Embassy of the South Pacific

[Pierconium]

Personally, I think proper separation of powers is a better solution. Too much power has been concentrated into certain political institutions without effective balance or safety valves. The Head of State, Government and Legislature have all been folded into the Cabinet for a long time - two of those into the Delegacy. Separating the Head of Government position from the Delegacy is probably the most important reform TSP should pursue.

The removal of the Delegate as head of government should never be an option in a GCR. Just my opinion.

[Kringalia]

Consensus decision-making is exactly the thing that caused TSP's political toxicity, rather than diverging from it. When no consensus exists -- i.e., when the region is politically diverse -- our institutions structured around consensus gave veto power to small factions, basically halting our political system. Rather than compromise, players tried to prove they had a mandate based on consensus, and then acted that way, like Bel says.

Moving towards majoritarianism is what TSP needs to do. That way we can have a politically diverse region, with pressure valves of frequent elections that prevent minorities from thinking they have to take drastic actions to get what they want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not exactly sure who/what this is arguing against, but elections are clearly no proved to be the pressure valve you're arguing for here. The problem is that a minority feels unheard by the powers that be, until they (a) leave the region/game or (b) take drastic action to demand greater change. We've had both happen in the past year.

In all fairness, Glen says that elections would be a pressure valve in a hypothetical majoritarian system, not in the current consensus system.

[RiderSyl]

Consensus decision-making is exactly the thing that caused TSP's political toxicity

When no consensus exists -- i.e., when the region is politically diverse -- our institutions structured around consensus gave veto power to small factions, basically halting our political system. Rather than compromise, players tried to prove they had a mandate based on consensus, and then acted that way, like Bel says.

Moving towards majoritarianism is what TSP needs to do. That way we can have a politically diverse region, with pressure valves of frequent elections that prevent minorities from thinking they have to take drastic actions to get what they want.

Okay, you legitimately sound like one of those imaginary people that exist in NS Issues, proposing a change. In this case, the NS Issue would have been that there was a major split in ______'s nation because of politically-induced drama. The drama is the issue. Majoritarianism? It sounds like you're just trying to get your agenda in. No thanks. I'm going with another imaginary Issue character's option.

[Kringalia]

I'm pretty sure Glen knows a thing or two about the political culture of the South Pacific. While there is no guarantee that his view is the correct one, his input is as valid and necessary as that of Belschaft, Tsunamy or any other citizen. We all need to have that conversation together.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I lost all faith in Glen's input when I learned it was him who accused me of being an active supporter of the Malice liberation of Osiris.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not exactly sure who/what this is arguing against, but elections are clearly no proved to be the pressure valve you're arguing for here. The problem is that a minority feels unheard by the powers that be, until they (a) leave the region/game or (b) take drastic action to demand greater change. We've had both happen in the past year.

Elections became very high-stakes when you consider the Cabinet can take a lot of actions that can't be reversed or blocked, because to do so in the Assembly required a supermajority.

When you have so many things dependent upon requiring 60-75% majorities, the "powers that be" have the luxury to ignore dissent and avoid compromise. But also, when a majority of players want change -- but not a supermajority -- change couldn't happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tsunamy]

Personally, I think proper separation of powers is a better solution. Too much power has been concentrated into certain political institutions without effective balance or safety valves. The Head of State, Government and Legislature have all been folded into the Cabinet for a long time - two of those into the Delegacy. Separating the Head of Government position from the Delegacy is probably the most important reform TSP should pursue.

I have a long winded argument toward this end that I'll post when we get to reform -- but I really couldn't agree more.

[SouthMac]

Elections became very high-stakes when you consider the Cabinet can take a lot of actions that can't be reversed or blocked, because to do so in the Assembly required a supermajority.

When you have so many things dependent upon requiring 60-75% majorities, the "powers that be" have the luxury to ignore dissent and avoid compromise. But also, when a majority of players want change -- but not a supermajority -- change couldn't happen.

I agree that a 75% majority is always too high. That's requiring too much consensus and isn't a reasonable threshold in a game like NationStates, which revolves around politics and is rarely going to achieve that broad a consensus on anything but the most mundane issues.

That said, there is a risk of going too majoritarian. A regional community in which all it takes is a simple majority to upend everything and make drastic changes is one that isn't going to be very pleasant for those who aren't in that majority, which under a simple majority system could be 49% of the community. It should take more than a simple majority to remove government officers from office or to amend the regional constitution. I don't think that threshold should be too high -- like I said, 75% is ridiculous -- but requiring a 60% majority for changes that important isn't unreasonable. Majority rule can easily become mob rule if not put in check.

I agree with Bel and Tsu that the biggest change needed in TSP is to divide executive power and not vest so much power in the Delegate. That may not be desirable for every region, but for TSP it quite clearly is a change that is needed. The executive also needs to have less broad policy making power; it's one thing to make executive policy, it's another to make policy that should properly be left to the legislature.

[Unibot III]

When no consensus exists -- i.e., when the region is politically diverse -- our institutions structured around consensus gave veto power to small factions, basically halting our political system. Rather than compromise, players tried to prove they had a mandate based on consensus, and then acted that way, like Bel says.

Exactly, "consensus government" is a synonym for "Belschaft getting what he wants when others disagree with him". He stalled many, many discussions in the hopes of "reaching a consensus" - IE: him getting what he wanted. He never ever, ever enters any political discussion with any intention of real compromise. If he couldn't get what he wanted by filibustering the legislature, he committed election fraud, abused his position as Justice, put pressure on key figures in the region (like blackmailing the delegate) and, as of last week we can add aiding a coup to the list.

Bear in mind, Belschaft used to be the biggest advocate for majoritarian government when he was in power in TSP.

And when he was out of power, he was a vicious advocate for consensus government.

When he was delegate, he was a major proponent of a strong executive.

And when he was out of power, he was a hawkish supporter of legislative supremacy.

The "tradition of consensus" most definitely is responsible, alongside Belschaft (and a few other counterparts)'s antics, for TSP's political decline. And of course he'll just pin it on all the people who dared to disagree with him - Glen-Rhodes, Kringalia, Farengeto and I - complaining about the constitution is just a smokescreen for the real issue. TSP was "falling apart" because Belschaft and Hileville were political predators who met their match and this latest coup was just a desperate measure - an attempt at a hail mary pass. If there's a short term solution to TSP's problem its political, not legal - and it'll probably involve either someone leaving TSP, being forced out, or someone keeling over and dying first. As for a long time solution? Not sure there is one. Even if all of the people who disagree with Belschaft leave TSP, there will be people in the future - people capable of taking him on - and the same problems will continue.

[SouthMac]

<snip>

Literally no one in TSP is approaching this situation with this level of interpersonal toxicity. No one in TSP sees people leaving as the only possible solution, and everyone is working toward constructive solutions rather than the destructive "solutions" you propose.

But I guess now we see why you were proposing that anyone involved with the coup should be purged from citizenship for six months. It's to eliminate Belschaft and those you perceive as his supporters for the political advantage of the side you favor, whom you perceive as his opponents. It's to impose your destructive "solution" of people leaving TSP as the way to go about fixing the region's community. That makes you better than the caricature of Belschaft you've painted how, exactly?

[Kringalia]

I think we all should admit that there has been a lot of interpersonal toxicity in several past interactions in recent years. The question is whether we have learned from those experiences and are willing to solve our differences in a civil manner. If there is one lesson I hope we all take from this is that it's OK to disagree. What matters is how we deal with those disagreements, and understanding that nobody has all the answers. We will need to talk and compromise, and there should be no shame in that, provided we are all doing it in good faith.

[Unibot III]

That makes you better than the caricature of Belschaft you've painted how, exactly?

I'm not much better - but I can tell when someone has no intention of honest debate and compromise - and I can put up as good of fight as anyone. I can take my share of cagefights. Where I differ from Belschaft is I didn't break any laws. And I fought fair and square against multiple attempts to beat me using election fraud.

[Belschaft]

*blinks*

Well, someone clearly has a high opinion of me. Unibot, I really wish I was that brilliantly machiavellian, but I'm not. I make absolutely no denials about supporting The Cabinet's decision to force a forum move, but I certainly didn't sign up for a coup. Both Tsu and Raven can confirm that I thought Hile went too far by trying to dissolve the Coalition and was trying to talk him down, a fact that is also supported by my actions when handed his nation.

This seems to be one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. I quite literally ended a coup and now I was behind it?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

The removal of the Delegate as head of government should never be an option in a GCR. Just my opinion.

And the award for most predictable position of 2016 goes to.....

[Zaolat]

I lost all faith in Glen's input when I learned it was him who accused me of being an active supporter of the Malice liberation of Osiris.

Don't worry Mall. At least I, have seen your post.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I lost all faith in Glen's input when I learned it was him who accused me of being an active supporter of the Malice liberation of Osiris.

Don't worry Mall. At least I, have seen your post.

I mean he almost had to ignore it since he knows he was caught in a blatant lie.

[The Silver Sentinel]

I lost all faith in Glen's input when I learned it was him who accused me of being an active supporter of the Malice liberation of Osiris.

Mall I am quite positive we all lost faith in Glen's input years ago.

[RiderSyl]

I lost all faith in Glen's input when I learned it was him who accused me of being an active supporter of the Malice liberation of Osiris.

Mall I am quite positive we all lost faith in Glen's input years ago.

Except for the South Pacific, who still values his input for reasons unknown.
Even a coup in which two of the three nations ejected in the initial rage were Glen and Glen's WA hasn't seemed to change that.

[Lord Ravenclaw]

Both Tsu and Raven can confirm that I thought Hile went too far by trying to dissolve the Coalition and was trying to talk him down, a fact that is also supported by my actions when handed his nation.

I have no issues confirming that, it was something I relayed to my cabinet in The North Pacific at the time.

I spent a lot of time talking to Hile and most of the cabinet, attempting the same thing. Not a situation I wish to repeat given that many of the cabinet were part of, if not officials in, my small ucr. It made the atmosphere tense and unpleasant for the first time in a long time.

[Icecream Princess]

Mall I am quite positive we all lost faith in Glen's input years ago.

Except for the South Pacific, who still values his input for reasons unknown.
Even a coup in which two of the three nations ejected in the initial rage were Glen and Glen's WA hasn't seemed to change that.

The most amusing to me, was that he was bragging about predicting Balder would have a coup (which it didn't) in that bizarre "Empire" TG thread just days before being booted from TSP. I am though pretty impressed at his level of self-confidence to continue posting his completely wonky stuff. Very few of us could do the same! One would think that the Republican primaries would have stolen all of those type of people already!

I spent a lot of time talking to Hile and most of the cabinet, attempting the same thing. Not a situation I wish to repeat given that many of the cabinet were part of, if not officials in, my small ucr. It made the atmosphere tense and unpleasant for the first time in a long time.

Am I the only person who thinks people should have fun when they play games? Personally, I found it fun listening to the discussions and I felt it was good experience for people who were new to Balder's cabinet. The moment though I find not longer find the game fun or I start treating game only in a non-fun manner, I am gone xD

[Pierconium]

The removal of the Delegate as head of government should never be an option in a GCR. Just my opinion.

And the award for most predictable position of 2016 goes to.....

If its not broke...

[The Silver Sentinel]

So the coup is over, and Tsunamy is back in power. Good times.

[SouthMac]

So the coup is over, and Tsunamy is back in power. Good times.

The coup was over days ago, before Tsunamy was in the Delegacy, but it's good that you've caught up.

[Canton Empire]

Personally, I think proper separation of powers is a better solution. Too much power has been concentrated into certain political institutions without effective balance or safety valves. The Head of State, Government and Legislature have all been folded into the Cabinet for a long time - two of those into the Delegacy. Separating the Head of Government position from the Delegacy is probably the most important reform TSP should pursue.

The removal of the Delegate as head of government should never be an option in a GCR. Just my opinion.

This should be taken with a grain of salt, considering this comes from the NPO

[Pierconium]

The removal of the Delegate as head of government should never be an option in a GCR. Just my opinion.

This should be taken with a grain of salt, considering this comes from the NPO

What does that mean?