The Miniluv Messenger: TEP Liberated!

[Trick Shot]

Lazarus is not a feeder.

You are correct it is not. It is a sinker, which gives it a significant advantage in that nations are refounded here, saving them from their first impression that this game is nothing but an autocratic nightmare.

Oh what an uneducated opinion that can only be formed by somebody who has no experience in running a sinker.

[The Silver Sentinel]

You are correct it is not. It is a sinker, which gives it a significant advantage in that nations are refounded here, saving them from their first impression that this game is nothing but an autocratic nightmare.

Oh what an uneducated opinion that can only be formed by somebody who has no experience in running a sinker.

Uhhhhh. I live in a sinker.

[Ambroscus Koth]

Oh what an uneducated opinion that can only be formed by somebody who has no experience in running a sinker.

Uhhhhh. I live in a sinker.

Which does not contradict what Festavo said in the least.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

An interesting assertion there. It'd be a shame if someone were to test it.

You were delegate of TNP. Would you have preferred to run a democracy? On a side note Lazarus is a democracy.

I would have preferred even more democracy, but I would hardly characterize The North Pacific as not a feeder democracy.

Democracy is a manifold concept, not reducible to any one question. Further, in a context like a feeder region in NationStates, democratic principles don't play out exactly the same way they do IRL.

However, the easiest way I see to get at whether a polity is democratic is is the government answerable to the people, or is it the other way around?

I'm pretty sure the answers to that question will be different in different feeder regions.

[Pierconium]

You were delegate of TNP. Would you have preferred to run a democracy? On a side note Lazarus is a democracy.

I would have preferred even more democracy, but I would hardly characterize The North Pacific as not a feeder democracy.

Democracy is a manifold concept, not reducible to any one question. Further, in a context like a feeder region in NationStates, democratic principles don't play out exactly the same way they do IRL.

However, the easiest way I see to get at whether a polity is democratic is is the government answerable to the people, or is it the other way around?

I'm pretty sure the answers to that question will be different in different feeder regions.

The North Pacific maintains an endorsement cap. Nations that approach that cap and refuse to join the offsite forum and gain the support of the Security Council are just allowed to continue swapping? Just curious.

If a nation has 500+ endorsements then they obviously have the support of a large portion of the World Assembly nations in TNP, so why are they not allowed to simply take the Delegacy if they can?

[Belschaft]

I would have preferred even more democracy, but I would hardly characterize The North Pacific as not a feeder democracy.

Democracy is a manifold concept, not reducible to any one question. Further, in a context like a feeder region in NationStates, democratic principles don't play out exactly the same way they do IRL.

However, the easiest way I see to get at whether a polity is democratic is is the government answerable to the people, or is it the other way around?

I'm pretty sure the answers to that question will be different in different feeder regions.

The North Pacific maintains an endorsement cap. Nations that approach that cap and refuse to join the offsite forum and gain the support of the Security Council are just allowed to continue swapping? Just curious.

If a nation has 500+ endorsements then they obviously have the support of a large portion of the World Assembly nations in TNP, so why are they not allowed to simply take the Delegacy if they can?

Because TNP is a democracy, not an anarchy? You're being spurious here Ivan, and it's not smart or funny. The existence of the rule of law and regulated elections are necessary for a functioning democracy, both IRL and in NS. You don't get to become President of the USA by having the most Facebook friends or Twitter followers.

[The Church of Satan]

One might ask the same of The Pacific and the answer is simple; In most feeders that just isn't how it works. Anybody can endotart, but feeder governments maintain order via laws and that works. If any one player could be allowed to take the delegacy just because they can, what would be the point of electing delegates? And why stop there? Why not just start ejecting dissidents? TWP might be fine with the whole supremacy of the delegacy thing, which frankly I'm surprised isn't taken advantage of more often but I'll chalk that up to lack of motivation or perhaps disinterest and The Pacific being probably the only other feeder that doesn't elect its delegates, makes the two different in that regard. However things seem to run quite smoothly in the feeders and each one has found a way of doing things that work for them whether or not it is democratic in nature.

[Pierconium]

One might ask the same of The Pacific and the answer is simple; In most feeders that just isn't how it works. Anybody can endotart, but feeder governments maintain order via laws and that works. If any one player could be allowed to take the delegacy just because they can, what would be the point of electing delegates? And why stop there? Why not just start ejecting dissidents? TWP might be fine with the whole supremacy of the delegacy thing, which frankly I'm surprised isn't taken advantage of more often but I'll chalk that up to lack of motivation or perhaps disinterest and The Pacific being probably the only other feeder that doesn't elect its delegates, makes the two different in that regard. However things seem to run quite smoothly in the feeders and each one has found a way of doing things that work for them whether or not it is democratic in nature.

You are correct, but we don't claim to be democratic.

EDIT: I am on my phone so I miss things occasionally.

To clarify, I do not believe the systems in place in other regions to be inefficient or wrong, which is the most glaring difference between myself and several other nations outside of The Pacific. I think the system in place within TNP to be very effective and I don't begrudge them that efficiency. I simply do not view it as wholly democratic. I believe it to be better characterized as an oligarchical republic.

[Pierconium]

The North Pacific maintains an endorsement cap. Nations that approach that cap and refuse to join the offsite forum and gain the support of the Security Council are just allowed to continue swapping? Just curious.

If a nation has 500+ endorsements then they obviously have the support of a large portion of the World Assembly nations in TNP, so why are they not allowed to simply take the Delegacy if they can?

Because TNP is a democracy, not an anarchy? You're being spurious here Ivan, and it's not smart or funny. The existence of the rule of law and regulated elections are necessary for a functioning democracy, both IRL and in NS. You don't get to become President of the USA by having the most Facebook friends or Twitter followers.

Your appraisal of my humor notwithstanding, you are wrong. The endorsements of the Delegate nation are the only mechanism recognised by the game for any sort of democratic governance within a feeder. If you are limiting them via endorsement caps (of 10 or 510, the number makes no difference) then you are not operating on a truly democratic model. If you further regulate it so that those seeking the office must be elected via a separate offsite apparatus then you are again, not wholly democratic.

[Zaolat]

Because TNP is a democracy, not an anarchy? You're being spurious here Ivan, and it's not smart or funny. The existence of the rule of law and regulated elections are necessary for a functioning democracy, both IRL and in NS. You don't get to become President of the USA by having the most Facebook friends or Twitter followers.

Your appraisal of my humor notwithstanding, you are wrong. The endorsements of the Delegate nation are the only mechanism recognised by the game for any sort of democratic governance within a feeder. If you are limiting them via endorsement caps (of 10 or 510, the number makes no difference) then you are not operating on a truly democratic model. If you further regulate it so that those seeking the office must be elected via a separate offsite apparatus then you are again, not wholly democratic.

The real problem is that many assume being Democratic is following the Democratic Republic that is America. While I'm not criticising what you, you're talking about Direct Democracy which is fundamentally as Democratic as you can get. That system will just be plagued with coups for those crafty enough to figure out how to take advantage and as such does not ideally work well.

It's true that the Pacific has been historically one of the most inactive of GCRs at least on a whole, but refusing Direct Democracy and variations of such it has been the most stable. TWP while somewhat different of TP can sustain its "Democracy" via some form of oligarchy. Though anyone who thinks none of the GCRs he absolutely no form of oligarchy or oligarch democracy is deluding themselves. If they think that having such a thing is lesser than something as direct Democratic than the are wrong and/or are twisting what Democracy is. It's good but not saviour of the universe as assumed IRL and NS.

That's not to say that every GCR unsuccessful or has no problems, they do, but it's more than just democracy this and not democracy that.

Also elitism will exist regardless.

Edit: Too much rum to fix spelling errors, apologies.

[Pierconium]

While I see your point, I would argue that democracy and activity do not automatically go hand in hand. It is true that The Pacific has had long periods of inactivity, but that is related more to motivation than government structure in my opinion, as can easily be seen with our current activity levels.

[Cormac Stark]

While I see your point, I would argue that democracy and activity do not automatically go hand in hand. It is true that The Pacific has had long periods of inactivity, but that is related more to motivation than government structure in my opinion, as can easily be seen with our current activity levels.

I would have to agree, having long thought Feeder/Sinker activity was directly related to form of government, that it actually isn't. Activity in some of the democratic Feeders and Sinkers pales in comparison to activity in The Pacific at the moment. Of course, there are also extremely active democratic examples (The North Pacific) and extremely inactive less-than-democratic examples (The West Pacific* and Balder), with the other Feeders and Sinkers falling somewhere in between, which only reinforces the point that there no longer appears to be much direct connection between activity and form of government.

I would argue that more important than form of government is opportunity to be involved. Although the NPO lacks democratic institutions, since the transition from Krulltopia to Pierconium more ways to be involved -- similar to TNP's executive service -- have been introduced or at least much better promoted. What is usually limiting to activity in Feeders and Sinkers, in my observation, is the sense that there is an "old boys' club"/oligarchy that dominates everything without much opportunity for newcomer involvement, and this has limited activity in both democratic and non-democratic Feeders and Sinkers.

I would also agree that all of the Feeders and Sinkers -- and indeed, most if not all regions in general -- are oligarchical to some degree, with terms like "democratic" and "autocratic" really only being useful to describe how those oligarchies are managed, but not how the regions themselves are managed.

* The West Pacific has one of the most active on-site communities, however, which introduces a potential discussion about on-site vs. off-site activity as well.

[Belschaft]

While I see your point, I would argue that democracy and activity do not automatically go hand in hand. It is true that The Pacific has had long periods of inactivity, but that is related more to motivation than government structure in my opinion, as can easily be seen with our current activity levels.

I would have to agree, having long thought Feeder/Sinker activity was directly related to form of government, that it actually isn't. Activity in some of the democratic Feeders and Sinkers pales in comparison to activity in The Pacific at the moment. Of course, there are also extremely active democratic examples (The North Pacific) and extremely inactive less-than-democratic examples (The West Pacific* and Balder), with the other Feeders and Sinkers falling somewhere in between, which only reinforces the point that there no longer appears to be much direct connection between activity and form of government.

I would argue that more important than form of government is opportunity to be involved. Although the NPO lacks democratic institutions, since the transition from Krulltopia to Pierconium more ways to be involved -- similar to TNP's executive service -- have been introduced or at least much better promoted. What is usually limiting to activity in Feeders and Sinkers, in my observation, is the sense that there is an "old boys' club"/oligarchy that dominates everything without much opportunity for newcomer involvement, and this has limited activity in both democratic and non-democratic Feeders and Sinkers.

I would also agree that all of the Feeders and Sinkers -- and indeed, most if not all regions in general -- are oligarchical to some degree, with terms like "democratic" and "autocratic" really only being useful to describe how those oligarchies are managed, but not how the regions themselves are managed.

* The West Pacific has one of the most active on-site communities, however, which introduces a potential discussion about on-site vs. off-site activity as well.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it is possible to create a perfect democracy in NationStates, due to the limitations of the site. However it is possible to try to create a region that is as democratic as possible; some regions do this better than others. The fact that the system prevents perfect democracy doesn't mean that regions can't be democratic to a greater or lesser degree. The existence of the US electoral college IRL, for example, doesn't mean that the US isn't a democracy. The UK House of Lords doesn't mean the UK isn't democratic. There's a sliding scale of democracy, with shades of grey, as in all things.

[Trick Shot]

Oh what an uneducated opinion that can only be formed by somebody who has no experience in running a sinker.

Uhhhhh. I live in a sinker.

As Koth said, that does not contradict what I said. I said "running a sinker". I did not say "living in a sinker". There is a difference.

[The Silver Sentinel]

Uhhhhh. I live in a sinker.

As Koth said, that does not contradict what I said. I said "running a sinker". I did not say "living in a sinker". There is a difference.

And the last time I checked, Osiris is not an autocracy.

[Trick Shot]

As Koth said, that does not contradict what I said. I said "running a sinker". I did not say "living in a sinker". There is a difference.

And the last time I checked, Osiris is not an autocracy.

You are correct. However, whether or not Osiris is an autocracy is null. Sinkers have no advantage over feeders in terms of nations spawned. You can look at the numbers. Feeders get more active nations and are overall more active regions. They get the fresh new nations they can groom. Sinkers do not.

/threadjack

[The Miniluv Messenger]

Big Brother is watching Gameplay

---

2015 Year in Review: 10 Most Interesting Gameplay Events

The Miniluv Messenger brings you the ten gameplay events that shaped 2015 and will have an impact on the year to come.

By Cormac Skollvaldr

---

The Miniluv Messenger is pleased to bring you its first edition of 2016, taking a look back at the ten gameplay events that had a great impact on 2015 and which are likely to continue shaping gameplay in 2016. These ten events will be placed in order from least to greatest impact on gameplay according to the Messenger's editor-in-chief, who is apparently a very influential gameplayer.

10. High Level Espionage Against the Founderless Regions Alliance

It was a surprise to defenders as well as the rest of gameplay when The New Inquisition revealed that Wibblefeet, who had recently served as Arch-Chancellor of the Founderless Regions Alliance and had been heavily involved in the FRA for years, had actually been a TNI intelligence operative. Although it is still unclear what meaningful intelligence Wibblefeet gained from this years-long espionage operation, the operation simultaneously demonstrated the strength of TNI intelligence and the weakness of FRA counterintelligence. Thought to be slumbering, if not completely dead in gameplay political terms, TNI woke up long enough to raise questions about its arch-nemesis' long-term viability as an effective alliance, making this event worthy to be called one of the year's most interesting.

9. First Annual RaiderCon

One of two important 2015 interregional events, the first annual RaiderCon, hosted by The Black Hawks, was introduced to recognize and celebrate outstanding raiding contributions throughout NationStates history. The first RaiderCon event gave raider regions an opportunity for networking, camaraderie, and discussion on the history of raiding as well as the impact it has had on NationStates history. RaiderCon also inducted several veteran raiders into the Raider Hall of Fame. Proving that interregional conferences aren't just the purview of defenders and so-called political regions, RaiderCon's high profile celebration of raider history and contemporary raider unity will likely have a positive impact on raiding for years to come.

8. Fourth Annual NationStates World Fair

Marred by controversy over how and by whom it would be hosted from the very beginning, many gameplayers weren't sure what to expect from the first NationStates World Fair that wouldn't involve Unibot, the lead organizer of the first three World Fairs. Nonetheless, the fourth annual World Fair met and perhaps exceeded expectations, breaking post count records, facilitating interaction between established and newer regions of many backgrounds, and hosting lectures that generated much discussion among gameplayers. This World Fair demonstrated that the event can outlive its former lead organizer, indicating that we can expect to see the World Fair tradition continuing in 2016 and beyond.

7. Coup D'What in The West Pacific

Many gameplayers weren't immediately sure what to make of the appearance of a DEN tag in The West Pacific. As the situation unfolded, it became clear that tensions between the Delegate and the community had led United RussoAsia to go rogue and give access to his nation to Knot II of DEN. Although the DEN occupation of The West Pacific was relatively short-lived due to tactical missteps involving regional influence, it was significant in giving the broader gameplay community some insight into the community of The West Pacific and bringing major publicity to DEN shortly after its revival. It also demonstrated that occasional participation in a raid, or ratification of treaties with high profile imperialist regions, may not be enough to guarantee independent regions protection from all raiders.

6. Conclusion of the So-Called "Cold War" Between Feeders and Sinkers

In the realm of interregional politics, 2015 saw the end of what had been called by some a "cold war" between various Feeders and Sinkers of differing ideological alignments. Some saw the beginnings of this so-called cold war developing as early as 2013, pitting raiding-friendly Feeders and Sinkers as well as their user-created allies against defending-friendly Feeders and Sinkers along with their allies. Although the lines between each side were sometimes blurred, there was no doubt that significant hostilities existed for the better part of two years. Some tensions linger, but in a year that saw significant change within and between most Feeders and Sinkers, most game-created regions appear to have reverted to a pre-2013 mindset of non-ideological mutual respect and cooperation.

5. Dissolution of the United Imperial Armed Forces

One of the most surprising developments of 2015 was the dissolution of the United Imperial Armed Forces, which had been comprised of Albion, The Land of Kings and Emperors, and The New Inquisition. A military powerhouse, the UIAF had led many successful operations over the years, including many raids which time and time again proved impervious to liberation attempts. Along with the decline of TNI and Albion's departure from the imperialist sphere, leaving The LKE as the sole major imperialist power, the dissolution of the UIAF has left the imperialist sphere with significantly less interregional impact. Will this trend continue in 2016? Only time will tell.

4. Introduction of Regional Officers

Defenders raged. Raiders celebrated. The only thing that was certain was that gameplay would never be the same again. No, this isn't a description of yours truly returning to raiding, this is a summary of the reaction to [violet]'s surprise introduction of Regional Officers. Controversy surrounded the ability to appoint up to twelve Regional Officers with Border Control -- in effect, meaning a raider point could appoint up to twelve additional raiders with the ability to eject and ban, limited only by doubled influence cost. Many defenders argued that liberation attempts would become impossible. Many raiders countered that these concerns were overblown. The debate raged for pages upon pages in Technical, ultimately leading to modifications to correct the perceived R/D imbalance, and making Regional Officers deserving of being among the top five most interesting gameplay events of 2015.

3. Diplomatic Fall and Rise of the New Pacific Order

Following the NPO-sponsored coup d'etat against Lazarus, which ranks higher in this list, the governing regime of The Pacific found itself in hotter water than it had been in since the conclusion of its war with the Alliance Defense Network. All but two other Feeders and Sinkers severed relations, Krulltopia's and A mean old man's commendations were repealed by the Security Council by votes of 90% to 10%, and The Pacific became the first game-created region ever to be condemned, by a 91%-9% vote. Krulltopia resigned after serving as Emperor of the New Pacific Order for more than six years. Fast forward to the end of 2015 and the NPO has issued a stunning, sweeping, first of its kind apology for recent wrongdoing, and restored relations with three game-created regions. Will 2016 see further diplomatic normalization for the NPO, and a repeal of its condemnation? Stay tuned.

2. Rise and Fall of the New Lazarene Order

The coup d'etat perpetrated by Chairman Stujenske against the People's Republic of Lazarus had everything gameplayers could want in a coup: a legitimate Delegate frustrated by opposition to his authoritarian decisions and turning rogue; sponsorship by a much more powerful imperial benefactor, the New Pacific Order; a fierce native resistance determined to bring an end to the coup; and a conclusion to the coup every bit as surprising as its beginning, with former Chairman Kazmr acting as a double agent against the NLO to restore native government. The Lazarene coup d'etat and its defeat had a seismic effect on gameplay politics, disrupting a defender-leaning Feeder and Sinker bloc of four regions and their allies, and contributing to the end of the so-called cold war. For these reasons, the rise and fall of the NLO is more than deserving of being called the second most interesting gameplay event of last year.

1. Death(?) of The Black Riders

Everyone in gameplay knew that the delete-on-sight designation handed down by administrators against Halcones, and accompanying deletion of The Black Riders' founder nation, would have a significant impact. Few could have predicted how significant that impact would be. It spawned an invasion of TBR by an overwhelming coalition of disgruntled natives, supported by some defenders, followed by an unorganized and ultimately ineffective attempt to establish a new, defender government. Eventually TBR returned to raider hands through a sleeper operation overseen by Ever-Wandering Souls of The Black Hawks, but only to be laid to rest with dignity. Nonetheless, the death of TBR led to the resurrection of DEN as a raider powerhouse, the birth of new tag raiding regions such as Cimmeria, and in the last days of 2015, an effort by some former Riders to reboot the Black Riders in a new, secure home region. Love them or hate them, The Black Riders made their mark in 2015 in a big way -- with more sure to come, one way or another, in 2016 -- and the death(?) of TBR takes the number one spot in The Miniluv Messenger's list of the most interesting gameplay events of 2015.

---

Happy New Year from The Miniluv Messenger, and may 2016 find us gameplaying in yet more interesting times!

[Consular]

Good stuff as always, Cormac.

I'd probably rank the death of TBR a bit lower, since all they really did was change name, but I can understand its placement.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Agree with Consular, a well written and interesting read. Look forward to what else Miniluv will unearth in 2016.

[RiderSyl]

Well done.

Totally called #7 in my short-lived TL;DR news, by the way. "TWP CoupWatch" FTW.

On to 2016!

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Well done.

Totally called #7 in my short-lived TL;DR news, by the way. "TWP CoupWatch" FTW.

On to 2016!

I thought Coup Watch was because of the laughable threats from Nephmir and Gradea.

Will TL;DR News be making a reappearance at any time? Along with Miniluv it was one of my favourite reads.

[Sandaoguo]

My slow political decline isn't in this list and that's disappointing.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Also, the thawing of the "Cold War" pretty much coincided with the dissolution of the UIAF. The whole thing revolved around the rise and spread of imperialism, so when the root cause of that no longer existed, there wasn't any reason for the Cold War to go on.

But I wouldn't say GCRs have reverted to "non-ideological mutual respect and cooperation." If imperialism rises again, we'll see more diplomatic conflict. Ideology still plays a significant role in GCR relations. It's just that the ideological gap between GCRs isn't as wide anymore.

[Valrifell]

*looks around*

There was a "Cold War" in the GCRs?!

[Glen-Rhodes]

You had to be there, I guess.