The South Pacific

Hello TSP! ? Many of you have known me for years, and if that’s the case feel free to skim over this introduction. The beautiful thing about TSP, though, is that we get new people joining all the time. Some of you joined while I was taking a break from NationStates and may not really know who I am. You may have heard of me, but you don't exactly know me. Let’s get to know each other a bit more.

My official nation name in TSP is Sandaoguo—it’s a made up Asian-inspired name, consisting of the Mandarin characters for three (sān 三), island (dǎo 岛), and country (guó 国). I’m known most everywhere else as Glen-Rhodes, my original nation name from when I joined NationStates in 2008. Way back in 2013, my region had been destroyed by raiders in a callous and vicious attack because we represented a liberal, cosmopolitan, and defender-aligned cross-section of the game. We were a small region, but influential in the World Assembly and a group of our members were active in the defendersphere.

With my region destroyed by raiders, I was recruited to join Osiris, a promising new sinker. That didn’t work out, due to my disagreement in how much power and influence they allowed The Empire to have—this was a group of players known for shady and corrupt dealings, the predecessor to the Rahl family today. In looking for a new home, I asked myself, “What region is the most democratic?” That’s how I found TSP. I joined and I’ve been here ever since. I’ve never joined any other regions in all these years, because TSP is truly where I want to be in NationStates.

Over the years, I have had the honor to serve as the Chair of the Assembly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and a member of the Council on Regional Security. I have played a significant role in the development of our Charter and our legal code, our evolution into a defender region, and of course the administration of our forums and Discord server (though government and administration are two separate things). I am grateful for all the opportunities TSPers have given me over the years, and I hope to convince you to give me one more by electing me your next Prime Minister.
 

The one characteristic that has served me well in TSP is that I stand by my convictions. You know what you get with me, because I’m not afraid to tell you honestly what you’ll get. I believe defending is our future. I believe democracy is the best form of regional governance. I believe our allies should share these values to the maximum extent possible. And I will never waver on those beliefs. With me at the helm of our Cabinet, you will never be surprised or caught off guard in our response to foreign affairs. You will know that your Cabinet will pursue pro-defender and pro-democratic policies, even if the more convenient road would be to compromise our values.

In relation to that, I believe it’s important for us to have documented policy positions. What is our stance on foreign coups d’etat? How will we respond to the destruction of an innocent region? What principles will guide our votes in the Security Council on high-profile and important resolutions? These are things we may have a vague sense about right now, but there is no written position to which we can hold ourselves accountable. I am no stranger to writing these types of things, and it would be my goal as Prime Minister to set these policies for current and future Cabinets to reference.
 

We took the major step recently to create new Ministries for the first time in many, many years. The last time a new Cabinet office was created, it was establishing the Prime Minister. But even then, the Prime Minister simply took over the existing roles of the Delegate & Vice Delegate. It’s been a very long time since we created new ministries with completely new portfolios. It’s important that the inaugural terms of the Ministries of Engagement, Media, and Culture be as successful as they can possibly be.

The next Prime Minister will be critical in that success. I will want to work with each new minister on defining the purpose of their new ministries, and collaborating on achievable goals by the end of the term. I have project management experience in real life, which will help me in goal-setting and tracking success. But more importantly, I’ve served in government during periods of transition and creation. (Granted, that was mostly following times of turmoil. Luckily, we aren’t going through a crisis first this time!) It may take us some time to find the right balance with these new ministries, but having people in the Cabinet who have worked through transitionary periods will be invaluable.
 

I believe that the Prime Minister must be a true leader. A lot has been said in debates on this topic, but the stance I take is that “leading from behind” has not been an effective way to lead the Cabinet as Prime Minister. In some instances, it proved detrimental. As Prime Minister, I will treat the role as closer to its real-life counterpart. “Prime Minister” is called prime for a reason—it is the most important minister in the government.

The quirk of our government is that we elect a leader of the Cabinet, but also elect the ministers separately. That’s why the “lead from behind” approach was the default for our first Prime Ministers. If the Minister of Foreign Affairs was elected on their own platform, what business did the Prime Minister have in overriding that? It sounds reasonable. But it’s not. We elect a leader and we should expect them to lead. The Prime Minister must be able to synthesize the different platforms their ministers were elected on, into a single whole-of-Cabinet program.

In practice, I will work with the ministers as a group to come up with a whole-of-Cabinet agenda. As of writing this platform, it’s not possible for me to anticipate exactly what kind of synthesis we’ll be looking at, but as other candidates post their own platforms, we can get a better view of things. There is a good chance not much compromise will be needed, because we are more united as a region today than even a couple years ago. If we do, though, I have a lot of experience in TSP in negotiating and reaching a final outcome everybody can accept.

I’m excited to see what platforms are created by all the candidates this cycle. The sooner we can start envisioning how everybody’s platforms can be combined, the better. I do have an idea or two for each ministry, which I’m going to share below. I don’t want to dictate a full program for each ministry -- we are going to elect each minister based on their own ideas, after all! -- and some of the below may not happen depending on how everybody’s ideas are synthesized. But as Prime Minister, I should have some ideas on file just in case. So, here’s an idea for each ministry:

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
We need significant movement on the defender bloc alliances. This should be the only thing the minister works on, and they will need to be negotiating with more than one or two regions at a time. A multilateral organization is the most desired outcome here, of course.

Ministry of Defense
The South Pacific Special Forces have been doing well. We need to continue on this trajectory. I trust our military leaders and believe they know what they are doing on this front. Defending is reactionary by necessity, so we can’t say we’re going to do some big op at this particular date. But I believe our military will continue to spearhead defending ops in the coming months.

Ministry of Culture
I’m eager to see what platforms are developed during this election for our new ministries. One idea I would like to see come to fruition is the creation of a library for game lore. The United Defenders League had the renowned Naivetry Reference Library, but it has fallen into disrepair. We should recreate it here and foster new written works to add to our NationStates lore.

Ministry of Engagement
We need a better registration and legislator application process. My dream is to see an interactive forum registration process that is integrated with NationStates and leads straight into a legislator application. We have the technical skill to do this, and with the right person elected to this ministry working with forum and Discord administration, we could bring this idea to life.

Ministry of Media
There is no reason why a TSP-run publication can’t reach the heights of The Rejected Times or NSToday. I would like to see the inaugural Minister of Media revitalize our regional news publishing into something truly worthwhile, entertaining, and thought-provoking to read. How existing publications fit into this is to be determined. By the end of the term, I am hoping for a respected publication to be released.
 

There are a lot of words written in Discord arguments about the qualifications to be Prime Minister of the South Pacific. What does it take to be a successful Prime Minister? In this campaign, I have written about what I think some of my best qualities are, what challenges the next Cabinet has ahead of it, and some ideas of what I would like the Cabinet as a whole to accomplish over 4 months. But I want to touch on the overarching characteristics I think make a good Prime Minister, which I believe I fully display.

First and foremost, a Prime Minister who lacks maturity has a good chance of crashing and burning. While this is a game we’re all playing, it’s not Call of Duty. NationStates is an intellectual game and to lead a community as prevalent in the game as ours, you need a level head on your shoulders. Stoicism isn’t necessary (sometimes emotion is useful!), but maturity is. Someone who can’t compromise, fights more than they negotiate, and lacks experience is going to have a hard time succeeding.

A good Prime Minister also needs to be able to solve tough problems. Our region went through a minor crisis when the High Court struck down the eligibility rules for Local Council elections. As we tend to do, we scrambled to fix things. Some proposals were quite radical, with the floodgates open to proposing things like abolishing the Local Council or returning to Assembly supremacy over in-game issues. I was able to craft an elegant but straightforward solution, one that solved the immediate crisis, prevented future ones of a similar nature, and maintained the existing legal framework of in-game local governance. This was a tough problem, but ultimately after advocating for my solution, the Assembly passed it in competition with other proposals. I have a long history of being able to craft solutions to our toughest problems, ranging from loopholes found in poorly written laws, to constitutional crises, to coups, to forum administration. That's the kind of experience and capability I can bring to the Cabinet as Prime Minister.

Lastly, I think a good Prime Minister shows the capability to think in the big picture. Although we went defender a while ago, we’re still very much in a formative stage. We need a Prime Minister who can envision not just the operational aspects of being a powerful defender region, but also write cogently on the underpinnings of our defender philosophy. I started a process I hope to see continued with publishing my article in SPINN, “The Greatest Motivation: Defining the Defender Generation of the South Pacific.” As Prime Minister, I want to see more articles and papers like this, to truly develop the big picture of TSP as a defender power.

And that’s where I wrap up this rather lengthy campaign program. I am eager to see what all the candidates come up with across the board. I’m excited for the upcoming live debates. And, as always, I’m ready to answer any and all questions poised here.

How much defender influence would you expect to be implemented in a TSJ article regarding NSGP matters?

(10-04-2020, 07:48 PM)Rabbitz Wrote: [ -> ]How much defender influence would you expect to be implemented in a TSJ article regarding NSGP matters?

Could you expand on this question? I’m not quite sure what you mean.

(10-05-2020, 07:34 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-04-2020, 07:48 PM)Rabbitz Wrote: [ -> ]How much defender influence would you expect to be implemented in a TSJ article regarding NSGP matters?

Could you expand on this question? I’m not quite sure what you mean.

My apologies. I mean to say how would you advise the MoM in speaking about defenderism? Would you advocate for moralist defenderism or another denomination of defenderism in our TSJs, or would you just keep it the same?

(10-05-2020, 11:13 AM)Rabbitz Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2020, 07:34 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-04-2020, 07:48 PM)Rabbitz Wrote: [ -> ]How much defender influence would you expect to be implemented in a TSJ article regarding NSGP matters?

Could you expand on this question? I’m not quite sure what you mean.

My apologies. I mean to say how would you advise the MoM in speaking about defenderism? Would you advocate for moralist defenderism or another denomination of defenderism in our TSJs, or would you just keep it the same?

First, I want to emphasize that our journalistic endeavors do need to maintain editorial independence from the "Cabinet line," even if being published by the Ministry of Media. Otherwise they will be dismissed as propaganda to ignore.

As to which denomination (I'd say variant rather than denomination-- there's no dogma here) of defenderism I would advocate for within the Cabinet, it would be the moralist variant. I have always believed in defenderism because it's just right to protect natives and battle against region destruction. I think all defenders are more or less moralists, even if they choose to eschew the terminology. Being defender isn't just being the shirts vs skins in capture the flag. We do it for a reason, and what better reason than to protect natives?

What would a Glen administration accomplish in terms of a gameside agenda?

(10-07-2020, 01:26 AM)Amerion Wrote: [ -> ]What would a Glen administration accomplish in terms of a gameside agenda?

I think this is an area where the Cabinet shouldn't have a heavy-handed approach. I was around, like many of our other older TSPers, when the RMB was only 1 page. It held a small amount of posts, and older posts were deleted when you hit the limit. In May 2011, NS admins added pages and a "forum view" for the RMB, which basically revolutionized game-side play. But back then, there was no "game-side"-- there wasn't this framework of forum-side vs game-side communities. In-depth government happened on off-site forums because that's the only way it could. There was never any real "game-side" complaint about that. There weren't "RMBers" as a category of players, because the RMB was never more than a highly limited comment box. If you weren't on the off-site forums, doing R/D (mostly in IRC or MSN), or on the NS forums, you were just what we called an issue-answerer. Organized RMB communities are a recent phenomenon, which I think we all kind of forget.

I was part of the Assembly group that helped create the Local Council in 2015. Full disclosure, though, I preferred a Ministry of Gameside Affairs, whereas Unibot was pushing the Local Council. My idea failed (needed 75% support, and it only got 74%), and so I compromised with Unibot on creating the Local Council behind the scenes. Though to be clear, the Local Council was his idea. But what a lot of people don't realize now, in 2020, is that the RMB never asked for the Local Council. It was an idea pushed entirely by the forum government. Prepare for a history lesson...

Sometime in mid or late 2014, RMB polls were created. This catalyzed a debate among the forum community on whether or not government functions should take place on the RMB, rather than the forums. This was an academic discussion, with lots of words written about abstract democratic ideals. But like I said, the RMB never actually asked for it. Tsu called a Great Council in January 2015 in order to propose a bicameral legislature, where the lower house would operate through the RMB and RMB polls. It was a very radical idea and it ultimately failed, along with all other substantive proposals regarding the RMB. My own was the Ministry of Gameside Affairs. With the failure of the Great Council of 2015, Unibot proposed the Local Council idea and it passed the Assembly in march 2015.

Since then, I've been the architect of most substantive changes to the Local Council's legal structure in our system. After it became clear that the Local Council Representative position could be abused through populist demagoguery to attack the legitimacy of the forum government, I was able to craft an amendment that created our elegant status quo: the LC has full authority within its own jurisdiction, and the Assembly will not meddle; in return, the LC would not have a vote in the Assembly and will only concern itself with local issues. That has been an incredibly successful model. It's allowed the RMB to evolve the Local Council into what it wants.

And ultimately, that's what I think we need to conserve. The Cabinet should not meddle in local RMB affairs, and that includes trying to disrupt the great system we have now. I oppose attempts to re-integrate the Local Council into the kind of politics game we play here on the forums. We've tried that many times and it's simply not what the RMB as a whole likes, even if individual Local Council members want power and influence when you offer it to them. (Who wouldn't?) The Local Council should remain a body that is developed and evolved by the RMB, not by the Assembly or the Cabinet.

To the extent that I would like the next Cabinet to have a game-side agenda, it would be as part of the Ministry of Engagement. Our goal should be to advertise the forum government game, not force RMBers onto it, or force them to play it on the RMB. The dispatch system, along with a smooth and integrated registration process, could be a boon to our communities. That's where our attention should go, not into doomed ideas on turning the Local Council into the Assembly or integrating the Local Council with the Cabinet.

In the past, RMBers -- and not just those in positions of power -- have complained on the RMB that Cabinet members in administrations with gameside stances like yours completely ignore them to the extent that they don't even feel represented by the Cabinet. This is a distinct issue from giving gameside offices more power or involving them in forum politics. If RMBers similarly complain about feeling out of touch with their executive branch under your administration, what would you do? Would you reject their complaints as invalid on principle because they don't align with how you conceive of the role of the Cabinet? Or would you respond to their frustration with a lack of communication by increasing communication in some way (AMAs, cross-posting announcements, etc.)? I want to stress that this is not a hypothetical.

What will you do to cut back the government bureaucracy which is strangling freedom in this great region?

(10-08-2020, 10:39 AM)Somyrion Wrote: [ -> ]In the past, RMBers -- and not just those in positions of power -- have complained on the RMB that Cabinet members in administrations with gameside stances like yours completely ignore them to the extent that they don't even feel represented by the Cabinet. This is a distinct issue from giving gameside offices more power or involving them in forum politics. If RMBers similarly complain about feeling out of touch with their executive branch under your administration, what would you do? Would you reject their complaints as invalid on principle because they don't align with how you conceive of the role of the Cabinet? Or would you respond to their frustration with a lack of communication by increasing communication in some way (AMAs, cross-posting announcements, etc.)? I want to stress that this is not a hypothetical.

I do not believe the premise here -- that this is a distinct issue from trying to involve the Local Council in forum politics -- is actually correct. I don't believe so, because what exactly would "Cabinet representation" mean absent relation to forum government & politics? The Cabinet and the Assembly are purposefully separated from the Local Council and should not be excessively intermingling. The Cabinet should not have a Local Council agenda, exactly because the Local Council ought to have the ability to do as it wishes on local issues without interference from the Cabinet.

This issue arose during Prarie's current tenure as Prime Minister, and the idea brought to the table (a special non-ministerial Cabinet office for the Local Council) was, in my opinion, wholly inappropriate and a violation of the Charter's guarantee that the forum government not meddle in local RMB affairs. It seems that the solution that keeps being offered by previous Cabinets is to destroy the elegant status quo that has worked very well this whole time, the one that has protected the RMB & the Local Council from the Cabinet and the Assembly lording over it.

I also think previous Ministers have done a serious disservice to the Local Council, by not adhering to the design of our Charter and providing false promises to the Local Council about the relationship between the LC and the forum government. All too often, the Local Council is told something false: that the forum government and the Local Council should be more intertwined and involved. This has been a disservice, because it's created the expectation that the Cabinet should be "representing" the RMB. No, it should not. We have two government bodies that explicitly represent the in-game community: the Delegate and the Local Council. The Cabinet is elected by legislators in the Assembly and executes laws written by the Assembly. The false promise that's been delivered too many times by various Cabinet ministers is not in line with how our system of government is designed. The Local Council must be protected and allowed to flourish itself. Where you and I disagree, and certain Prarie and I as well, is that you don't see the long-term danger to that protection when you argue that the Cabinet needs to get more involved in helping manage RMB affairs. It may start with benign help in running some kind of event, but the more the Cabinet gets involves in any capacity, the more future Cabinets (and the Assembly) will feel it's their prerogative to "help" the Local Council conform to the image they want it to be.

Additionally, we often hear that the Local Council "isn't aware" of what it's capable of doing. I believe that's due to the above disservice, as well. Instead of actually saying, "The Cabinet must remain separate from the Local Council to protect your right to exist independently, but here are various possibilities of what you can do within local jurisdiction"-- Cabinet ministers have instead focused on all of the above misguided efforts. As the architect of our Charter's in-game governance protection, I do believe that as Prime Minister I can effectively educate Local Council members on both the legal relationship between the Local Council and the forum government, as well as what kinds of endeavors the Local Council can embark on if they so choose.

If an RMBer feels that they want to be more involved in what the Cabinet does, they should become a legislator and thus be in the body that elects the Cabinet. The newly elected Minister of Engagement should work on advertising these opportunities and building a better & smoother RMB-to-forum pathway. But, no, I do not believe that the Cabinet should have a large presence on the RMB, which would effectively drown out and diminish the importance and stature of the Local Council. I think, perhaps, the Local Council should be filling the void those RMBers feel, or they should join the forums and become a legislator if it's the various aspects of forum government (foreign affairs, regional events, Assembly debates, etc) that interest them.