UTEP's Daily Issue: 1 Infinite Loop Returns!

[Old Federalia]

The Daily Issue
A new, nearly Daily Newspaper from the University of The East Pacific

It is the mission of the University of The East Pacific (UTEP) to provide valuable experience to its' students and a reliable and informative news source to the NS community. The Daily Issue will strive to establish and maintain a standard of excellence and objectivity each day with straightforward articles. Except in cases that involve TEP, The Daily Issue will not add to the saturated R/D debate or gossip tabloids. Its' material will focus on subjects which we believe deserve your attention. Subjects such as constitutional reform, up-and-coming regions and players, and pragmatic innovations in gameplay.

Sign up to receive a daily telegram from The Daily Issue by posting "Subscribe" below or by TGing me "Subscribe."

____________________________________

The first of many articles for this audacious project:

Instant-Runoff-Voting Reform in TEP

TEP Legislature--The Magisterium is currently refining a bill to institute Instant-Runoff-Voting (IRV) ballots in future Delegate elections. Although nominations have already started for the present election, there is still plenty of time to pass the bill before voting starts.

Historically, Delegates have all won a majority of all votes cast. (electoral history). Nearly all were two-way races. However, the past two elections were subject to controversy. Both were nontraditional three-way races with similar candidates, and both had peculiar voting practices.

The earlier election was a race between A Mean Old Man, Babiana and Old Federalia, who entered late. At first, OF and AMOM surged ahead, gaining about 5 votes each. Then Babiana caught up to OF, but votes also went to AMOM. Additionally, votes began to switch to AMOM, putting him well into the double digits while the other candidates lost votes. In the end, the results were AMOM: 14, OF: 4, Babs: 3. The question remains, what if either OF or Babiana didn't run?

The last election was a race between Bachtendekuppen, Hobbes, and Prussia. Bach published his platform late, making a splash as a straightforward candidate and a supporter of AMOM's policies. The election was a race in every sense of the word as Bach and Hobbes gained votes at breakneck speeds. The result was Bach: 18, Hobbes: 13, Prussia: 1. Did voters learn from the previous election and not vote for Prussia in fear either Bach or Hobbes would win?

It is certainly not plausible that neither AMOM nor Bach would have won if the election was IRV, given their huge majorities. However, there is evidence of "the spoiler effect" and "strategic voting" in the past two elections. Since, TEP has an increasingly diverse political environment, the mandate to govern would be more clear if voters could cast their votes by listing the candidates by preference.

Electoral reform was suggested after the last election, but did not go anywhere. Unibot proposed reform again a few days ago. Many were persuaded to support the bill by a video Old Federalia posted from Youtube explaining the benefit of IRV (video). Notable opponents are Todd McCloud and Ravenclaw, who support elections decided by majority.

The bill is currently under the scrutiny of Provost (Speaker) A Slanted Black Stripe. He invalidated the results of a practice IRV election between the colors of the rainbow conducted by Unibot. It is unclear if the rules can be decided on, but one thing is clear: bleu is TEP's most preferred color.

[Unibot III]

Great article!

The bill is currently under the scrutiny of Provost (Speaker) A Slanted Black Stripe. He invalidated the results of a practice IRV election between the colors of the rainbow conducted by Unibot.

He didn't "invalidate" it, we were just using different tie-breaking methods and I agreed that his method would be better.

[A Slanted Black Stripe]

I rarely come into this forum to post, but I feel the need to clarify.

(1) The bill is currently under discussion within the whole of the Magisterium. As a member of that body, I am scrutinizing it, as I hope all of the Magisters are doing. I have some additional comments which I will post in that thread soon.

(2) I did not invalidate the test. I merely tried to reproduce what was shown and I could not get the same results, so I asked what assumptions had been applied. It appears that a random selection process was used when two candidates were tied. I think many of us many have trouble with a voting system that randomly removes candidates with low vote totals. So, I asked for a more deterministic system.

(3) I also support elections by the majority. As noted, the electoral history of TEP has demonstrated that every delegate was elected by a majority of those participating, even when there have been more than 2 candidates. I have not noted any controversies in those elections. Our process allows citizens to change their vote and even delay their vote until the end of the voting period. Our votes are open and public so voters can respond to the current vote totals. Because of this, we may have a reduced need for instant run-offs.

(4) Even with the instant run-off system, I expect we will have citizens who change their ballots during the voting period. If people are using a variety of strategies to try to determine where to place their vote, it will continue under an instant run-off system.

[Charax]

I love that UEP banner.

[Old Federalia]

TEP TO OVERTURN DEFENDER ACT?

A region known for level-headedness and enjoyable debates has devolved into two mobs clubbing each other. The Conclave of TEP is debating the Defender Act. Three of the four Arbiters have stated they do not support the act, and have devised many reasons it is unconstitutional. The fourth arbiter is subject to the Arbiter curse, which strikes at least one Arbiter with inactivity whenever an issue is being heard. Additionally, the Magisterium is writing the "Dichotomy Act" to repeal the Defender Act and declare TEP does not subscribe to any labels.

In both arenas, Defender Act supporters and opposition want to ensure their side has been heard. To them, that means getting their way--although they insist otherwise. For most TEPers, the only thing they want is the region to return to being normal without drama or bickering.

[Venico]

I hope that soon TEP returns to stability and doesn't turn into the 2014 GCR of Turmoil. It took a lot of effort to pull Osiris off that path once it went down it too far. The best medicine is preemptive. I hope both sides can reach an agreement and this is resolved quickly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

TEP isn't unstable. This simply ballooned from the TSP-TEP treaty negotiations, after Unibot went into full opposition mode when he was banned from TSP. Right now, we a have situation where a long-term member of TEP doesn't like the defender label, and is using rhetoric to cast the Defender Act as a witch-hunt against non-defenders in TEP. It's incredibly effective rhetoric, as we've seen time and time again in neutral and independent regions.

People balk whenever they're met with the realization that choosing a side in NS Gameplay means you're going to lose region-mates who don't like the side you've chosen. So they freak out and revert to the sub-optimal policy of lacking any real direction in NS Gameplay. Regions shoot themselves in the foot, because they're so afraid of the short-term implications of an alignment policy that they never even think about the long-term benefits. It's a tough phenomenon to overcome.

Regardless, none of what's going on means TEP is unstable. Elections are underway. The Magisterium is having a lively debate. Rule of law still exists. Merely having heated arguments doesn't not make a region unstable.

[Venico]

Oh I completely agree GR. I think Neutrality is a good way to banish an activity that can get people involved in your region. I made this same argument in Osiris 6 months ago when we first started actively raiding. A GP stance and an active military can do wonders to A) Integration and sustaining citizens and B) Foreign Policy.

My sentiment is that I hope this issue is resolved quickly GR. I don't want to see a GCR become split into two camps (See Empire v. Asta/Miniluv) like I've experienced before. It's not good for a community, nor is it good for the security of a region.

[Unibot III]

I agree with both Venico and Glen-Rhodes? Never thought I'd see the day. We're working on a compromise bill right now that hopefully will keep TEP advancing, while also resolving the spite directed at the Defender Act.

[Todd McCloud]

It depends on how well it is handled. Neutrality can be a strong catalyst for activity, depending on the situation and how well it is presented to the region. However, there is a big, big difference between neutral and true neutral. Honestly, there are probably only a few regions left that would identify as "true neutral".

I wouldn't call TEP's past "neutral". It was defined based on where the delegate (and the Magisterium / populace) decided where the line was between action and inaction. It was solely reactionary - if it didn't like a particular action taken by another region, be it moving troops or adspam, they took action. The army even moved unprovoked in Osiris and TSP last year. To me, that's what changes a region from "neutral" to "independent", in that it makes its own choices without adhering to a prescribed identity or the whims of a particular faction. However, I guess "independent" has negative consequences these days. "Free-spirited"?

[Cerian Quilor]

And a military can be exclusively X or Y without that labeling the region.

[Cormacville]

Right now, we a have situation where a long-term member of TEP doesn't like the defender label, and is using rhetoric to cast the Defender Act as a witch-hunt against non-defenders in TEP. It's incredibly effective rhetoric, as we've seen time and time again in neutral and independent regions.

You are aware, of course, that in the past when various Feeders were member regions of the Alliance Defense Network, exactly the kind of exclusion Todd is worried will happen in TEP did happen in those Feeders, correct? It's a reasonable concern based on past experience with a defender alignment in the Feeders.

People balk whenever they're met with the realization that choosing a side in NS Gameplay means you're going to lose region-mates who don't like the side you've chosen. So they freak out and revert to the sub-optimal policy of lacking any real direction in NS Gameplay. Regions shoot themselves in the foot, because they're so afraid of the short-term implications of an alignment policy that they never even think about the long-term benefits. It's a tough phenomenon to overcome.

As you know, I don't disagree with you here. Although I don't see a need for complete rejection of independence, I do think it's in the interests of a region to choose a fairly firm military direction for the sake of both their foreign affairs as well as military activity.

But that said, there is a huge difference between losing region-mates who disagree with a military direction and voluntarily leave versus losing region-mates who are forced out by those of an opposite military alignment. Given that this has, as I mentioned, happened in Feeders that adopted a defender alignment in the past, it's a valid concern and one that defenders are going to have to address with something of more substance than "but we're not going to do that, honest!" The purge of imperialists and others from Lazarus that preceded establishment of the defender PRL government doesn't exactly help your case.

Maybe it isn't fair to assume that modern defenders are going to be as ruthless in their exclusion of others as the ADN was -- after all, I was recently accepted as a citizen of The Rejected Realms -- but fair or not, that is the assumption and one that you're going to have to actually work to disprove.

[Charax]

And a military can be exclusively X or Y without that labeling the region.

In theory, but when was the last time anyone considered TRR independent?

[Cormacville]

And a military can be exclusively X or Y without that labeling the region.

In theory, but when was the last time anyone considered TRR independent?

Well, TRR is officially defender now. Regardless, I don't think Cerian was referring to TRR. There are other regions, such as Europeia, that are independent and welcoming of people of all gameplay ideologies or none -- and yet the bulk of their military activity has historically been raiding, though I think their deployments in support of Feeder and Sinker sovereignty throughout 2013 have significantly changed that.

Which is sort of the point. Because they are independent, they can raid as often as they'd like, according to their standards and for their purposes, but they aren't forced into an ideological box in which they can only raid. They are also free to defend and liberate according to their standards and for their purposes, and they did in 2013 in support of Feeder and Sinker sovereignty. That, essentially, is what it means to be independent. Refusing to put yourself in a box constructed by others, and instead doing what is best for the region and following your own unique path.

[North East Somerset]

Good to see Unibot u-turning and accepting the political inevitability of defeat by supporting repealing his now doomed Defender Act. It's failure has been inevitable for a couple of days now, and Unibot seems to have decided to sacrifice his principles once more in order to try and keep a foot on the political ladder. All in all, his Defender Act will have lasted under 30 days before defeat.

[Todd McCloud]

Good to see Unibot u-turning and accepting the political inevitability of defeat by supporting repealing his now doomed Defender Act. It's failure has been inevitable for a couple of days now, and Unibot seems to have decided to sacrifice his principles once more in order to try and keep a foot on the political ladder. All in all, his Defender Act will have lasted under 30 days before defeat.

It actually poses a weird situation. See, we have the Repeal of the Defender Act which is more or less exactly how it sounds. It's currently winning 4-2. We have another proposal on the foor, The Identity Act, which is also winning 4-2, but the vote will close 30 minutes after the repeal act.

The only difference between the two is the Identity Act restricts what tags the region may use. They both happen to repeal the defender act, which in my opinion makes the Identity Act more of a "fluff" bill or a safety net in case the repeal bill fails. I don't particularly like the fact that we're restricting what tags our region can use, but it's not a gross miscarraige of justice. Realistically, TEP should have two tags exclusive to it: TEP, and the Greatest Region in NS. I think both are applicable.

[Benevolent Thomas]

Maybe it isn't fair to assume that modern defenders are going to be as ruthless in their exclusion of others as the ADN was -- after all, I was recently accepted as a citizen of The Rejected Realms --

And I thought that you were going to embrace regionalism I guess there is no saving you

[Common-Sense Politics]

To me, that's what changes a region from "neutral" to "independent", in that it makes its own choices without adhering to a prescribed identity or the whims of a particular faction. However, I guess "independent" has negative consequences these days. "Free-spirited"?

It only has negative connotations to enemies of the regions which espouse it, Todd. It's nice to see players like yourself and Cormac understand its merits and act as a vocal counterweight to those that seek to undermine it for the purpose of promoting their own philosophy...domination.

[Punk Daddy]

To me, that's what changes a region from "neutral" to "independent", in that it makes its own choices without adhering to a prescribed identity or the whims of a particular faction. However, I guess "independent" has negative consequences these days. "Free-spirited"?

It only has negative connotations to enemies of the regions which espouse it, Todd. It's nice to see players like yourself and Cormac understand its merits and act as a vocal counterweight to those that seek to undermine it for the purpose of promoting their own philosophy...domination.

Yes, the word independent shouldn't be a bad word. Regions can be independent. The only people who have problems with the term are people who think in terms of extremes and leave no room for anything else.

[Glen-Rhodes]

To me, that's what changes a region from "neutral" to "independent", in that it makes its own choices without adhering to a prescribed identity or the whims of a particular faction. However, I guess "independent" has negative consequences these days. "Free-spirited"?

It only has negative connotations to enemies of the regions which espouse it, Todd. It's nice to see players like yourself and Cormac understand its merits and act as a vocal counterweight to those that seek to undermine it for the purpose of promoting their own philosophy...domination.

I'm a critic of Independence in TSP, and I would be very surprised if anybody in TSP considered me an enemy to the region. Extremism like this is another characteristic of Independence that harms regions.

[The North Polish Union]

It only has negative connotations to enemies of the regions which espouse it, Todd. It's nice to see players like yourself and Cormac understand its merits and act as a vocal counterweight to those that seek to undermine it for the purpose of promoting their own philosophy...domination.

I'm a critic of Independence in TSP, and I would be very surprised if anybody in TSP considered me an enemy to the region. Extremism like this is another characteristic of Independence that harms regions.

Wat?

[Nalt]

It depends on how well it is handled. Neutrality can be a strong catalyst for activity, depending on the situation and how well it is presented to the region. However, there is a big, big difference between neutral and true neutral. Honestly, there are probably only a few regions left that would identify as "true neutral".

I wouldn't call TEP's past "neutral". It was defined based on where the delegate (and the Magisterium / populace) decided where the line was between action and inaction. It was solely reactionary - if it didn't like a particular action taken by another region, be it moving troops or adspam, they took action. The army even moved unprovoked in Osiris and TSP last year. To me, that's what changes a region from "neutral" to "independent", in that it makes its own choices without adhering to a prescribed identity or the whims of a particular faction. However, I guess "independent" has negative consequences these days. "Free-spirited"?

The Identity Act also has the line in the preamble

"Acknowledging that The East Pacific is a sovereign region that stands for the protection of innocent regions against unjustified invasions, without forgoing its legal powers and responsibilities to protect its region and its allies from enemies abroad."

I'm all around confused why saying we oppose invasions is less controversial than the defender act, but that appears to have been the answer all along.

[Common-Sense Politics]

It only has negative connotations to enemies of the regions which espouse it, Todd. It's nice to see players like yourself and Cormac understand its merits and act as a vocal counterweight to those that seek to undermine it for the purpose of promoting their own philosophy...domination.

I'm a critic of Independence in TSP, and I would be very surprised if anybody in TSP considered me an enemy to the region. Extremism like this is another characteristic of Independence that harms regions.

Extremism. What an...extreme descriptor.

[Kazmr]

I'm a critic of Independence in TSP, and I would be very surprised if anybody in TSP considered me an enemy to the region. Extremism like this is another characteristic of Independence that harms regions.

Extremism. What an...extreme descriptor.

Not for some proponents of 'Independence', the NS military and political philosophy GR is describing (which is actually quite different than the dictionary definition of the word whereby regions can self determine how they want to govern themselves, and choosing a particular ideology that the community agrees on is just as independent as choosing 'realism'). Quite a few proponents of NS 'Independence', the philosophy, can be quite aggressive about their beliefs.

[Anumia]

Independents can be aggressive, yes, but that does not make aggression a characteristic of the concept.