NationStates

It has come to my attention that the Delegate of The North Pacific, Lord Ravenclaw, has issued a statement that The North Pacific is voting against this repeal because I am its author. According to Lord Ravenclaw, this is an attempt to censure me for recent governmental developments in Osiris, after acts of military aggression against Osiris by The North Pacific and its allies failed to achieve their desired ends.

Let's be very clear what this means. The Delegate of The North Pacific has voted to continue condemning a region of more than ten thousand nations and their regional government, not because he believes The Pacific should remain condemned, but because he disapproves of the author of the repeal. Lord Ravenclaw disapproves of the author of the repeal, yours truly, because he believes he knows better who should serve as Delegate of Osiris than Osirans who are still participating in Osiris.

This is not just imperialism, but petty schoolyard imperialism. One Delegate, whose conflict of interest as a former resident of Osiris is well known, believes it is appropriate to use his nearly one thousand endorsements to act against more than ten thousand nations who have nothing to do with Osiris, in a feeble and fruitless attempt to impose censure upon the Delegate of Osiris. This is imperialistic projection of power not even for the advancement of regional interests, but for the advancement of one individual's petty vendetta. If this is the standard for Feeder and Sinker governance that the supposed paragon of Feeder "democracy," The North Pacific, sets, is it any wonder that residents of several other Feeder and Sinker regions opt for an alternative?

If I were an imperialist, like Lord Ravenclaw, I might suggest that the Security Council condemn The North Pacific for allowing their Delegate to so irresponsibly use their power as the largest region in NationStates, with more endorsements for their Delegate than any other region. I might include a clause suggesting that a superpower that allows its power to be manipulated in pursuit of such petty ends does not deserve to be a superpower. I am not an imperialist like Lord Ravenclaw, though, so I will simply express my shock and dismay that a former Osiran would stoop so low as to continue Osiran squabbles by using another region's Delegacy as a weapon, and I will urge citizens of The North Pacific to consider this breathtaking display of pettiness as their oligarchical forum election continues and Lord Ravenclaw seeks re-election.

Pierconium wrote:

Louisistan wrote:In accordance with the current standings of our offsite poll, I have cast our voted against this repeal.

Indeed. I'm glad yourself and two other nations decided to vote against and at least are willing to acknowledge that you decided to stack the vote.

Glad to be of service.

OOC

Cormactopia II wrote:In less snarky terms: I think the "real-world equivalent" you're looking for would be exile rather than execution.

Yeah, you're right. That comparison would have been a better choice.

Cormactopia II wrote:Of course, NationStates gameplay is really nothing at all like the real world, so referring to a "real-world equivalent" is fairly meaningless.

I disagree. If we're roleplaying governments, then we ought to act with at least some decorum.

Christian Democrats wrote:OOC

Cormactopia II wrote:In less snarky terms: I think the "real-world equivalent" you're looking for would be exile rather than execution.

Yeah, you're right. That comparison would have been a better choice.

Cormactopia II wrote:Of course, NationStates gameplay is really nothing at all like the real world, so referring to a "real-world equivalent" is fairly meaningless.

I disagree. If we're roleplaying governments, then we ought to act with at least some decorum.

I do not believe anyone here has acted outside of decorum.

Can you point out instances where nations have been discussing this without propriety?

I don't believe pointing out that your comparison of the Pacific, a region of 10,000 plus nations within the NationStates realm, to a theoretical 'real world' nation lacks decorum outside of the possibility that you are breaching it by talking about this supposed 'real world' to begin with.

Cormac rolling around in those double standards there.

Consular wrote:Cormac rolling around in those double standards there.

Be that as it may, he has a point.

I asked earlier if there were other examples of a year being 'too soon' for a repeal when the region in question has addressed nearly every complaint within a condemnation and did not receive a reply. Several nations, including TNP's Delegate, have notified me that they approve of the repeal in its current form and would approve of it had it been submitted by another nation. How does the authorship influence the merit of the proposal?

Christian Democrats wrote:Cormac, we pretty much agree on this point. I've been an opponent of forum oligarchy for longer than you've played this game. It's one reason why Right to Life, the region I founded, elects its president/delegate on the main page. (Voting is open to all WA residents.)

Yeah, but isn't Right to Life a region many would find despicable for it's stances against female rights? So it's pretty ironic to critique the NPO when you run boast of a region that many find barbaric.

Funkadelia wrote:As with the numerous failed repeals of "Condemn Macedonia," just because a region has stopped doing something doesn't take away the fact that they've done it.

Have you ever repudiated the coup prior to the NLO one that turned Lazarus defender?

Pierconium wrote:How does the authorship influence the merit of the proposal?

Are we doing that thing where we pretend personal feuds don't dictate what happens in this game?

Solorni wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Cormac, we pretty much agree on this point. I've been an opponent of forum oligarchy for longer than you've played this game. It's one reason why Right to Life, the region I founded, elects its president/delegate on the main page. (Voting is open to all WA residents.)

Yeah, but isn't Right to Life a region many would find despicable for it's stances against female rights? So it's pretty ironic to critique the NPO when you run boast of a region that many find barbaric.

Isn't this just ad-hominem? I happen to disagree with CD on both points, but just because he's wrong on one (abortion) doesn't mean anything about the merits of his stance on the other, and it's kind of weird to raise it.

Solorni wrote:

Funkadelia wrote:As with the numerous failed repeals of "Condemn Macedonia," just because a region has stopped doing something doesn't take away the fact that they've done it.

Have you ever repudiated the coup prior to the NLO one that turned Lazarus defender?

There was no coup - it is a modern Imperialist fiction.

Benevolent Thomas wrote:If there was a campaign, it is going to reach quorum. If it reaches quorum it is going to pass. All of the GCRs excluding Lazarus and TRR are going to vote for it, because they are all "special" or something and several large UCRs will vote in favor of the repeal to spite Lazarus at the behest of their imperialist overlords. There is no point in fighting this. Your effort is better spent applauding Cormac for his bravery in taking on such a controversial topic and having the maturity to be able to evolve on it.



I always knew you had it in ya, buddy

I'd be surprised if TSP's delegate votes for it.

Guy wrote:

Solorni wrote:Yeah, but isn't Right to Life a region many would find despicable for it's stances against female rights? So it's pretty ironic to critique the NPO when you run boast of a region that many find barbaric.

Isn't this just ad-hominem? I happen to disagree with CD on both points, but just because he's wrong on one (abortion) doesn't mean anything about the merits of his stance on the other, and it's kind of weird to raise it.

How is it strange, he is critiquing the NPO for its governance yet his region is governed in a way that most would find repulsive. So I think it can be called out since it it is ironic to do so.

Guy wrote:

Solorni wrote:Have you ever repudiated the coup prior to the NLO one that turned Lazarus defender?

There was no coup - it is a modern Imperialist fiction.

This is clearly untrue, the region was couped by both Feux and defenders who were easily bought off with the prospect of another defender GCR. It is clear and sad why you would want to claim it as a myth, but one can easily see you are simply being political here rather than rational. It has always been abundantly clear why the defenders in Lazarus were so ecstatic with the purges of non-defenders and transforming the region into a defender one. For many, getting Lazarus to join the FRA was more than enough of a reward to support purging the region of "undesirables". To this day, this coup continues to be a victory for the defenders who engaged in it and were bought off and the caricature extremists such as Funkadelia who continue to thrive there.

It is obvious why you would want to ignore this but it has always been clear that morals have never been high on the list of most defenders priorities beyond perhaps those of 10KI and TITO.

Consular wrote:

Pierconium wrote:How does the authorship influence the merit of the proposal?

Are we doing that thing where we pretend personal feuds don't dictate what happens in this game?

I am a realist and I know that such things are a great indicator of what happens here in NationStates. However, just because we all know that it happens does not mean it should pass without comment.

From what I can tell, the main problem people have with this document is its author, so, by that logic...

If it fails, I will submit it again, with no changes, and we shall see just how much the votes against are because of hatred for the author or because of hatred for The Pacific's current government. Which I support wholeheartedly. As, honestly, stability is a great thing to have in a region, and the NPO gives a great deal of stability.

From a political standpoint, you would have needed the support of regions such as TNP and Europeia for this to pass as the big defender regions were always going to vote against due the threat to the GCR they helped coup and solidify.

DrWinner wrote:From what I can tell, the main problem people have with this document is its author, so, by that logic...

If it fails, I will submit it again, with no changes, and we shall see just how much the votes against are because of hatred for the author or because of hatred for The Pacific's current government. Which I support wholeheartedly. As, honestly, stability is a great thing to have in a region, and the NPO gives a great deal of stability.

You do that, without permission, and I will pull the proposal and kick you out of the WA. There is a rule against plagiarism.

Very well, I'll be sure to contact the author for permission, then. Thank you for the warning.

This would have stood a good chance of passing if the author wasn't Cormac, because NPO were evidently making progress, so this is a bit of a setback.

So soon after the Osiris coup, blatant overreach, but not at all surprising. This is someone who has almost single-handedly turned the Gameplay world on it's head, no one cares about R/D anymore - it's just a question of where you stand on Cormac.

What else can you say really, the actual substance of the resolution is pretty much irrelevant in the present context, so it would be more sensible to discuss that at a future date under milder conditions.

DrWinner wrote:Very well, I'll be sure to contact the author for permission, then. Thank you for the warning.

No worries. Reading back I realise I sounded a bit more scary than intended, I needed to get my cooking going. But yeah, ask permission before using (parts of) someone else's proposal, or you could get dinged for plagiarism. 'sides, you might want to give drafting your very own proposal a go?

Voting against something because of who the author is seems silly. How will you know from now on if that's what he wants you to do? Strikes me like saying you'll not support a condemnation because the nominee wants it, it's a silly thing to base a vote on, because it could all be an act.

The text of the proposal is real and verifiable. I will have to look more into the links in this thread before I decide if I think that the NPO has started the process of reconciliation. As it looks now, I probably won't take the time because my vote would be meaningless either way.

Weed

Pierconium wrote:The Pacific Order wins an election within the Pacific twice every day.

By that same mentality the Communist Party of North Korea wins an election every day. So does the Communist Party of China. Hell the Parliament of Canada wins an election every time they pass a bill, because they have a majority government so they cannot be defeated in a non-confidence vote. Even the U.S. President wins an election every day because he is not impeached. You seriously need to come up with a better argument.

Pierconium wrote:

Aeriea wrote:

Do you have a point? Endorsement limits exist in almost all GCRs. We maintain a low count to control the Influence levels for the security of the region, but a limit is a limit, be it 10 or 100. The end result is the same.

Security of the region huh? The North Pacific has an active endotarting program where they encourage nations to gain as many endorsements as possible, yet their security is not threatened in any way. How can you explain this? You are sitting on some 500 endorsements, yet you keep the cap at 10?

Cormactopia II wrote:

Pierconium wrote:The Pacific Order wins an open election within the Pacific twice every day.

But of course this decision made by hundreds of people twice a day is somehow less democratic than a dozen to two dozen people, at most, voting on an off-site forum once every few months.

#SecurityCouncilLogic

Hundreds of people everyday huh? How many of those 500 or so endorsements Pier enjoys log in at every update to ensure their delegate is still in power? How many even log in weekly? Try harder if you are going to try and use a game mechanics argument.

Pierconium wrote:They do not work for a region that wants a stable government.

A stable government under the jackboot of a single person. By your comparison the nations of the world never should have overthrown Hitler as he was providing a stable government. So was Gaddafi, Hussein, and the Taliban. We'll just overlook the fact they murdered millions okay? The fact is they provided stable government by your logic.

Pierconium wrote:How does the authorship influence the merit of the proposal?

Politics? People don't like Cormac so they vote against his proposal. Seems pretty self explanatory to me.

Consular wrote:Are we doing that thing where we pretend personal feuds don't dictate what happens in this game?

Are you suggesting that people take things to a personal level in NationStates, just like real life politics? Are you iterating that this is some sort of political simulation, where people vote based upon what they could possibly gain or lose? Is that what you are trying to say here?

Pierconium wrote:

Consular wrote:Are we doing that thing where we pretend personal feuds don't dictate what happens in this game?

I am a realist and I know that such things are a great indicator of what happens here in NationStates. However, just because we all know that it happens does not mean it should pass without comment.

As I recall Krull stacked for the condemnation in the first place. If we are to go by your logic that the Delegate by some divine right has the authority to decide whats best for an entire region of nations, then it is quite clear all of the nations of The Pacific deemed the condemnation worthy and valid. Who are we to argue against the will of an entire region of thousands of nations? They endorsed the delegate who cast their vote.

Thank you, John Turner, for that long rehash of multiple points already made and addressed separately within this thread.

Comparisons to 'real world' nations wins again, I guess?

As to the rest, meh.

What I find laughable and highly enjoyable in this thread is those who are so arrogant as to assume the Pacific needs to beg forgiveness and show contrition in order that the original condemnation be appealed.
The original condemnation is a sign of envy of what the legitimate and popular government of the Pacific has accomplished - 13+ uninterrupted years of control of a feeder region - a feat nobody else has managed. It is an admission of failure of repeated attempts over the years to overthrow the regime, and I know all too well the deviousness and skullduggery of those who tried to undermine it. Those who still support it are those who resent the fact that the NPO still reigns supreme in the Pacific - those who can't accept the fact that it has demonstrated time and time again that it is here to stay. I see the condemnation as a badge of pride.

Advance Pacifica! Long live the NPO!

John Turner wrote:-snip-

Is this still about the Security Council Resolution or about how we do things in the Pacific?
This shouldn't be of any concern here and I find it disturbing and disgraceful on how some of you are acting to our Emperor. As Pacifican, I feel insulted to some extend.
Leave alone all the Dictator references and whatnot..

All these claims completely unjustified and are - if I can state it right now - made by people which aren't Pacificans at all. Amusing isn't it?
Where is there even the respect for the souvereignity of the Pacific? Do we even have a word to say, when it comes on how we want our regional government to be? - Or do we have to bend to those ridiculous epistemes that are literally imposed at us in here, by some people?

Our Emperor, was right: He would win an open election within the Pacific twice a day! It is the way we want to be governed. We value, against all odds our Meritocracy that prevailed longer than any other government in this game until today. I doubt that most of you would understand what the Meritocracy is about.
It's definitely not democratic and thus no hilarious popularity contest. But I tell you what it is: It is performance-oriented. And thus it is anything but stagnant and oppressive: It is rewarding. It values contributions to the community. It values loyalty. It values duty. Those are mertis that seem to be a foreign concept to a wide amount of players here, but these are merits we value.

Pierconiums endorsements are not given to him, just because. It is a sign. A sign that the nations of the Pacific stand behind their rightful Delegate and behind the New Pacific Order, that made our region prosperous for ages.

I am neither impressed by your pointless argumentation, nor intimidated. After all, I am just disappointed on how my region is displayed here.
This being said, I will, with foremost reason and goodwill ignore people like you in the future and anyone else that ridicules the Pacific, our community, our way of governance or our Souvereign.

Hail Pacifica. o/

Pierconium wrote:I asked earlier if there were other examples of a year being 'too soon' for a repeal when the region in question has addressed nearly every complaint within a condemnation and did not receive a reply. Several nations, including TNP's Delegate, have notified me that they approve of the repeal in its current form and would approve of it had it been submitted by another nation. How does the authorship influence the merit of the proposal?

One wonders, if the Delegate of The North Pacific approves in principle of repealing The Pacific's condemnation, why he hasn't already authored such a repeal himself, and if he is now planning to author a repeal if this one fails at vote. It's easy to say he would vote for a repeal if I'm not the author, but he certainly wasn't rushing forward to repeal the condemnation. That is also true of others who are hiding behind my authorship of this repeal to rationalize their votes against it. I do hope someone else puts forward a repeal soon, because it will be interesting to see if these folks actually follow through and vote for repeal, or find new rationalizations to vote against it.

Crazy girl wrote:

DrWinner wrote:From what I can tell, the main problem people have with this document is its author, so, by that logic...

If it fails, I will submit it again, with no changes, and we shall see just how much the votes against are because of hatred for the author or because of hatred for The Pacific's current government. Which I support wholeheartedly. As, honestly, stability is a great thing to have in a region, and the NPO gives a great deal of stability.

You do that, without permission, and I will pull the proposal and kick you out of the WA. There is a rule against plagiarism.

I always think it's best to put forward one's own original work, but if DrWinner wants to make a point by submitting the exact same repeal with a different author and seeing how the votes fall, he has my permission to do so.

I will be voting for repeal again anytime it is proposed in the future, regardless of authorship.

Solorni wrote:

Guy wrote:Isn't this just ad-hominem? I happen to disagree with CD on both points, but just because he's wrong on one (abortion) doesn't mean anything about the merits of his stance on the other, and it's kind of weird to raise it.

How is it strange, he is critiquing the NPO for its governance yet his region is governed in a way that most would find repulsive.

In what way is it governed repulsively? Form vs. content, Rachel. I'm criticizing TP for its form of government, and you're criticizing RTL for its ideological content. Hence, Guy calls your attack an ad hominem. He's right. The two things are separate matters.

Region	Form of Government	Content of Government
The Pacific	One-party system, dictatorship	Francoism (minus the name now)
Right to Life	Multi-party system, representative democracy	Advocacy for prenatal rights

In particular, I referenced to Cormac my preference for on-site elections, which are practiced in a region that I founded.