The Rejected Times

[Sciongrad]

What? Gruen's pieces address real and very serious issues in the World Assembly and I know I speak for others when I say that many regulars find his articles extremely insightful. It seems like the only people that have an issue with his articles are recipients of his criticism and a crowd of gameplayers that don't really participate in the World Assembly anyway.

I've yet to be subject to any serious criticism from him, and I think his posts are full of nonsense. And I know I speak for others when I say that many regulars find his articles extremely incorrect. Especially ones that claim natsov is dead(when we're in nothing short of a resurgence of the movement and have been for half a year or more), or that the GA forums are completely meaningless to the GA vote. I could go on, but I don't really need to. His work speaks for itself.

My interpretation of that argument wasn't that national sovereignty isn't popular, but that the intellectual legitimacy of the movement isn't what it used to be - or at least it isn't properly argued from a very logical or convincing standpoint. And it really isn't. The recent repeal of the Multilateral Prosecution Act is a pretty good example of this phenomenon. It was strikingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that the true motivation behind the repeal was purely ideological, but instead of properly articulating an argument to that end anywhere, the repeal ended up arguing from a bizarre perspective of social injustice and a questionable use of "separate but equal," among other things. National sovereignty might still exist as an ideology, but not even active self-proclaimed national sovereigntists can properly articulate it when debating resolutions. I think you're conflating the actual existence of active national sovereigntists (i.e. whether or not people still actively subscribe to it) and whether or not it has intellectual legitimacy.

Also, the GA forum has zero impact on the actual vote. It never, ever has and likely never will. A minute fraction of voters look at the forum - to argue that the debates that go on there have any impact on the actual vote is not grounded in reality.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Wow, you guys certainly had a bad falling out.

What? No. I'm just being honest here. I don't want people to get the wrong idea from some of you that his work is universally loved by the GA community or something.

I doubt anybody thinks that. On the off chance they do, it's likely because nobody is refuting Gruen's arguments. Instead, all you do is insult the author and dismiss TRT as a whole as stupid propaganda.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

I genuinely disagree with both of those points, and I've published an article of my own about the effect of the GA forums on voting very recently.

As for the "intellectual legitimacy" of National Sovereignty, my repeals often include one or two lines outlining a NatSov argument but they do not have to in order to be NatSov repeals.

Sovereignty is the base of our back and forth. It's something that our nations have with or without the World Assembly. When we join the WA for any reason we do, necessarily, give up some sovereignty. But to me, it's the international federalists, not us NatSovs, that have to make a legitimate argument about why a particular law is important enough for me to give up any of my sovereignty. Anything we repeal increases sovereignty, and anything we pass decreases it. A NatSov has one argument only: There should be less interference on an international level with our national laws. The concept of "intellectual legitimacy" is laughable in such a context.

The framework for "intellectual legitimacy" already exists. Someone passing a new resolution is inherently making an IntFed argument(of varying degrees depending on the piece). Anyone who repeals something is inherently making a NatSov argument. That's why NatSov is not, alone, a valid reason for a repeal. It's the whole point of the repeal in the first place. And any resolution with no active clauses is in the same boat, it is international federalism with no purpose.

So if I point out a flaw in a resolution, unless I'm promising a replacement on the topic, it doesn't matter what argument I'm making... it's a NatSov argument simply by being in a repeal. Furthermore, a piece with no obvious flaws is difficult to repeal. Why is that? Because the GA has already accepted the intrusion on our sovereignty at some point. An argument based on NatSov is one that doesn't address the piece itself, but rather the voters who approved it. A flaw allows us to point out that the acceptance of the intrusion was itself inherently flawed. That there was a mistake outside of the base framework of the resolution itself.

And let's all be honest: To pretend there is some sort of pure black and white to each person's viewpoints on this topic is itself preposterous. Almost every NatSov has SOME issue they're fine with creating legislation for. And almost every IntFed has some issue they're not comfortable seeing legislated on an international level. The biggest complaint I have isn't even so much that he's demanding some sort of nebulous "intellectual legitimacy" that doesn't exist outside of game mechanics, but rather that his complaints have a simplier basis: a lack of ideological purity in NatSovs. Which, to me, is a good thing.

Edit:

Instead, all you do is insult the author and dismiss TRT as a whole as stupid propaganda.

I'm not dismissing it as stupid propaganda. It's just incorrect information being presented as though it is to people who might not know better... because it is true that a lot of GPers don't get involved in the GA. It's clearly propaganda, but not stupid.

[Tlik]

Yeah, gruen has been one of the consistently worst writers from what I've seen.

What? Gruen's pieces address real and very serious issues in the World Assembly and I know I speak for others when I say that many regulars find his articles extremely insightful. It seems like the only people that have an issue with his articles are recipients of his criticism and a crowd of gameplayers that don't really participate in the World Assembly anyway.

See, I don't know anything about the WA, and I love having articles in TRT from all sorts of different areas in NationStates, but when one author consistently provokes such a loud and angry reaction that it drowns out every other part of the newspaper, and when the discussion gets so vitriolic that moderation gets involved, and when the discussion always seems to degenerate to being about Mall*, I can't help but feel that there's an external issue here that isn't really being solved. Particularly not by initiating such vitriolic and angry discussions.

I'm sure Gruen's a really good WA author. I'm sure there's some really interesting things happening in the WA that deserve to be written about. On the other hand, every time I think about the WA right now, I think of these angry bitchfights, and it really doesn't make me want to care about the WA, or what's happening there at all.

If Gruen's right, and there's something wrong with the WA, then he needs to write about it in a way that actually makes other people concerned about the WA, rather than just starting slanging matches. If he's wrong, and a complete minority voice that no-one in the WA actually listens to, then TRT shouldn't be asking him to write about the WA. Either way, something needs to change.

That said, I look forwards to the next issue, and I'm sure it will be wonderful.

* Not that there's anything wrong with discussions involving Mall, I'd love to see more, especially where they involve him interviewing Mahaj, but not quite with this amount of personal venom and hatred.

[The Dark Star Republic]

and when the discussion always seems to degenerate to being about Mall

None of my GA articles have been about Mallorea; which isn't very surprising, given he was barely active in it prior to being modded, and he hasn't been a moderator for very long. If you're talking about the Liberate Haven article, then that was only tangentially about him: it was really meant to be (I had hoped, light heartedly) summarising the varying "technical fixes" being proposed in the wake of that whole thing for people who didn't have the time to wade through multiple different 100 post threads in the Technical forum. The article wasn't criticising him; it was, if anything, poking fun at the OTT reaction to him.

On the other hand, every time I think about the WA right now, I think of these angry bitchfights, and it really doesn't make me want to care about the WA, or what's happening there at all.

The GA is pretty calm. Even the really big arguments tend to be more about technical disagreements; I can't really think of anyone who picked up any warnings in all of the various controversies. There are no "angry bitchfights" - unless, you're talking about the SC, which doesn't really interest or concern me and hasn't been the subject of my articles.

[Sciongrad]

*snip*

I genuinely disagree with both of those points, and I've published an article of my own about the effect of the GA forums on voting very recently.

I honestly have no idea how you can demonstrate any correlation between forum debates and voting patterns. As a matter of fact, if you made a poll for any given forum debate, I can almost guarantee that it won't statistically match the actual vote's results.

The framework for "intellectual legitimacy" already exists. Someone passing a new resolution is inherently making an IntFed argument(of varying degrees depending on the piece). Anyone who repeals something is inherently making a NatSov argument. That's why NatSov is not, alone, a valid reason for a repeal. It's the whole point of the repeal in the first place. And any resolution with no active clauses is in the same boat, it is international federalism with no purpose.

This is a ridiculous assumption. The World Assembly, by its nature, wears away at sovereignty, but to argue that the ideology of a resolution is axiomatic depending on whether it's a repeal or not makes no sense. A repeal does restore sovereignty to nations because it is removing a restriction placed on them by the World Assembly, but that doesn't make it inherently national sovereigntist by ideology. Blockers, for example, are NatSov constructs meant purely to prevent legislation, but your logic would have others believe that blockers are inherently "IntFed." It seems that you're arguing over the nature of sovereignty between the World Assembly and member nations - that's related to the intellectual legitimacy of the WA's ideological wings, but they're not one and the same. Arguing that all repeals are inherently national sovereigntist conflates the intellectual underpinnings of national sovereignty with its goal. No NatSov would support a repeal of GAR#10, even though repealing it would cede sovereignty back to member nations.

So if I point out a flaw in a resolution, unless I'm promising a replacement on the topic, it doesn't matter what argument I'm making... it's a NatSov argument simply by being in a repeal. Furthermore, a piece with no obvious flaws is difficult to repeal. Why is that? Because the GA has already accepted the intrusion on our sovereignty at some point. An argument based on NatSov is one that doesn't address the piece itself, but rather the voters who approved it. A flaw allows us to point out that the acceptance of the intrusion was itself inherently flawed. That there was a mistake outside of the base framework of the resolution itself.

Repeals are not national sovereigntist in nature, even if they do inherently cede back sovereignty to member nations. And furthermore, the GA doesn't need to accept an "intrusion of sovereignty." Ontologically, the World Assembly erodes sovereignty. That doesn't need confirmation by anyone. And for the record, I never suggested that an author must make their argument entirely national sovereigntist to lend credibility to the ideology - I said that NatSovs are often unwilling to publicly state their ideological motive for a repeal. A glance at the ICC imbroglio makes that very clear.

And let's all be honest: To pretend there is some sort of pure black and white to each person's viewpoints on this topic is itself preposterous. Almost every NatSov has SOME issue they're fine with creating legislation for. And almost every IntFed has some issue they're not comfortable seeing legislated on an international level. The biggest complaint I have isn't even so much that he's demanding some sort of nebulous "intellectual legitimacy" that doesn't exist outside of game mechanics, but rather that his complaints have a simplier basis: a lack of ideological purity in NatSovs. Which, to me, is a good thing.

There is a difference between ideological purity and ideological consistency. If I claimed I was a communist, except in the case of haberdasheries, which I believed should be run as private institutions, I'm not in some gray area between capitalism and communism, I'm ideologically inconsistent. Just like a national sovereigntist cannot claim that the World Assembly only has the authority to meddle in matters of international importance, except for women's health or domestic infrastructure, where it's free to do as it pleases. And this is partially responsible for making national sovereigntism seem like it's intellectually illegitimate - because its biggest proponents see it as an end to be achieved only and refuse to make it a cohesive argument in its own right.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I honestly have no idea how you can demonstrate any correlation between forum debates and voting patterns. As a matter of fact, if you made a poll for any given forum debate, I can almost guarantee that it won't statistically match the actual vote's results.

Direct influence on the average voter? No. Direct and indirect influence on the biggest delegates? Uh, yes. Duh. It's the whole point of WA ministries(which are often staffed exclusively with GA regulars who DO pay attention to those debates).

This is a ridiculous assumption. The World Assembly, by its nature, wears away at sovereignty, but to argue that the ideology of a resolution is axiomatic depending on whether it's a repeal or not makes no sense. A repeal does restore sovereignty to nations because it is removing a restriction placed on them by the World Assembly, but that doesn't make it inherently national sovereigntist by ideology. Blockers, for example, are NatSov constructs meant purely to prevent legislation, but your logic would have others believe that blockers are inherently "IntFed." It seems that you're arguing over the nature of sovereignty between the World Assembly and member nations - that's related to the intellectual legitimacy of the WA's ideological wings, but they're not one and the same. Arguing that all repeals are inherently national sovereigntist conflates the intellectual underpinnings of national sovereignty with its goal. No NatSov would support a repeal of GAR#10, even though repealing it would cede sovereignty back to member nations.

Blockers are not purely NatSov constructs. In fact they accept a part of the argument I don't, which is that somehow IntFed legislation is inevitable and must be avoided. They are very weak IntFed constructs for the sole purpose of blocking worse infringements.

Repeals are not national sovereigntist in nature, even if they do inherently cede back sovereignty to member nations. And furthermore, the GA doesn't need to accept an "intrusion of sovereignty." Ontologically, the World Assembly erodes sovereignty. That doesn't need confirmation by anyone. And for the record, I never suggested that an author must make their argument entirely national sovereigntist to lend credibility to the ideology - I said that NatSovs are often unwilling to publicly state their ideological motive for a repeal. A glance at the ICC imbroglio makes that very clear.

Is there a problem where IntFeds tend to label anyone with a NatSov motive as inherently inferior in the argument? Yes. I don't accept that any argument needs some nebulous "intellectual legitimacy" to be valid though, so I don't see your point at all.

There is a difference between ideological purity and ideological consistency. If I claimed I was a communist, except in the case of haberdasheries, which I believed should be run as private institutions, I'm not in some gray area between capitalism and communism, I'm ideologically inconsistent. Just like a national sovereigntist cannot claim that the World Assembly only has the authority to meddle in matters of international importance, except for women's health or domestic infrastructure, where it's free to do as it pleases. And this is partially responsible for making national sovereigntism seem like it's intellectually illegitimate - because its biggest proponents see it as an end to be achieved only and refuse to make it a cohesive argument in its own right.

Again, as if "intellectual legitimacy" is a real thing that can be measured. It isn't. There are things that are IntFed in nature that promote a NatSov agenda. National Sovereignty is a well developed ideology(and you and I both know there are plenty of papers on the subject), but it's not so caught up in eating its own tail that it is willing to forgo success for the sake of conforming to some made up requirements.

If you want to pretend we don't have a cohesive argument that's fine, but I'm not going to accept it.

[Solorni]

Yeah, gruen has been one of the consistently worst writers from what I've seen.

What? Gruen's pieces address real and very serious issues in the World Assembly and I know I speak for others when I say that many regulars find his articles extremely insightful. It seems like the only people that have an issue with his articles are recipients of his criticism and a crowd of gameplayers that don't really participate in the World Assembly anyway.

Could you please point out where I stated that his pieces did not address real and very serious issues? I'm just saying he's a terrible writer

[Sciongrad]

Direct influence on the average voter? No. Direct and indirect influence on the biggest delegates? Uh, yes. Duh. It's the whole point of WA ministries(which are often staffed exclusively with GA regulars who DO pay attention to those debates).

Err.. still no. This assumes that WA ministers for big regions base their opinions on forum debates. I don't know about you, but I don't typically form my opinion on a proposal by what's being said in the forum debate.

Blockers are not purely NatSov constructs. In fact they accept a part of the argument I don't, which is that somehow IntFed legislation is inevitable and must be avoided. They are very weak IntFed constructs for the sole purpose of blocking worse infringements.

You're mixing up the actual ideology of international federalism and the act of ceding sovereignty to the World Assembly. They're not the same, no matter how you try to paint it. Otherwise, by your logic, the only true NatSovs are those that only seek to repeal because passing any resolution at all is inherently IntFed. The entire IntFed-NatSov dynamic is a lot more complicated than "NatSovs want no WA resolutions, IntFeds only want WA resolutions."

Is there a problem where IntFeds tend to label anyone with a NatSov motive as inherently inferior in the argument? Yes. I don't accept that any argument needs some nebulous "intellectual legitimacy" to be valid though, so I don't see your point at all.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone label a NatSov motive as "inferior" anywhere. As a matter of fact, my argument is that to be more intellectually legitimate, self-proclaimed NatSovs should at least try and embrace their ideological motives for repeals rather than hiding behind other arguments. The day you convince me that the Multilateral Prosecution Act was repealed because it was prejudicial and created an unfair system of segregation rather than because it was unappealing to NatSovs is the day I'll bake my right sock into a pie.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Err.. still no. This assumes that WA ministers for big regions base their opinions on forum debates. I don't know about you, but I don't typically form my opinion on a proposal by what's being said in the forum debate.

Hi. WA Minister for TWP and Osiris here. If you look at my Northern Lights article you'll see I also talked to Aba(TNP's WA Minister) about it. Wanna guess what conclusion I reached on the effects of the GA forum debates for those delegacies with about 800 votes between them? If he argued that it had some effect but not nearly as much as some people think that'd be one thing... I probably couldn't argue with that. But to argue that it has zero effect? That's just willfully and totally wrong. And it'll continue to be for at least as long as I have a WA Ministry in a GCR under me.

You're mixing up the actual ideology of international federalism and the act of ceding sovereignty to the World Assembly. They're not the same, no matter how you try to paint it. Otherwise, by your logic, the only true NatSovs are those that only seek to repeal because passing any resolution at all is inherently IntFed. The entire IntFed-NatSov dynamic is a lot more complicated than "NatSovs want no WA resolutions, IntFeds only want WA resolutions."

I don't think I've ever seen anyone label a NatSov motive as "inferior" anywhere. As a matter of fact, my argument is that to be more intellectually legitimate, self-proclaimed NatSovs should at least try and embrace their ideological motives for repeals rather than hiding behind other arguments. The day you convince me that the Multilateral Prosecution Act was repealed because it was prejudicial and created an unfair system of segregation rather than because it was unappealing to NatSovs is the day I'll bake my right sock into a pie.

Here's the real issue. You seem to think that lacking ideological purity is a failing of the philosopher rather than a failing in your interpretation of it. A pure natsov indeed wants no WA resolutions, and a pure IntFed wants more resolutions with no bar for measuring the importance of those resolutions. That's clear. But those people are not the leaders of the movements, and most of us fall on a line somewhere between those two. NatSov isn't dead as long as there are adherents to the ideology, and even if the only point he's trying to make is about intellectual "dishonesty" or whatever... that's a gross oversimplification as well.

If you want to repeal something that is unappealing to natsovs, and you point out that something is prejudicial and creates an unfair system of segregation... those are arguments with a NatSov basis! You don't need to come out and say "also I hate it cause it's infringing on my sovereignty" because it inherently infringes, and unacceptably so with those flaws.

[Unibot III]

What? Gruen's pieces address real and very serious issues in the World Assembly and I know I speak for others when I say that many regulars find his articles extremely insightful. It seems like the only people that have an issue with his articles are recipients of his criticism and a crowd of gameplayers that don't really participate in the World Assembly anyway.

Could you please point out where I stated that his pieces did not address real and very serious issues? I'm just saying he's a terrible writer

Yes, for one thing he ends his sentences with punctuation, not disingenuous smileys. The horror!

[Sciongrad]

Hi. WA Minister for TWP and Osiris here. If you look at my Northern Lights article you'll see I also talked to Aba(TNP's WA Minister) about it. Wanna guess what conclusion I reached on the effects of the GA forum debates for those delegacies with about 800 votes between them? If he argued that it had some effect but not nearly as much as some people think that'd be one thing... I probably couldn't argue with that. But to argue that it has zero effect? That's just willfully and totally wrong. And it'll continue to be for at least as long as I have a WA Ministry in a GCR under me.

Whatever effect it has is completely negligible. I obviously can't speak for how you vote, because I really don't know, but you'd be lying if you said that your vote is significantly impacted by the GA forum discourse on a regular basis.

Here's the real issue. You seem to think that lacking ideological purity is a failing of the philosopher rather than a failing in your interpretation of it. A pure natsov indeed wants no WA resolutions, and a pure IntFed wants more resolutions with no bar for measuring the importance of those resolutions. That's clear. But those people are not the leaders of the movements, and most of us fall on a line somewhere between those two. NatSov isn't dead as long as there are adherents to the ideology, and even if the only point he's trying to make is about intellectual "dishonesty" or whatever... that's a gross oversimplification as well.

You are again conflating the actual relationship between member nations and the World Assembly with the actual intellectual beliefs of both ideologies. The point I'm trying to make is that there's a difference between the actual ideological beliefs held by the real mainstream members of either ideology (no actual IntFed I know believes that the World Assembly should interfere in any matter that can be reasonably resolved on a national scale, for example) and the more simplistic model you're suggesting and that for the idea of national sovereignty to be taken seriously, it needs to form a coherent argument like it used to have (and I'm talking as recently as late 2011). You seem to forget that national sovereignty as a movement, not a concept, does not just have any legitimacy simply by existing. Like any idea, those that support it need to make an effort to create that legitimacy, and currently, self-proclaimed NatSovs are not articulating a well developed argument supporting national sovereignty. Not to keep ragging on the repeal of the Multilateral Prosecution Act, but it wasn't mentioned anywhere that the actual motivation was that such an institution shouldn't exist in the first place.

If you want to repeal something that is unappealing to natsovs, and you point out that something is prejudicial and creates an unfair system of segregation... those are arguments with a NatSov basis! You don't need to come out and say "also I hate it cause it's infringing on my sovereignty" because it inherently infringes, and unacceptably so with those flaws.

Yes, but that line of reasoning doesn't embrace the actual argument of national sovereignty, which is what this discussion is about. Repealing a resolution because it's genuinely flawed is not what's at issue here. By shrouding your actual motivation with a veil of fabricated arguments, you're diminishing the actual idea of national sovereignty by creating an atmosphere where it's not even incorporated into repeals that are entirely motivated by it.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Whatever effect it has is completely negligible. I obviously can't speak for how you vote, because I really don't know, but you'd be lying if you said that your vote is significantly impacted by the GA forum discourse on a regular basis.

My vote is significantly impacted by the GA forum discourse on a regular basis. I always check the threads before putting together my opinions.

You are again conflating the actual relationship between member nations and the World Assembly with the actual intellectual beliefs of both ideologies. The point I'm trying to make is that there's a difference between the actual ideological beliefs held by the real mainstream members of either ideology (no actual IntFed I know believes that the World Assembly should interfere in any matter cannot be reasonably resolved on a national scale, for example) and the more simplistic model you're suggesting and that for the idea of national sovereignty to be taken seriously, it needs to form a coherent argument like it used to have (and I'm talking as recently as late 2011). You seem to forget that national sovereignty as a movement, not a concept, does not just have any legitimacy simply by existing. Like any idea, those that support it need to make an effort to create that legitimacy, and currently, self-proclaimed NatSovs are not articulating a well developed argument supporting national sovereignty. Not to keep ragging on the repeal of the Multilateral Prosecution Act, but it wasn't mentioned anywhere that the actual motivation was that such an institution shouldn't exist in the first place.

Yes, but that line of reasoning doesn't embrace the actual argument of national sovereignty, which is what this discussion is about. Repealing a resolution because it's genuinely flawed is not what's at issue here. By shrouding your actual motivation with a veil of fabricated arguments, you're diminishing the actual idea of national sovereignty by creating an atmosphere where it's not even incorporated into repeals that are entirely motivated by it.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I feel like we both have completely different viewpoints on what a movement needs or doesn't need. I mean by your logic IntFed wouldn't be legitimate either.

And let's be clear here, you're the one who stated that MPA's repeal was NatSov in basis but failed to mention Natsov. You've created your own problem with it and then used it as a basis for further faulty assumptions (the aforementioned "NatSov is dead" thing). The repeal didn't mention NatSov at all, so if we follow your logic on what that means, why are you insisting that it had a NatSov motive? You disagreed with the reasons presented, but that does not make them invalid.

I don't agree that any WA movement needs to avoid diminishing its ideals for the sake of ideological purity. That's not good business. That doesn't get stuff repealed. True ideological consistency would have us not participate in the WA at all (which an actual ingame issue shows us is the logical extreme of my viewpoint). There have been numerous pieces written on NatSov as an ideology, and I don't see why now we should demand someone write more, or cleave closely to it for no reason other than our opponents wish we would.

While we can disagree here, the entire point we started with is: Some (I would argue a lot of) GA regulars believe that both articles we've discussed were entirely misleading, and the rest of his articles aren't nearly good enough to let me excuse that. All I've seen out of Gruen in this thread so far is two misleading articles and some venting about his anger at moderators. TRT sees that as a good reason to promote him, which to me indicates a quantity over quality approach. Nothing wrong with that, but don't get angry when it gets called out.

[Sseroffa]

- Removed -

[Unibot III]

While we can disagree here, the entire point we started with is: Some (I would argue a lot of) GA regulars believe that both articles we've discussed were entirely misleading, and the rest of his articles aren't nearly good enough to let me excuse that. All I've seen out of Gruen in this thread so far is two misleading articles and some venting about his anger at moderators. TRT sees that as a good reason to promote him, which to me indicates a quantity over quality approach. Nothing wrong with that, but don't get angry when it gets called out.

Not at all, his articles are one of the better written, harder hitting articles produced in Gameplay. Some GA regulars believe anything that goes against their creed is technically flawed - that's the basis of almost every repeal these days.

[The Rejected Times]

This week, Joe Bobs speaks with UDL's Applebania and The Rejected Realms's Crazy Girl.

---

Rising Stars: Applebania
FEATURE | JOE BOBS

The second in a series of interviews with the future leaders of NationStates.

In the first issue of Rising Stars, we spoke to Chanku of Wintreath. Unfortunately, the next day, Chanku was removed as Jarl of Foreign Affairs due to low activity. We are hoping this is not the beginning of a 'curse of the Rising Stars'! And we wish the best of luck to Chanku in his future endeavors. We have all had a setback or two in our time!

In this issue, we are talking to Applebania. You may know him from Wintreath, Osiris, Europeia, Liberal Haven, United Provinces of Hyrule, Asgard or the GRA. Or more likely, you may know him as the darling of the Gameplay forum, where respected players have taken a shine to this energetic, smart and enthusiastic new player. His attempt to launch the region of The Burning Sea as the 'don't take yourself so seriously' region was met with praise from many. He also wrote the recent Liberate Liberal Haven proposal. We sat down and asked him what it takes to get so far so fast, and how to make it as a newcomer these days.

JB: Who would you describe as your mentor?

A: Haven't really thought of this one before. I'm going to go for an unorthodox choice here, saying that the regulars at #udl have really helped me out in terms of learning how to defend. Yes, I did just name an entire IRC channel as my mentor. Deal with it.

JB: Interesting answer! Any names in particular you'd like to give a shout out to?

A: Ravania, the current chief of the band, was the main guy who really showed me the ropes.

JB: What has been your biggest challenge so far?

A: Trying to get a region off the ground: It's harder than it looks! You have to do an insane amount of administrative work, and combine that with the fact that I'm awful at recruiting has led to the Burning Sea failing to get off the ground.

JB: What has been the biggest learning curve for you in NationStates?

A: Again, probably the sharpest difficulty curve is getting a region off the ground.

JB: I'd agree, region building is the toughest challenge in NS. Are you interested in getting involved in regional governments elsewhere? If so, what aspects of government interest you most (e.g. foreign affairs, internal affairs, the WA, etc)?

A: Probably foreign affairs: While I tried to get The Burning Sea off the ground, I really enjoyed writing foreign updates, and despite my lack of social skills (:p), I can be at least somewhat diplomatic (:p again)

JB: Where do you see yourself in a year's time?

A: To be quite frank, I'm not entirely sure. I'll probably still be a defender, though still being with the UDL I'm not sure about. I'll probably have joined even more regions (Thinking of putting puppets in Spiritus and TEP at the moment) and maybe might have actually gotten one off the ground! Also, if Delegate-Elect has been implemented by then, I'll probably be using that to great extent in order to end raids before they even begin, mainly by frantically trying to contact anyone who would even vaguely be willing to help out.

JB: Do you think joining lots of regions is key to developing as a player in NS, rather than devotion to a single region?

A: I personally believe so. By confining yourself to one region, you miss out on quite a bit. For example, if one confined themselves to a military-only region, such as The Black Riders, they would be missing out on regional politics quite a bit.

JB: What area of the game would you most like to expand into that you are not currently involved with?

A: Roleplaying. I often roleplay on other sites, however I haven't actually gone and joined any of the big roleplay regions here, or posted much in II or at all in P2TM, so, yeah, doing that at some point.

JB: What advice would you give to newcomers?

A: Dive in. Do everything, speak to everyone, whether it be arguing in General or preventing a raider from pillaging a region. There's a lot more to NS than it seems, so just go, and do what you want to do!

Do you think you have spotted a rising star? Please send your tips and predictions via telegram to Joe Bobs.

---

The Class of 2002: Crazy Girl
FEATURE | JOE BOBS

In the first of this series, Infinite Loop told us about the early days of invading, his years in the wilderness, and that he has not yet ruled out a Modship. In this issue, we speak to one of the pioneers of the Defender cause, and someone who has already attained the coveted title of 'Mod': Crazy Girl.

Crazy Girl is a game moderator and recipient of SC49 'Commend Crazy Girl'. She has been involved in one capacity or another in The Rejected Realms and the RRA for over a decade, and was one of the early political leaders in The Pacific, where she was one of the most vocal opponents of Francos Spain in the fledgling New Pacific Order. She was Secretary of Defence of the ADN and led the liberation of The North Pacific in 2004. She has been a long-term admin of The Rejected Realms forums and was Delegate of The Moon. We sat down for, oh, about a hundred cups of coffee and explored the mind and memories of Crazy Girl.

JB: Who was your biggest influence in the early days?

CG: A rag tag group of defenders I stalked. Later on it was Greymarshes and Siggi. (Respectively Commander and High Commander of the RRA.)

JB: In the last issue, I spoke with Loop, who of course as a Farker was one of the earliest invaders. You have been a long time Defender, what is your opinion on the current state of the invader-defender conflict, and what do you think about the rise of Imperialism?

CG: Invaders pretending to be "the good guys" annoys me. Dare to be the bad guys. I knew plenty of invaders back in the days who prided themselves to be the bad guys and defenders having fun being the "good guys". Not for moralistic reasons, but because it was fun. Leave the "natives" (loaded word, I know) alone, and focus on the fun battle together. Imperialism is utter nonsense and is one of the reasons why people are often annoyed with R/D. Grab a region, hold it possibly for one or two updates, kick some defenders, or get kicked, and leave. I think by searching for conflict with other groups, as amusing as it might seem, gameplayers might be cutting into their own fingers a little. The old invasion rules were far, far from perfect... but they kept other groups relatively safe while we had our fun little battles. The problem was that it was often very difficult to tell who was who and if rules were actually broken. It was not entirely enforceable.

JB: What changes to the game do you believe have had the most impact?

CG: Founders/passwords/eject&ban and of course, after that, influence.

JB: Can you give us any hints about what future changes we can expect?

CG: Well, there are the changes posted in the Summit forum: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258968 Other than that, who knows what our lovely admins will come up with to make the servers explode?

JB: What has been the most unexpected event you have witnessed?

CG: A load of delegates (including my arch enemy at the time Francos Spain) being removed from their delegacy. Turned out later an admin I will not mention made a little typo.

JB: You were an opponent of Francos Spain, what do you think of the continued existence of Francoism and the NPO today?

CG: I wasn't aware anything was still alive in the Pacific? I'll also have to add that I probably wouldn't still be in NS hadn't that whole conflict come up and shot me pretty much into infamy.

JB: What has given you the most satisfaction?

CG: I'd like to say retaking The North Pacific, but I think that is more of an accomplishment... it was actually the comradery in the RRA in its old glory days. We had a great group of people there.

JB: What was your biggest disappointment?

CG: Gamewise I'd say I was quite disappointed when I found out the Commander of the Pacific Army turned traitor and was spying on us, or the time where Neut (a former mod) ordered us out of the Pacific when Francos Spain accidently got deleted and we tried to grab the delegacy. The biggest personal disappointment however was that some people on both sides went too far on occasion, as in gloating when someone died or something bad happened to them in real life. In the end, the other player is a person sitting behind a keyboard as well, playing the same game. Keep that in mind when typing your posts and comments.

JB: Very true, and sadly something many often forget. What have been some of the best debates or threads you have seen in the main forum?

CG: Ah, there have been many over the years, the thread where we asked for a Gameplay forum, the number of threads on the Pacific drama, the Bastard Mods threads of which I always was a big fan. And one that always makes me laugh is a thread actually hidden away in the NationStates forum with irc quotes from the official mod channel, a little glimpse into insanity: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=7117363#p7117363

JB: What is your opinion on the current state of affairs? How does it compare?

CG: As an old fart, I'll give my obligatory "Back in the days it was all a lot better!", which is not entirely true. Some things were better, it was easier to defend more regions, easier to kick invaders out... but you also had to walk on eggshells a bit, because banning the wrong person could mean losing your nation. And of course it meant a lot of difficult decisions for moderators to make.
Secondly I think the Security Council has managed to add an interesting layer to Gameplay and it involves a little more politics which is a nice touch.

JB: Some have commented that it is much harder to get proposals passed these days, and commends and condemns seem to be particularly tricky. Do you think the World Assembly is still as accessible as it once was?

CG: After the obvious ones, it's time to commend/condemn the less obvious ones, I guess. Which might be trickier, but if you know how to make a proper proposal, a proper case for it and you campaign for it, it really should not be all that difficult.

JB: What advice would you give to others who want to last as long?

CG: Have fun. It seems so simple, but that really is the keyword. Fun. If it stops being fun, take a step back.

JB: Excellent advice! Who do you believe has made the biggest contribution to NationStates?

CG: Max Barry. (Never hurts to do a little sucking up to the big boss.)

JB: Haha, well it is true in many ways. But OK, who has made the second biggest contribution?

CG: Overall, relevant for everyone... I'd say Salusa. It may not always be apparent, but he has done a lot for the game, both behind the scenes and the more visible stuff. And I think he is a little underrated there. So I'd like to give some well-deserved recognition to him.

Join us in the next issue to hear from another of the Class of 2002.

[Venico]

Not a bad interview. CG's was particularly good.

[All Good People]

I miss Siggi. *sniff*

[Robert Hawkins]

Even if it was with a negative article, nice to see Region Inc in print.

I must give my side of this whole Westbrook thing though.

1. He was told on a number of occasions that he was to stop taking short-cuts with electoral law.
2. He resigned from his position, started an election, then decided to retract his resignation.
3. When our Chairman resigned as well, Westbrook started an election, then didn't like the fact that the Chairman retracted his resignation; citing the precedent set by Westbrook.

Upon all this happening, it became obvious to everybody on the Executive side of the Board that Westbrook was a cancer growing inside the Region. We decided to look at ways we could put him on trial, but then in a final act of pique; remarkbaly like a petulant spoilt little brat who is used to everybody saying 'how high' when he said jump, resigned from his position and then tried to destroy our Forums. Luckily, we had someone with Admin powers online at that time, who stopped him and then stripped him of all powers.

We are currently holding a trial, but I give fair warning to all other Regions. Beware the Nation of Adriatican.

[Elke and Elba]

Aba(TNP's WA Minister)

*cough* Vice-delegate, now.

If I do remember correctly Scion is their new WA minister?

[Nierr]

Aba(TNP's WA Minister)

*cough* Vice-delegate, now.

If I do remember correctly Scion is their new WA minister?

Nope. Aba is still Minister. Scion and Douria are both deputies.

[Elke and Elba]

*cough* Vice-delegate, now.

If I do remember correctly Scion is their new WA minister?

Nope. Aba is still Minister. Scion and Douria are both deputies.

The deputies fighting?! What has the world become to?

[Joe Bobs]

Even if it was with a negative article, nice to see Region Inc in print.

I must give my side of this whole Westbrook thing though.

1. He was told on a number of occasions that he was to stop taking short-cuts with electoral law.
2. He resigned from his position, started an election, then decided to retract his resignation.
3. When our Chairman resigned as well, Westbrook started an election, then didn't like the fact that the Chairman retracted his resignation; citing the precedent set by Westbrook.

Upon all this happening, it became obvious to everybody on the Executive side of the Board that Westbrook was a cancer growing inside the Region. We decided to look at ways we could put him on trial, but then in a final act of pique; remarkbaly like a petulant spoilt little brat who is used to everybody saying 'how high' when he said jump, resigned from his position and then tried to destroy our Forums. Luckily, we had someone with Admin powers online at that time, who stopped him and then stripped him of all powers.

We are currently holding a trial, but I give fair warning to all other Regions. Beware the Nation of Adriatican.

I've always been a fan of Region Inc, so when I wrote the article I did want to make sure that I was reporting the event fairly and also included some positives (stating Region Inc's history, ending on the positive comment). It seemed to me the argument was something that had to be reported on, a big story for Region Inc but it also reflects a shared experience for many regions.

[Nierr]

Nope. Aba is still Minister. Scion and Douria are both deputies.

The deputies fighting?! What has the world become to?

Eh, I think the idea is that having an IntFed and a NatSov deputy provides balance.

[Unibot III]

The deputies fighting?! What has the world become to?

Eh, I think the idea is that having an IntFed and a NatSov deputy provides balance.

Agreed!