assertion that I want to "throw this community away" makes no sense, since there is only one community. I want The South Pacific to remain a vibrant place where new players to get involved. I don't want to watch The South Pacific die as aging nations continue to cling to power.

The off-site forum was created to accommodate functions that the in-game experience didn’t allow. Now that NationStates proper has added functions for greater regional involvement, it is only right for us to revise our system of governing. 

Again, you have proven my point that there is no other reason to do this than simply because it's now possible. That's not a good reason. You can label me as anti-change or whatever you want. But you are literally trying to change the fundamentals of two communities just because you think polls are a neat new feature. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way our two communities co-exist. I do think the haphazard way you want to go about melding the two together for no good reason comes with tremendous costs to both communities, costs that you are neither willing to admit or address, and costs that are likely irreversible.

GR -- I'll flat out admit it's because there's a new useability. If there wasn't a new useability there would be no use to this discussion. But there is a useability and it has nothing to do with your disparaging "it's neat" classification. The signs are there -- NS is working toward having governance in-game.

Over the years, NS has developed in response to communities in the game. Hence the addition of influence to protect long-term nations and regions. Last year, they introduced polls. They are working toward that -- it's obvious.

Now, we can have this discussion now -- and prove The South Pacific puts its words of democracy and inclusion into action -- or we can have this discussion a couple years down the road when The South Pacific is a shell of itself because its easier to get involved in other regions.

To all the voters here: Do you want history to see you as someone who spoke up in favor of those who don't a voice? And as someone who paved the way for the region to continue to move forward?

Or do you want to be the person that desperately attempts to stop change for fear s/he's going to be left behind?

I'm comfortable where I fall in this equation. Are you?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 01-15-2015, 07:22 PM by Admin.)

Reply

There is only one community, and it's called the South Pacific.

This. So this.

Reply

Although the tone of the debate has not been ideal at times for supporting constructive debate (we seem to be besieged by the forces of darkness waiting to pounce on us innocent little bunnies if some views are to be believed), I would like to say how much I support the intention to try and make the political system of TSP more inclusive and welcome the proposals for a bicameral assembly.

Having reflected on the two proposals I would like to see the original bicameral proposal go forward to the vote when the time comes as I think it is the one that most of the pro-change nations could support.

(This post was last modified: 01-15-2015, 07:57 PM by Overseer Staedtler.)

Reply