I've come here to chime in on a few things, including the criticism that relates in some way to Karma and the system the region was built upon, and unlike with
Sancta Romana Ecclesia that part can be taken as an official stance if you want, I don't much care, nor do I feel like that matters for this but whatever.
First... I missed the memo where democracy was obligatory for being in the WA or the SC, or even commended in the later, as I don't recall being non-democratic automatically meaning being against "peace and goodwill", so I'm not sure why this is somehow the only form of government that can ever be championed, and why every other form of government can automatically be disregarded and considered inferior just because it does not strictly follow this, without any actual solid reason that demonstrates why this goes against what the WA or SC stand for, but I digress (already yes), as that's most just a bit of nit-picking I wanted to get out of the way 'cause it was itching.
That said, here's what I mainly have to say about that,
Kuriko wrote:Also, meritocracy is not an ideology that needs to be espoused so hard. The idea behind meritocracy is that democracy is an inferior form of government, basically saying that at least 4 of the 9 GCRs are inferior to the rest.
Daytime to Night wrote:The last two clauses seem good, but why is cultivating meritocracy good? I would word that differently to emphasise the outcomes from that, rather than simply assuming that WA voters will find the promotion an anti-democratic form of Government to be a commendable thing.
Quick point before the text-wall... When have meritocracy or democracy become things that pertain only to GCRs? Or since when has this game been only made of GCRs? I just really don't see where that last point about meritocracy being about 4 of the GCRs being inferior to the rest came from. This isn't even a commendation on a GCR, but a'ight...
Anyway, I'm not fully sure where the idea that meritocracy is just about considering democracy inferior or is a stance against democracy came from? Because it's not... Well not in any way that any other chosen form of government is considering all other forms of governance inferior and/or is a stance against them, but even besides that the two systems can coexist... Which is in-fact to a degree the case in Karma.
To clarify I'm not saying Karma itself is the bastion of democracy (not gonna speak for any other region mentioned), we don't claim or pretend to be that either, and that's simply because we don't find it to be the form of government that works best for us, but don't get things mixed up, our lack of democracy doesn't come as a direct result of our championing for meritocracy. It comes from our decision to stick with a base non-demoratic oligarchic structure, independently of having meritocracy or not, as we find this to be the safest and most effective way to manage our region.
Nonetheless, we still have many elements of democracy peppered around the region. (Which I'll actually refrain from giving here because this is not a commendation of Karma) so again, meritocracy can work with democracy, as they do in a meriotcratic and non-democratic region like Karma.
To add to that... Meritocracy, at the very least Altino's brand of it, simply implies that people are chosen on merit. It doesn't automatically mean we're suddenly thrown into a dictatorship or something, and a meritocratic measure can be something as simple as "You have to prove your worth, in order to be able to be part of the government, or participate in it". This includes systems which are implemented in almost any democracy really, be it strictly or just indirectly. Which also means what's present both in XKI and TSP. Unless the region has no appointed positions, or no barrier on citizenship involvement (even if that's just via the presence of WA nations), or doesn't vote on its leaders based on their merit and the work they've done... If none of that happens congrats, you truly have no meriotcracy in your democratic system and still you somehow manage to get things done and that sounds like magic, otherwise congrats too as you are now part of the club of regions that have both democracy and meritocracy.
Now to other points,
Kuriko wrote:This can be said for every regional leader ever, in the entire history of NationStates. What makes this exceptional? And why single out Dakota, of all the possible people Altino has entrusted into government positions? I also feel like the TBH part doesn't belong, nor does the list of Dakota's government positions. This is supposedly about Altino, not Dakota.
-snip-
So she founded a region that became big, cool. There are tons of other regions, and founders, who have done the same who aren't yet commended such as The Noble Thatcherites.
Those two arguments, while having some validity feel a bit... disingenuous to me I'll be honest, and it might just be how I interpreted it I'll admit that too, but I'd say that if we were to only focus on each point individually and refuse to take into consideration everything else and the relations between all the points made, then one can easily argue that most, if not all commendations that have been passed by the SC are not worthy, no? Because of course "just creating a big region", or "just helping a few newer/less experienced members of a region" by itself is totally something that happens all the time sure, and many people who have done so have not received commendations, yes... But I think it's clear that this proposal isn't arguing that any of those things by themselves are grounds for a commendation... Otherwise only one of those would surely be the single point borught forward within it right?
So, even without stepping into if one is for or against commending Altino, or this commendation specifically, I believe it's safe to say that there's a big difference from doing only one of those things; and doing not only both of them, but also do it in various different regions/multiple times.
To finalize on this rambling part, I have to question why we still live in a NS world where one side of R/D is forever mighty and holy, and its achievements can be commended, and the other is forever terrible and evil and can never have its achievements praised, but that's mostly just unwinding and not a dicussion I actually want to feed into, especially since I feel like the stuff about TWPAF raiding achievements can be taken out without hurting the porposal, so watevs I guess.
Now, to my last cents, because I recognize this proposal also has its flaws (which to be fair, I could actually proably have looked at it before but oh well), I'm gonna say I have to agree with a few points brought up. Namely:
a) It spends too long talking about and focusing on other people, and while I agree that Altino helping launch new players might be an important point to make, I don't think the focus should so much be on what those other people ended up doing... Otherwise we should be commending them, not Altino.
b) Even I feel like there's a bit too much of a focus on/mention of meritocracy, which, at most, makes it sound like what made it all work was simply the meritocracy and not Altino or her approach to the system, which if that's the case then we should be commending meritocracy (lol plz dont) not Altino.
c) Some things could, and should, for sure be merged and way more tied together, sure it reduces the size of the thing, but quality over quantity and all of that.
d) While I understand that co-authorship, where both authors have equal amounts of power and independence, can be tricky, I do have to somewhat agree that a lack of agility in solving issues, or at the very least discussing them amongst yourselves, so you can both confidently speak on any matters brought up, does not really help your case much...
e) This last one is going to be a bit extensive again but, I agree that the way Altino's involvement in Karma was approached was very... lackluster. As someone who as accompanied Karma since its creation, I can't in all honesty just say "Yeh that part looks good". Boiling down her contributions to Karma as being "a founder who created and headed a region that went on to have a peak of 458 nations and 172 WA nations" (or however you put it) feels like a disservice both to her and to your proposal.
Alti hasn't led Karma to be successful just because she's the founder, that's in fact a very secondary thing, she could have been someone who wasn't the founder but still be as involved as she is and as invested as she is and bring Karma to where it stands all the same. Not to mention that I don't even know why numbers of nations, something that hasn't been the biggest priority even for us, the leadership of the region (someone who actually purposefully lets that drop from time to time), is your focus here. I think even something more vague like "making Karma a notable region on Nationstates" would have been more helpful there (and that doesn't sound too solid either, I'll be the first to say)... The point is, that the focus on numbers that no-one really cares about and only pointing out she's the founder without actually even hinting at what she worked towards, doesn't really add all that much to the commendation, and in fact probably ends up hurting your efforts more than anything.