Neutral Ground - an Open Discussion Thread

[Warwick Z Codger]

So, who likes swimming in ponds? I do!

Codger, you got any latest crazy ideas?

Don't ask me, ask Quilor. He's my bae. But honestly, I feel our views on the game are quite similar just that I revel in being an outsider while she's more moderate being part of mainstream gameplay.

[Kylia Quilor]

So, who likes swimming in ponds? I do!

Codger, you got any latest crazy ideas?

Don't ask me, ask Quilor. she's my bae. But honestly, I feel our views on the game are quite similar just that I revel in being an outsider while she's more moderate being part of mainstream gameplay.

Corrected that error.

Anyway, could you elaborate on what you mean by 'our views are quite similar''? I mean, I'm not saying they're not, since I don't entirely know what your views *are* apart from a general view in favor of experimentation and iconclasm, buyt could you elaborate on how you feel we're similar in our views then?

[Midnight Indo]

You know that raiding is morally repugnant, right? That's actually, like, a community you just destroyed. I've talked with raiders and it's my opinion that, in my experience, they're nasty. Raiding is bad. You're evil.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Raiders would like to talk to you

This needs to be a thing.

[Fratt]

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Raiders would like to talk to you

This needs to be a thing.

viewtopic.php?p=5901445#p5901445

[Midnight Indo]

This needs to be a thing.

viewtopic.php?p=5901445#p5901445

*becomes enlightened*

*realises there is no PETI*

[Vincent Drake]

Raiders are friends, not food!

Nom nom nom...

[Kylia Quilor]

Raiders are friends, not food!

Nom nom nom...

Honestly, I love me some deep friend defender tho, especially when I dip it in liquified native.

#thishumormaycrosstheline

[Deladara]

Raiders are friends, not food!

Nom nom nom...

Honestly, I love me some deep friend defender tho, especially when I dip it in liquified native.

#thishumormaycrosstheline

A raid a day keeps the Fenda away

[USS Monitor]

Raiders are friends, not food!

Nom nom nom...

Honestly, I love me some deep friend defender tho, especially when I dip it in liquified native.

#thishumormaycrosstheline

Please share with mods if you are having a cookout. I promise not to ask where you got the meat.

[Kylia Quilor]

Honestly, I love me some deep friend defender tho, especially when I dip it in liquified native.

#thishumormaycrosstheline

Please share with mods if you are having a cookout. I promise not to ask where you got the meat.

How about this lovely grilled flank steak?

[USS Monitor]

Please share with mods if you are having a cookout. I promise not to ask where you got the meat.

How about this lovely grilled flank steak?

So.... I'm not supposed to ask whose flank it came from?

[An Amphibious Equation]

How about this lovely grilled flank steak?

So.... I'm not supposed to ask whose flank it came from?

Dead horses.

[Vincent Drake]

We don't eat dead horses, we beat them. You can't go wrong with a good hawk stew, complete with a lily pad salad sprinkled with native tears.

[Kylia Quilor]

How about this lovely grilled flank steak?

So.... I'm not supposed to ask whose flank it came from?

Indeed. I've also got this wonderfull jellied sauce to go with it.

*hides the empty deflated eyeballs*

[Mallorea and Riva]

This needs to be a thing.

viewtopic.php?p=5901445#p5901445

Ermagerd. Frett.

[USS Monitor]

So.... I'm not supposed to ask whose flank it came from?

Indeed. I've also got this wonderfull jellied sauce to go with it.

*hides the empty deflated eyeballs*

Must be nice to have an extra set of eyes...

[Roavin]

Continuing from here:

It's the same old story, really.

A: "No, the Delegate is supreme!"
B: "No, Delegate is a servant to the region!"
A: "No, you're ignoring game mechanics!"
B: "No, you're being reductionist!"
A: "No, you're setting endorsement policy by oligarchcal fiat and thereby subverting the one true democracy!"
B: "No, you're ignoring inherent sociological factors, the power granted inherently subverts democracy of that kind!"

...etc...

Not worth arguing over. It's the same old, and the two camps just aren't gonna see eye to eye ever.

I'll contradict myself by discussing it afterall, but I just have to get this off my chest.

If you're a Delegate Supremacist, you're not automatically right. If you're not a Delegate Supremacist (I'm going to call you a Government Supremacist in this little rant), you're also not automatically right.

The Pacific has been operating under a Delegate Supremacy paradigm since at least August 2003 (probably before that too). The South Pacific has been operating under a Government Supremacy paradigm since early June 2003 (starting with the founding of the Coalition). The paradigms are deeply entrenched in regional culture in both cases. Both have their pros and cons, and both have worked quite well for them. TWP and TNP are another pair of regions for which the respective paradigm is entrenched and long-seated and has worked well for them.

So, tell me, dear Delegate Supremacists, why do you think it's proper for you to just ignore regional structure in favor of what is, in context, a reductionist view based on pure game mechanics? To just proclaim loudly that coups can't exist by definition, while Gameplay history is filled with discussions and battles over precisely these things (ironically, in some cases committed by the very Delegate Supremacists that are now yelling).

So, tell me, dear Government Supremacists, who says that a supreme Delegate must be, by definition, tyrannical? Or unfair? Or not conducive to democratic elements? All of these can be trivially disproven with historical context from TP and TWP. Those sociological factors that you claim that the Delegate Supremacists ignore exist just as much in a place with a Delegate Supremacy paradigm, they just manifest in a different form.

If you're a fundamentalist Delegate Supremacist or Government Supremacist, then all I can say is that you are (willfully or not) ignorant of historical context that shows that you're just as much wrong about one side as you are right about the other side. These are mutually exclusive paradigms for operating a founderless region, each with their pros and cons.

These aren't fucking religions.

Commence the hate!

[Kylia Quilor]

In my view, if a delegate has agreed to be bound by a stricture of limits and government, even if you don't call it a coup when they overthrow or violate that government/rules, its a betrayal of the agreement you made, explicit or implicit.

Because frankly, the logic of delegate supremacy applies to founder supremacy, so I could, under that logic, overturn the Kantrian government at will and completely change it - I'm the founder, after all. But as Queen, I agreed to a Constitution (the Statutes of Nobleslaw) that limits my authority. Thus, if I suddenly overthrow it and start doing things entirely by fiat, I'm launching what is more or less a coup, even if I decide to dress it up differently.

[Greater Moldavi]

You begin from a position that anyone that falls into a category must be ignorant of NS history. As someone that has been present for most of that history, and has indeed created a great deal of it, I find that assertion to be asinine at best.

Regardless, the supremacy of the Delegate nation has nothing to do with the governing structure of the region. A fully democratic region, like Balder for example, can still maintain that the Delegate nation is supreme, even if it does not actively take part in the governance of the social constructs of the region. The Delegate nation can, and has, restructure the government to adapt to current realities within the social framework. The Delegate nation can remove threats to its position from the region. The Delegate nation is responsible for the stability and security of the region, and the accompanying society. All of these things can exist within a framework of the Delegate nation as supreme. The government that is supported by the Delegate nation is the legitimate government of the region.

The primary position of people like myself is that the offsite government of the region can be whatever form it wishes to be so long as it has the support of the in-game Delegate nation. It does not need to be autocratic or tyrannical. It can be democratic, constitutional, whatever, without the need to enforce some arbitrary offsite will onto the mechanics of the game.

[Greater Moldavi]

In my view, if a delegate has agreed to be bound by a stricture of limits and government, even if you don't call it a coup when they overthrow or violate that government/rules, its a betrayal of the agreement you made, explicit or implicit.

Because frankly, the logic of delegate supremacy applies to founder supremacy, so I could, under that logic, overturn the Kantrian government at will and completely change it - I'm the founder, after all. But as Queen, I agreed to a Constitution (the Statutes of Nobleslaw) that limits my authority. Thus, if I suddenly overthrow it and start doing things entirely by fiat, I'm launching what is more or less a coup, even if I decide to dress it up differently.

The moralist argumentation has nothing to do with what can or cannot happen, which is my point. The game founder and the admins have indicated that the Delegate is the equivalent of a Founder within the GCR without the permanency of the latter. So the agreement between a Delegate and an offsite governmental form can be revised without direct in-game consequence. Of course, that does not mean that those that are displaced are not allowed to object and fight, just that they are doing so from a position outside of game mechanics. If they are to remove the Delegate nation they must do so within the confines of the mechanics of the game, thereby making mechanics paramount.

[McChimp]

Continuing from here:

It's the same old story, really.

A: "No, the Delegate is supreme!"
B: "No, Delegate is a servant to the region!"
A: "No, you're ignoring game mechanics!"
B: "No, you're being reductionist!"
A: "No, you're setting endorsement policy by oligarchcal fiat and thereby subverting the one true democracy!"
B: "No, you're ignoring inherent sociological factors, the power granted inherently subverts democracy of that kind!"

...etc...

Not worth arguing over. It's the same old, and the two camps just aren't gonna see eye to eye ever.

I'll contradict myself by discussing it afterall, but I just have to get this off my chest.

If you're a Delegate Supremacist, you're not automatically right. If you're not a Delegate Supremacist (I'm going to call you a Government Supremacist in this little rant), you're also not automatically right.

The Pacific has been operating under a Delegate Supremacy paradigm since at least August 2003 (probably before that too). The South Pacific has been operating under a Government Supremacy paradigm since early June 2003 (starting with the founding of the Coalition). The paradigms are deeply entrenched in regional culture in both cases. Both have their pros and cons, and both have worked quite well for them. TWP and TNP are another pair of regions for which the respective paradigm is entrenched and long-seated and has worked well for them.

So, tell me, dear Delegate Supremacists, why do you think it's proper for you to just ignore regional structure in favor of what is, in context, a reductionist view based on pure game mechanics? To just proclaim loudly that coups can't exist by definition, while Gameplay history is filled with discussions and battles over precisely these things (ironically, in some cases committed by the very Delegate Supremacists that are now yelling).

So, tell me, dear Government Supremacists, who says that a supreme Delegate must be, by definition, tyrannical? Or unfair? Or not conducive to democratic elements? All of these can be trivially disproven with historical context from TP and TWP. Those sociological factors that you claim that the Delegate Supremacists ignore exist just as much in a place with a Delegate Supremacy paradigm, they just manifest in a different form.

If you're a fundamentalist Delegate Supremacist or Government Supremacist, then all I can say is that you are (willfully or not) ignorant of historical context that shows that you're just as much wrong about one side as you are right about the other side. These are mutually exclusive paradigms for operating a founderless region, each with their pros and cons.

These aren't fucking religions.

Commence the hate!

Both of these methodologies are incorrect. My future power shall not be legitimised by plebeian endorsement or through established process. I have a divine mandate to rule; my claim is built on providence.

[Roavin]

You begin from a position that anyone that falls into a category must be ignorant of NS history. As someone that has been present for most of that history, and has indeed created a great deal of it, I find that assertion to be asinine at best.

I know. That's why I added "willfully", because I know that you've seen it all first-hand.

Regardless, the supremacy of the Delegate nation has nothing to do with the governing structure of the region. A fully democratic region, like Balder for example, can still maintain that the Delegate nation is supreme, even if it does not actively take part in the governance of the social constructs of the region. [...] All of these things can exist within a framework of the Delegate nation as supreme.

The primary position of people like myself is that the offsite government of the region can be whatever form it wishes to be so long as it has the support of the in-game Delegate nation. It does not need to be autocratic or tyrannical. It can be democratic, constitutional, whatever, without the need to enforce some arbitrary offsite will onto the mechanics of the game.

And I don't disagree with you. You basically laid out (in more eloquent terms) my criticism of Government Supremacists.

The moralist argumentation has nothing to do with what can or cannot happen, which is my point. The game founder and the admins have indicated that the Delegate is the equivalent of a Founder within the GCR without the permanency of the latter. So the agreement between a Delegate and an offsite governmental form can be revised without direct in-game consequence. Of course, that does not mean that those that are displaced are not allowed to object and fight, just that they are doing so from a position outside of game mechanics. If they are to remove the Delegate nation they must do so within the confines of the mechanics of the game, thereby making mechanics paramount.

Of course. Game mechanics are paramount, because this is the game we're playing. That includes regions that don't operate under the Delegate Supremacy paradigm, who use game mechanics (influence, endorsement caps, endorsement gaps) to ensure that the Delegate, if they break the contract with their region, can be effectively removed. TNP does this exceptionally well. Lazarus didn't, as we saw. But in either case, no matter if the operating paradigm is Delegate or Government Supremacy, game mechanics are supreme in both cases.

My criticism of you (and any Delegate Supremacist) is that you say things like this:

There is no such thing as a coup in a GCR. As a 'coup' is defined as an illegal act it is an impossibility.

That's about as reductionist as claiming that raiders and defenders are the same because they seek to change the Delegate of a region. But if that's how we all were to approach everything, we wouldn't be playing this damn game.

Emergent socio-political factors are built upon on game mechanics and are just as real. That means of course there can be coups. They have happened. We talk about them here all the time. You yourself have couped GCRs. They weren't illegal in the context of NationStates, but illegal under the system of governance that the Delegate nation was operating under - illegal under that emergent socio-political framework. A very real thing.

[Greater Moldavi]

If I didn't say things like that then I wouldn't be...well me.

Of course I am going to argue that coups are impossible in a GCR. I have orchestrated the forced government change, or been a major part of such changes, more times than I can reasonably recall and I have always argued that the Delegate has had the right to enact such changes in a legitimate and legal manner. To state anything else would undermine much of my own gameplay experience of the last decade and a half.

[Darkesia]

If I didn't say things like that then I wouldn't be...well me.

Permission to sig.

Edit: Did it already in anticipation that I won't check this thread again for at least a month. PM me, if it bugs you and I will remove it.

[Kylia Quilor]

In my view, if a delegate has agreed to be bound by a stricture of limits and government, even if you don't call it a coup when they overthrow or violate that government/rules, its a betrayal of the agreement you made, explicit or implicit.

Because frankly, the logic of delegate supremacy applies to founder supremacy, so I could, under that logic, overturn the Kantrian government at will and completely change it - I'm the founder, after all. But as Queen, I agreed to a Constitution (the Statutes of Nobleslaw) that limits my authority. Thus, if I suddenly overthrow it and start doing things entirely by fiat, I'm launching what is more or less a coup, even if I decide to dress it up differently.

The moralist argumentation has nothing to do with what can or cannot happen, which is my point. The game founder and the admins have indicated that the Delegate is the equivalent of a Founder within the GCR without the permanency of the latter. So the agreement between a Delegate and an offsite governmental form can be revised without direct in-game consequence. Of course, that does not mean that those that are displaced are not allowed to object and fight, just that they are doing so from a position outside of game mechanics. If they are to remove the Delegate nation they must do so within the confines of the mechanics of the game, thereby making mechanics paramount.

But I'm not talking about Mechanics. You're approaching this from the position of raw mechanics, I'm approaching this from the fact that NationStates is a game of politics and community. Whether or not a Delegate has the actual technical authority to do something doesn't change the fact they if they agree to be bound by rules, implicitly or explicitly, then their actions are a coup.

In a game like NationStates Gameplay (as opposed to other forms of NS play), where the primary interactions between players is social, rather than mechanical (i.e. we're not avatars beating eachother in the face with hammers), its the social factors that establish the basic ground rules and norms. I'm with Roavin - to call coups not a coup just because the mechanics allow a Delegate to do what they want is silly and reductionist.

Moreover, while an offsite government can be democratic while there's a supreme Delegate, how democratic can it be in function (regardless of theory) if it is entirely dependent on the Delegate's fiat, without even theoretical legal limits on their behavior? (That is, yes, I agree with you in practice any off-site government relies on the Founder's/Delegate's fiat and whim, but most people, if there is some sort of norm or rule in place saying they can't just kick the government table over whenever they want, don't usually do it. Or at least not so overtly.) If the entire governing system is accepted to be able to be overthrown whenever the Delegate gets into a spat with others on the forum, that's not as functionally democratic as the system may propose to be in practice.