Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 02-20-2017, 12:03 PM

I think that this is an interesting idea, but not a very practical one; certainly not one that we should uprooting and redesigning our government for, in the hope that we might be able to create a federation of regions. Unless the Cabinet and MoFA has a list of regions - at least two - who are interested in this kind of relationship with us, then this is complete "pie in the sky" stuff.

Nor do I think that this has much to do with the issue and nature of in-game governance, or how to better integrate the off-site government and the in-game region. To be honest, this seems to be a suggestion of the opposite - less integration, less accountability, less in-game involvement.

Given all this, I really don't see this as anything but an interesting idea of Roa's - certainly not a realistic proposal.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Roavin*** · 02-20-2017, 09:45 PM

Lots of discussion - nice Smile

. Let me start out by saying this thread wasn't about the federated system but rather in-game governance, but lots of replies dealt with that too so I'll reply in kind.

I'm not going to quote every person individually, because there are several overlapping things to address.

On the differences between UCR and GCR governance:
I'd argue - we're all here in the South Pacific because we like it for one reason or another, but obviously each one of us has things we'd like to change or would prefer differently. Our work here in the Assembly basically revolves around that - this is one of many forms of emergent play that is, in this case, a significant source of activity for forumites in all regions. We come together to find consensus to make things better overall.

This applies just as much to a UCR, and I'm sure that a great democratic feeder like ours has much to offer in resources and other things to many UCRs, which they would in turn repay with activity from their players in the shared cultural aspects (such as joint RP, journalism, and even contributors in the assembly).

On the possibility of reduced forum activity:
We'd be advertising the forum just as much as we already are, and it'd still be the place to go for the big RP, spam games, and heavier legislative discussions as it always has been. I don't think this is an issue.

On the difficulty of organizing in-game:
Our RMB is currently being swamped much more than usual due to a weird RP game thing going on. Usually, there are far less posts per day than now. So, considering that, plus experiences we can gather from regions like TWI and Forest, we should be able to find a workable solution. Cormac suggested, in his LC campaign, to declutter the pinned dispatches on the WFE, for example.

On having a GC:
Please, no. GCs are horrible. Let's only do that if we really need to, and I argue we don't! We can set goals and work towards them piece-by-piece. My suggestion in the OP isn't something to do in one step either, but also step-by-step.

On the fear of becoming imperialist:
As I see it, the point isn't to expand our outreach for the sake of expansion, but rather as a tool for driving activity. We can offer security, stable governance, resources, and other such things to "colonies" which they repay with activity from players that participate in canon RP, spam games, assembly discussions, maybe even cabinet members, and such.

On trying to establish a full government in-game:
I don't think this is the case - Establishing the equivalent of a full feeder government in-game would be crazy! My point was to give them an actual base to start with, delineated to local ("municipal") governance and see how they develop it. That would include the entirety of the setup of the LC, including how it's elected, how laws are presented, and how the representative of the region to the Coalition is. For other things, the Coalition would have the mandate - foreign affairs, military affairs, security institutions, and arbitrations through the court systems.

On regional officers:
This would be something negotiated between region and coalition via contract. Obviously, CRS members need RO; it could be argued whether or not Cabinet members need it, and the region would surely want officers for themselves too (for polls, mass TGs, and such). And finally, it's just the Delegate's job to make sure that's taken care of.

On the Local Council representative:
I don't think the coalition should have any say in this whatsoever. The region decides, through whichever mechanism they want, and that's who it is, end of story. Note: We may have to rethink our law that requires a game-side vote for certain assembly bills (most likely, we drop it as if it requires game-side vote, it should be sourced game-side as it is!)

On cultural events that blend game-side and forum-side:
This is something to think about. The region could grant the Minister of Regional Affairs authority to do so, or the region could have its own RA person that would work with the MoRA. Either way would probably work, and we need to discuss the pros and cons.

On detachment between region and coalition:
That's a valid concern - we don't want to become TWP in that way. By making sure the coalition remains the Coalition of the South Pacific as well as enforcement via contract, we can take reasonable precautions to ensure that disenfranchisement between the region and the coalition can't occur. But yes, it's something to keep in mind throughout all of this!

On not having interested UCRs:
Well ... sorry, I think it's silly to say that because we don't have interested UCRs, it's not worth pursuing. How can UCRs get interested if they don't know that we have it as a goal, and don't know under which kind of model this would be? That's creating a chicken-and-egg problem where there doesn't need to be one.

Even if a federated model never actually happens, the changes we make (which, I argue, are much smaller than it seems) will likely benefit us either way.

On the distribution of responsibilities and the general setup:
In my ideal world view right now:
The assembly would be completely forum-side. A regional bloc vote could be considered, but is likely not even that important unlike in our current model. Any resident in a coalition-region is free to join, barring usual CRS/CoA checks.
The cabinet would be completely forum-side.
The CRS would be split into two pieces. One piece is the Defense Council (DC), which is per-region and represent trusted nations with high endorsements and high influence helping to secure the region (in a UCR, the founder would be part ex officio I suppose). The other piece is called (ominously) the South Pacific Intelligence Agency (SPIA) which takes care of the security aspects, and is a coalition-wide institution.
The court is coalition-wide as well. Disputes that happen game-side are arbitrated by the coalition court as well.
The local council, as we have it, wouldn't exist - each member region would have their own structure. TSP proper would probably have something called the local council which is elected democratically.

The region has its body of law dealing with municipal governance; the forum has the Charter and the laws as we have them now (stripped of a few things where we're currently quite heavy-handed on the region legislatively). At the center piece between the coalition and the region is a contract defining the terms of the relationship, in which it's spelled out which things the region lets the coalition do (see above), and the coalition sets certain demands for operation (such as: allowance for mass TGs in case of security relevance, appointment of certain ROs, etc.)

Or something like that.

**Belschaft** · 02-20-2017, 09:56 PM

What happens if the regional government (which would now be the government of TSP) decides it wants to leave this federation?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Roavin*** · 02-20-2017, 10:03 PM

(02-20-2017, 09:56 PM)Belschaft Wrote: What happens if the regional government (which would now be the government of TSP) decides it wants to leave this federation?

(02-20-2017, 09:45 PM)Roavin Wrote: On detachment between region and coalition:
That's a valid concern - we don't want to become TWP in that way. By making sure the coalition remains the Coalition of the South Pacific as well as enforcement via contract, we can take reasonable precautions to ensure that disenfranchisement between the region and the coalition can't occur. But yes, it's something to keep in mind throughout all of this!

TL;DR: Make sure it doesn't happen.

**Belschaft** · 02-20-2017, 10:12 PM

Yes, I get that idea; that you'd want to make sure that the federation stayed sufficiently TSP focused that TSP wouldn't want to leave. But what if does want to leave....?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-20-2017, 10:28 PM

I don't see how you can talk of establishing protectorates and claim that wouldn't be imperialism.

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

**Belschaft** · 02-20-2017, 10:35 PM

Not do I see how making TSP's government even less accountable to TSP and giving people from other regions a say in how TSP is governed instead is in any way a good idea.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 02-20-2017, 10:37 PM by Belschaft.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-20-2017, 11:10 PM

(02-20-2017, 09:45 PM)Roavin Wrote: The CRS would be split into two pieces. One piece is the Defense Council (DC), which is per-region and represent trusted nations with high endorsements and high influence helping to secure the region (in a UCR, the founder would be part ex officio I suppose). The other piece is called (ominously) the South Pacific Intelligence Agency (SPIA) which takes care of the security aspects, and is a coalition-wide institution.

Can we bury already the idea of an intelligence agency? It would be a tremendous waste of resources, and coupled with your imperialist idea, a potentially dangerous institution. This is not the real world, where there would always be plenty of intelligence gathering and analysing to be conducted. Things work differently in NationStates, and I like to think those who are in the Committee, or have been in the Committee, have enough experience to know when and how intelligence is needed.

There is a reason why our intelligence in 2011/2012 was sometimes called "Belschaft has friends", rather than "South Pacific Intelligence Agency".

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

***Roavin*** · 02-21-2017, 06:57 AM

Kris and Bel on one side against me. This will be fun. Tounge

(02-20-2017, 10:28 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I don't see how you can talk of establishing protectorates and claim that wouldn't be imperialism.

It is imperialism in the broadest sense, yes, but I'm strongly opposed to using that word due to the negative connotations. For one, in RL imperialism often implies a use of forceful expansion, while in NS imperialism is often used as an odd and somewhat contrived justification for invasions.

I am strongly, strongly opposed to the use of military or diplomatic means to forcefully annex anything - if it happens, it must be completely mutually consentual as anything else would be a betrayal of South Pacifican culture and values.

(02-20-2017, 10:35 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Not do I see how making TSP's government even less accountable to TSP and giving people from other regions a say in how TSP is governed instead is in any way a good idea.

First, there is nothing in what I've proposed that would make the Coalition either more or less accountable to the region. I argue that the Coalition must ensure it is more accountable for this model to succeed, in fact (see the above fears of exodus)

Second, I cannot take that point in any way seriously considering you legitimately thought it was a good idea to let arbitrary WA nations influence every vote in our region. As we just saw with Lazarus, it doesn't take much to make a significant change there, and a concerted effort for manipulation would be undetectable without a leak. Now, to your actual point: in the federated model, there would be "outside" influence on the Coalition, but that would be people that are part of the Coalition themselves and are known quantities, not arbitrary and easily faked WA nations.

(02-20-2017, 11:10 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Can we bury already the idea of an intelligence agency? It would be a tremendous waste of resources, and coupled with your imperialist idea, a potentially dangerous institution. This is not the real world, where there would always be plenty of intelligence gathering and analysing to be conducted.

Then tell me please how to call the functions of the CRS that go beyond holding the high-endo high-influence nations is. That's what I mean. I'm not talking about going Big Brother on TSP.

(02-20-2017, 11:10 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Things work differently in NationStates, and I like to think those who are in the Committee, or have been in the Committee, have enough experience to know when and how intelligence is needed.

BULLSHIT.

If you can claim that with a straight face, you're either suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance, or you're lying to the region. I've dealt quite a bit with the CRS recently to know that the CRS is hilariously incapable of ensuring continued safety of our region.

When people from Osiris and the NPO hit up prominent TSPers in private to say "... hey, why the hell aren't you doing anything about X?", and the CRS is in turn clueless, you know the CRS has failed. Etc.etc.etc....

~~Cormac~~ · 02-21-2017, 07:27 AM

A few questions:

How would the Delegate of the South Pacific be elected under this system?

How would executive Delegates of other Coalition regions, if applicable, be elected under this system?

How would a region leave the Coalition? Presumably the Coalition Assembly would replace regional off-site forum legislatures, unless I'm misunderstanding how this would work, so I'm not sure how leaving the Coalition would work. Specifically, how would the South Pacific leave the interregional Coalition, but still keep off-site forum government for the South Pacific intact?

I have to say I'm skeptical of any federal system that would create an institutional divide between the forum and game-side communities, for the reasons I've already articulated, and that I'm not really seeing myself being able to support this proposal if it's crafted into legislation. But I'll keep an open mind and wait to see the actual legislation, should any result from this, before making a final decision on whether to support it.

Incidentally, though this probably deserves its own thread, I agree with Roavin that the Council on Regional Security is ill-equipped, as an institution, to handle intelligence and counterintelligence. Handling game-side regional security is not the same thing as handling intelligence and counterintelligence, and being skilled and competent in doing the former does not make one skilled and competent in doing the latter.

(This post was last modified: 02-21-2017, 08:41 AM by Cormac.)