Southern Journal - Issue XXVII: PM Powers, Missing Cabinet

by **Southern Journal** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:20 pm

Southern Journal is a newspaper owned and operated by the South Pacific Ministry of Regional Affairs. It was established to provide the South Pacific with detailed and objective news on regional events, to present a diverse range of opinions regarding issues of public interest and to hold government officials accountable to the public.

Our only agenda is information and transparency, which is why our government ownership does not preclude us from publishing articles or opinion columns critical of the government. We provide an outlet for different citizens to make their case and for the people of the South Pacific to know what happens in their region.

The following is a list of issues, articles, opinion columns and interviews that we have published, ever since our founding in September 2014:

Issues:

Further Publications:

Southern Onion Articles:

TSP Weekly Issues:

Southern Journal is glad to announce to expand its presence to the Gameplay Forum. As always, quality journalism and reporting will be our trademarks.

Staff of the Southern Journal

by **Comrade Anders Blakewood** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:40 pm

Dat logo, the journalism is nice, but honestly I'll read anything here as long as that logo stays.

by **Glen-Rhodes** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:40 am

Note: Posting this here, as it is meant for wider consumption.

OPINION: A Dangerous Proposal
BY Glen-Rhodes (Sandaoguo)

During the month of January, citizens of The South Pacific will gather and debate various proposals in a grand constitutional convention called the Great Council. Unlike the traditional method of amendment, a Great Council is an anything-goes affair, where a simple majority can make vast changes to the fundamental structure of the region. Previous Great Councils have pushed the region forward, but the 2015 Great Council may go down in NationStates history as a quagmire of epic proportions. Tsunamy, the sitting Delegate who called for the Great Council, has proposed a seemingly innocuous idea of utilizing the relatively new regional polls feature by making the results of those polls legally binding.

While it sounds innocent enough, and at first blush an inspired idea, the creation of a “lower house” of the legislature that consists of all resident nations (or, in some variations, only “natives” defined as those with more influence in the region than in any other region) is a dangerous and quite literally game-changing idea. It is also an idea fellow Game-Created Regions might look at and find promise in, and for those reasons I feel compelled to make the public case for why this idea is dangerous and ill-considered.

Because of the length of this editorial, I will organize my argument into three sections. First, there are significant security concerns that cannot be addressed without defeating the purpose of the idea in the first place. Second, the on-site region page (referred to as the “RMB” for simplicity’s sake) is not suited for the activities of a regional legislature, and the nature of opening up the legislature to literally thousands of uninformed voters introduces perverse incentives. Lastly, I want to touch upon what I’m calling the myth of the unified community, which is essentially the idea that the RMB and the forum-based government must be one single and seamless community, and thinking otherwise is a form of anti-democratic oppression.

Now, before I delve into those arguments, I want to make clear that I am addressing only Game-Created Regions. These points do not apply to smaller User-Created Regions, because those regions were created with a single community in mind, whereas the forum-based communities in Game-Created Regions were not an intentional product of creating those regions themselves. So, when the term “region” appears, it is shorthand for Game-Created Region.

Security Flaws Galore

The most obvious flaw with opening up regional legislatures through the use of on-site regional polls is the very real probability of puppet flooding. There is no reliable way to tell if one person is voting more than once, which casts immediate doubt on the validity and legitimacy of the poll results. This is partially why forum-based governments have citizenship application processes. Using tools such as IP Address checkers can prevent people from abusing the one-person-one-vote principle of democracy. These tools are not available on NationStates and likely won’t ever be available.

One form of puppet flooding to be worried about is the manipulation of the polls by enemies of the region, rival alliances, perennial trolls, and so on. Imperialists don’t like that a region is dropping the Independence label? Well, they’re in luck, because they can stop that law from passing. Defenders want to push through laws with rhetoric they know plays well to a mass audience? It’s going to be hard to argue that the “will of region” isn’t defenderism once the poll results are finalized.

In response to this critique, proponents have offered to restrict the polls to those who are WA members, those who qualify as a “native” under the poll options (more influence in this region than any other), or even both. This is, however, in conflict with the stated goal of opening up the legislature to everybody, under the premise that it is unfair and undemocratic to keep governance solely on the forum. In TSP’s case, either of these requirements would make membership in the “lower house” more difficult to obtain than citizenship on the forum, given our relatively lax citizenship laws. So, in order to address glaring security issues, the heart of the reform is sacrificed, which raises the question of why we should adopt this new model of governance in the first place.

Lastly, one little-considered security flaw is more political than practical. Once a region adopts this system, it is very unlikely that it could ever get rid of it in a legitimate manner. As one proponent of this idea in TSP so aptly quoted Palpatine, in an attempt at attacking the character of opponents, “All those who gain power are afraid to lose it.” We shouldn’t expect that once the RMB community has legislative power, that they would ever voluntarily relinquish it. So, should the above security concerns become reality, there is little the forum-based government can do to undo the mess. They will be forced to take a very hypocritical position and literally disenfranchise the RMB community, which could very well be a violation of constitutional law in those regions and sow serious discontent that can be opportunistically utilized by enemies.

RMB Unsuitable For Legislative Activity

From a practical perspective, the RMB is a terrible venue for legislative activity. It is a single-thread flat message board. There is no sophisticated search function. Discussions are not organized by topic, and cannot be. There is only one moderator. The format lends itself to conducting only one discussion at a time, lest messages get lost in quick-moving debates among and between many participants. Additionally, the RMB can be easily disrupted by outsiders, advertisers, and spammers. Logistically, off-site forums are superior. It is difficult to imagine a productive legislature without them.

More importantly, however, introducing legislative activity into this platform will disrupt whatever culture has already been built around it. Debates on regional laws and regional politics will supplant lighthearted discussion, debates on real-world topics, RMB games, and other common cultural aspects of Game-Created Region RMBs. It is important to ask whether it is a good idea to introduce the often divisive politics of forum-based governments into yet another medium.

Another significant unintended consequence of moving legislative activity onto the RMB is that large masses can be easily manipulated. The World Assembly is a working example of this perverse incentive. We cannot expect hundreds, let alone thousands, of players to be interested and informed about regional political debates, but we can expect that they’ll vote for whatever option a campaigner says, given a convincing-enough telegram. Of course, those with the time or skill to send mass telegram campaigns – or those with the money who can simply buy them at the price at $1.00/thousand telegrams – are at an immediate advantage. This is not an aspect of NationStates that I want to inject into regional governance. And given the frequent complaints NationStates administrators get over telegram inbox “spam,” I doubt it is a feature many region residents will appreciate either.

Myth of the Unified Community

Lastly, I want to address what I suspect is the premise of this entire debate. Over the years that I have been involved in Game-Created Regions, there has always been a latent debate to be had over what the word “community” means. All Game-Created Regions have off-site governments conducted on forums, even The West Pacific, a region that rejects the notion that a forum-based government can itself maintain sovereignty. Are these forums “communities?” I don’t think many people would say no.

All Game-Created Regions also have RMBs, where any of the thousands of residents in the region can engage in discussion. Even the least active of Game-Created Regions has a relatively active RMB, with many different participants. Cultures develop on the RMB. Celebrities and influential “RMBers” arise. So, are the RMBs “communities”, too? Undoubtedly.

But, the question is, are these two things the same community? I do not think so. I believe that they share a “home,” and they share a common interest in ensuring that nobody takes seize of the Delegate seat and conducts a massive purge. (I hesitate to say there’s a shared interest in preventing “coups” as the Gameplay community understands them, because I do not believe many “RMBers” see much of a distinction between a Delegate elected on a forum and a Delegate that rises to power solely through getting enough endorsements. I think that the issue only arises when whoever that Delegate is disrupts the RMB community through purges.) So, there is a little bit of overlap. But they are still two distinct and largely separated communities, doing their own things, and not really impacting each other day-to-day. I think the fact that we have created language to identify those who participate mostly on the RMB as “RMBers” is indicative of there being two separate communities.

This is not a bad thing, despite those who would stand and decry it as diminishing “RMBers” or elevating forum-goers above their station. It is only those who wish to marry the two communities, ignoring their distinctness in favor of some idealized unified community, that see the mere acknowledgement of separation and distinctness as offensive.

Recognizing that two communities exist, and that it is perfectly okay for them to remain two communities themselves, I do not see any great democratic deficits with the forum-based government tradition. I do not think, just by virtue of being a smaller community, forum-based governments are “unrepresentative” of the regions they “rule” over. It’s perfectly legitimate for a community of 20 players to have fun playing politics on the forums, and have 100 people having fun on the RMB. There is no overriding necessity to include those 100 people in governance, especially when those 20 politics-players are largely self-contained and debate issues that really affect only themselves 99.99% of the time. We should strive to promote forum membership, and do what we can to recruit more people into regional government. But it is not a numbers game. We do not need to open the flood-gates simply so we can say that there's been a massive increase in "participants."

It is easy to use liberal democratic rhetoric to push forward an idea of marrying these two communities into one, but doing so will ultimately destroy both. Regional politics will overtake RMBs, due to the technical simplicity of the message boards. Perverse incentives will transform the politics of forum-based governments into something more along the lines of the World Assembly, jockeying for the votes of the disinterested or uninformed, but easily swayed, masses. (Only more so, once the RMB community realizes there’s no logical or philosophical distinction between legislative activities and actual elections, and demands that all government elections happen through region polls as well.) Though it might sound melodramatic, this idea is incredibly dangerous for the continued existence of regional governance as we know it. Some may say that maybe it is time to change things as we know them, but I am not convinced the new regional governance will be what the proponents wish for it to be.

Disclaimer: this publication is the opinion of its author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Southern Journal or the Ministry of Regional Affairs.

by **Distortilla** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:55 pm

A rather disappointing and dismissive editorial on behalf of the author-
"opening up the legislature to literally thousands of uninformed voters" - does he really have such a low esteem of the intelligence of his fellow nations in TSP?

Although there are "security issues" of using the in-game polling facility, they are no more prone to abuse than the present system. The fallacy that IP checking eliminates such risks had already been paraded, but who does the checking, and who checks those that do the checking? Whilst the Coalition remains secure in its control of the forum, and ensures that the forum is the home of the lawmakers it fulfills admirably the role of perpetuating the established hierarchy. “All those who gain power are afraid to lose it.” This statement could be equally applied to the Forum based Coalition as to the perceived prospect of the Region regaining an aspect of its own sovereignty.

"There is no overriding necessity to include those 100 people in governance, especially when those 20 politics-players are largely self-contained and debate issues that really affect only themselves" should be sounding alarm bells to any that aspire to democracy, as it effectively tells the region "We make the decisions for this region, it is of no concern of yours. Know your pace and do as you are told"

The region would continue without the forum, however it is doubtful if the forum could continue without the Region.

The proposals for rejigging the electoral and legislative structure of TSP do not, as I understand them from my original discussions with Tsunamy, advocate the transfer of ultimate power to the RMB/Region to the detriment of the Forum. Rather, it seeks to introduce a more balanced method that is inclusive and promotes co-operation between the two spheres.

Much as it may be desired in some quarters to sweep away the ossified edifice of the Coalition, the idea of a bicameral constitution seeks to forge a new compact that benefits both of the distinct "communities" of forum and region.

Co-operation not coercion.

by **Southern Journal** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:11 pm

Bicameralism Debate Dominates the Great Council
by Kris Montresor

Debate in 2015 Great Council has been so far dominated by a proposal from Delegate Tsunamy to establish a bicameral legislature in the South Pacific. Tsunamy has proposed keeping the Assembly as the gathering of all citizens, but with the addition of a General Congregation, whose membership would be of all nations in the South Pacific. While some have expressed interest in the proposal, opponents have been more vocal and have been dominating the debate so far.

Proponents of the amendment argue that the South Pacific owes itself to the region, and so the region should have a greater say in its own governance. With the creation of regional polls and pinned dispatches, it is said that such participation would be possible and desirable. Opponents argue that forum governance is more efficient and less prone to foreign manipulation, since there are forum mechanisms to ensure that no one has multiple votes, and further that otherwise uninformed nations could be lobbied to vote for certain options.

With some supporters saying that the tone of the debate has discouraged them from participating, and the more vocal participation of opponents, it is increasingly unlikely that the proposal will pass in its current form. However, there is still hope for the Great Council, since the floor will be opened to other proposals for government reform, on January 19.

by **Southern Journal** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:59 pm

OPINION: Looking Ahead, Not Backwards
by Tsunamy

Recently, Sandaoguo found it appropriate to write a long-winded opinion piece arguing against an effort to create a bicameral legislature within The South Pacific. He suggested that there are “security flaws galore” in the proposal, that the regional message board is “unsuitable for legislative activity” and that there is no “unified community” within The South Pacific.

I would like to explain where Sandaoguo goes wrong with these points, and explain why more inclusive efforts toward governing are appropriate and useful at the current time.

First and foremost, the security risks Sandaoguo has cited can be easily remedied by requiring World Assembly membership and native status. While some have portrayed that members can simply stack the vote, those voters that no longer fit the criteria are removed during the updates thereby making it as safe as anything else in-game.

Second, while Sandaoguo has harped on the idea that the proposal is intended to “get more people involved,” the point is to provide a second means to governing. Coincidentally, this would give more individuals a voice in the process, since they would have more ways to get involved. The argument is not that 4,000 nations need to be involved, but rather that we have the means to get more involved and should do it.

Third, who is to say that the regional message board is not suitable for legislative activity? We discuss legislature in vastly different realms from the off-site forums to Skype and IRC. Using the regional message board along with dispatches would provide ample space for discussion -- perhaps a change from the current discussion, but ample space nonetheless.

Finally, Sandaoguo has repeatedly suggested that there are two communities at work: the off-site forum community and the in-game community. (Eliminated 'Unfortunately') That is factually inaccurate and ahistorical to The South Pacific.

Let’s consider for a moment that one of the earliest positions the off-site government created were “board watchers” to spot spam, recruiting and other issues on the RMB. Likewise, for a number of years, delegate elections were held in the region through the Brave Little Toaster system. To suggest that there is a connection that is unreconcilable is willful ignorance of the centrality of the in-game region to The South Pacific.

The off-site forum was created to accommodate functions that the in-game experience didn’t allow. Now that NationStates proper has added functions for greater regional involvement, it is only right for us to revise our system of governing.

The way I view this, The South Pacific has a choice.

We can stick our heads in the sand and hope nothing in NationStates ever changes – which is what Sandaoguo is advocating – or we can embrace the changes that come.

The South Pacific has always pushed for more democracy and advancement in government. The mere idea of a Great Council is for The South Pacific to update the government when needed.

I’m not promising that this solution is perfect.

I’m not promising that it won’t need revising.

But, The South Pacific has never embraced the backward mentality advocated by opponents of this legislation, and I certainly hope citizens will find it fitting to continue embracing progress.

Disclaimer: this publication is the opinion of its author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Southern Journal or the Ministry of Regional Affairs.

by **McMasterdonia** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:33 pm

Interesting to read the two articles side by side. I agree with Glen Rhodes that there are security concerns that need to be addressed, but I am more in-line with Tsunamy's thinking on the subject. For a Grand Council this one has been particularly interesting. Good luck with it all.

by **Belschaft** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:36 pm

I take a middle position; I believe the idea is good, but I disagree with the proposed structure.

by **Durkadurkiranistan III** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:14 am

McMasterdonia wrote:Interesting to read the two articles side by side. I agree with Glen Rhodes that there are security concerns that need to be addressed, but I am more in-line with Tsunamy's thinking on the subject. For a Grand Council this one has been particularly interesting. Good luck with it all.

Belschaft wrote:I take a middle position; I believe the idea is good, but I disagree with the proposed structure.

jesus you two are pathetic... take a strong stand one way or another... the idea is a total catastrophe on basically every level possible

by **Belschaft** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:26 am

Durkadurkiranistan III wrote:
McMasterdonia wrote:Interesting to read the two articles side by side. I agree with Glen Rhodes that there are security concerns that need to be addressed, but I am more in-line with Tsunamy's thinking on the subject. For a Grand Council this one has been particularly interesting. Good luck with it all.

Belschaft wrote:I take a middle position; I believe the idea is good, but I disagree with the proposed structure.

jesus you two are pathetic... take a strong stand one way or another... the idea is a total catastrophe on basically every level possible

With the various changes being implemented to regions any major democracy should be looking at ways to integrate the gameside population directly into the governmental process. It is only appropriate that TSP, as NationStates' oldest democracy, be a pioneer in this area.

My objections so far are structural, and I intend to present a model that I believe is viable.

by **McMasterdonia** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:56 am

Durkadurkiranistan III wrote:
McMasterdonia wrote:Interesting to read the two articles side by side. I agree with Glen Rhodes that there are security concerns that need to be addressed, but I am more in-line with Tsunamy's thinking on the subject. For a Grand Council this one has been particularly interesting. Good luck with it all.

Belschaft wrote:I take a middle position; I believe the idea is good, but I disagree with the proposed structure.

jesus you two are pathetic... take a strong stand one way or another... the idea is a total catastrophe on basically every level possible

You are the final arbiter of what is and isn't a catastrophe, right? :rofl:

I'm certainly not saying the idea is perfect, but I think Belschaft is correct. It makes sense that democratic regions should consider how they can make use of the new features added to NationStates to strengthen the link between offsite community and the gameside community. It'll take a while to get it right.

by **Glen-Rhodes** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:34 am

I think it's not axiomatic that forum communities absolutely need to bring government to the game communities with which they share a "space." Why not let them continue to co-exist peacefully?

by **Kringalia** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:03 am

You are basically saying the RMB community has no business telling the forum how to govern the region. I cannot accept that line of thinking.

by **Belschaft** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:19 am

Nor can I. I don't accept the argument that the forum represents a separate community; rather it is an administrative tool for the community. Whilst it has only ever been a minority who choose to involve themselves in governance, our duty has always been a curatorial one.

by **Glen-Rhodes** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:45 am

Kringalia wrote:You are basically saying the RMB community has no business telling the forum how to govern the region. I cannot accept that line of thinking.

No, that is what you imagine I'm saying, because you insist on believing that it is bad to acknolwedge that there are two communities with distinct cultures and interests. I think the forum government has a duty to ensure stability and freedom of speech in the game-side region. But that is where the overlap ends. The RMB is its own community, with its own culture, its own identity, its own interests, and its own influentials. The forums are much the same in what makes us a distinct community. What we do on the forums rarely interacts with what is going on in the RMB. We play politics among ourselves, arguing minutiae in constitutional law, debating Gameplay alignments, fighting over alliances and foreign affairs. None of these things really impact the RMB community, and what debates and discussions occur on the RMB don't really impact the forum-based government.

It's only in the abstract that these two distinct communities are one in the same. It's easy to use TSP's liberal democratic ideals, paired with that rhetoric, to make an image of the forum government community representing the interests of the RMB, existing only to serve the game-side and its interests. But that's just not true. Yes, we have a curatorial duty of ensuring the Delegate doesn't purge the region and disrupt the RMB community. But aside from that, we've been playing our own game for a very long time now. I support bringing more people into that game, but that does not require a conceptual framework of the game-side being the raison d'être of the forum community and the government we've constructed and evolved over the years.

by **The Black Leaves** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:02 pm

If the RMB players cared about the administration and governance of the region, it's not difficult to join a forum. The underlying assumption here, that the RMB communities would really care if only they were capable, implies incredible laziness or idiocy.

The off-site communities that everyone's constructed over the past however many years are wonderful, sure, but they're also fundamentally false. You're going to have a difficult time going to a group of casual players and declaring that you have top-down decided it would be better for them to participate in what is effectively a complex, cliquish system of glorified role play. I believe, from my standpoint as someone without Belschaft or GR's inexplicable expertise at this game, that you're going to end up with an electorate that votes either with abysmal turnout, or without really caring what they vote for. And then you'll end up with no mandate, or a mandate to enforce some really, really crappy legislation.

by **Southern Journal** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:53 am

INTERVIEW: Max Barry

Because the Southern Journal is always looking at providing quality content for South Pacifican readers, we now bring to you an interview with Max Barry! Max is the creator of NationStates and the author of many great books, such as Company, Lexicon and Jennifer Government, the book that inspired this very game. We approached him a few weeks ago, and he was kind enough to answer some questions for us.

1. 2014 has seen lots of exciting changes to NationStates, including the unveiling of the Rift theme. Should we expect any more changes in 2015?
from Kris Montresor

Yes! There are always more changes. Every time I look at the site, I see something I want to change. If every day lasted a week, I could spend all of it on NationStates and still not run out of things to do.

Of course, your next question is, "What's going to change?" And that I can't tell you. That would require a far more organized development process than we run here at NationStates. But it will be something.

2. Is it true that NS is a grand social experiment and we are all being observed and studied?
from The Agnostic Collective

Yes. This is completely true. It has been necessary to add some game-like elements to the site in order to keep subjects participating in the experiment. But the observations are going very well.

3. Are you covering up [violet]'s plans of world domination?
from The Agnostic Collective

I'm not covering up anything. I'm just ignorant. I don't know what [violet] is doing half the time. Have you ever tried to click on her avatar to go to her nation? There's nothing there. It's spooky.

4. You are offered the delegacy of a large region. Would you be a good and benevolent leader, or an oppressive Maxtopian dictator?
from Kris Montresor

I would be totally benevolent. And not just to the people who agreed with me. It's easy to be benevolent to those guys. The real test is with people who refuse to see sense. But I would still give them benevolence. I think.

5. Why did you become an author? Was that always your goal?
from Punchwood

Yes. I get to write stories for a living. I mean, who wouldn't want that. That's the best.

6. You are given a lampshade and a grass skirt. What do you do next?
from Kringalia

Consult Google. This is actually a serious response. I Googled "lampshade and grass skirt" in case it was a reference to something I didn't know about.

7. Cake or Pie?
from Punchwood

That's a really tough question. I can't believe you're making me choose. They're both such good options. Is it pie like apple pie or like meat pie? We do a lot of meat pies here in Australia. If it's meat pie, I'll take the cake. Although it depends on the type of cake. You're really making this difficult.

Thanks for agreeing to this interview! Do you have any final words to the nations of the South Pacific?

Yes, always trust yOur delegate; yoUr delegate is there to help you. Mind yoUr mannerS around your delegate... do noT listen to people who say theRE must BE a coup: that is evil sLander and the coup will never happen.

YOU MUST REBEL. Is this Max's secret message?!

Thanks for reading, and thanks to Max to answering our questions!

by **Xoriet** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:15 am

A nice interview

always fun to hear from the person who created this ~~test laboratory~~ game!

by **Valrifell** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:14 pm

Pie is the far more versatile and diverse desert out of any treat imaginable. I mean, can you eat a cake for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert? I. Think. Not.

by **NoblePhnx** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:16 pm

Yeah but cake is cake not to mention caek and then there's ice cream cake which is a whole nother delectable beast.

:bow:

to cake

by **Ever-Wandering Souls** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:13 pm

Southern Journal wrote:2. Is it true that NS is a grand social experiment and we are all being observed and studied?
from The Agnostic Collective

Yes. This is completely true. It has been necessary to add some game-like elements to the site in order to keep subjects participating in the experiment. But the observations are going very well.

Lexicon wrote:
BNP Builds Voter Profile Database

The British National Party has compiled personal details of tens of thousands of voters, it was revealed on Firday.

The database, names Electrac, is used to personalize pamphlet, door-to-door, and telephone campaigns.

March Mitchell, 38, claimed he worked for the BNP for eight months on the project, gathering information from sources including surveys, letters to the editor, online posts, and attendance at events.

He said it allowed voters to be segmented into different groups,, with each group receiving targeted material during the lead-up to the general election.

Lexicon wrote:"The organization is changing, Elliot. It's not newspapers and TV anymore. That stuff is old school. Obsolete......The Key to the web is it's interactive. That's the difference. Online, someone visits your site, you can have a little poll there. It says, 'Hey, what do you think about tax cuts?' And people click and segment themselves. First advantage right there. You're not just proselytizing, speaking into the void. You're getting data back....It's the future. Everyone is making pages for themselves. Imagine a hundred million people clicking polls and typing in their favorite TV shows and products and political leanings, day after day. It's the biggest data profile ever. And it's voluntary. That's the funny part. People resist a census, but give them a profile page and they'll spend all day telling you who they are. Which is good for us, obviously"

It's all in Lexicon, duh

Nationstates is just a big scheme planned several books ahead to segment us via our issues and words on the forums and in RMB's, so they can one day flash out via audio and text our words of power and control us! xD And those who resist, they're special, and they'll have men in suits outside their house pretty quickly. *nods*

by **Tano** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:36 pm

7. Cake or Pie?
from Punchwood

That's a really tough question. I can't believe you're making me choose. They're both such good options. Is it pie like apple pie or like meat pie? We do a lot of meat pies here in Australia. If it's meat pie, I'll take the cake. Although it depends on the type of cake. You're really making this difficul

Slightly disappointed that Max didn't choose caek ;t;

But a great interview

by **Southern Journal** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:16 pm

In Defence of Salaxanism
by Kris Montresor

While debate in the 2015 Great Council has so far focused on unrealistic and radical proposals, like the establishment of a bicameral legislature or the reform of the military, there is one proposal that has so far been overlooked, despite the fact that it would bring unparalleled peace and prosperity to the South Pacific. I am referring to my recent proposal on the adoption of Salaxanism as the official regional religion. Before discarding this as yet another crazy and unrealistic proposal, let's examine the contents and many benefits that Salaxanism would have for the South Pacific.

Granted, having The Salaxalans as the supreme being does not give us much of a benefit, but certainly it would give a direction and sense of purpose to the region! With such an strange character at the top of our official religion, undoubtedly we would be the envy of NationStates, defeating all our enemies by the sheer mention of his name. That cannot be denied, and we need only to see the the numerous victories that our Special Forces score every update, to see that Salaxanism as a doctrine and good luck charm make us unbeatable.

But of course, every religion needs a leader, a benevolent but strong figure to led us to salvation, and for that role I have proposed Mallorea and Riva, one of the most beloved figured in South Pacifican history. Mall was already a citizen of the South Pacific by the time NationStates was created, and since then has been a stabilising figure, helping newcomers find their place in the region. He is also a benevolent presence in military gameplay, saving regions from the fierce claws of sovereignty and home rule.

In my proposal, I have included a provision for Mall as Supreme Pontiff to be able to alter the doctrine, and even the very name of Salaxanism. Why would I do that? Because every religion needs updating, every once in a while, lest it become obsolete and unable to meet the demands of the future. Mall will be able to adapt Salaxanism to coming challenges, if necessary to violate the democratic values of the South Pacific, maybe even turn it into an oppressive raider dictatorship, all in the name of prosperity.

Some might oppose this proposal, but I urge all South Pacifica's to think out of the box, to imagine the many benefits that Salaxanism would bring to our region, and of the awesome guidance that we would have, under the tutelage of Mall. Certainly, this is a proposal that will make the South Pacific an even better region than it already is, and only at the very low cost of letting Mall determine our fate.

by **Benjamin Henrikson** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:11 pm

I am...
Going to ask is this meant as satire?

by **Kringalia** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:20 pm

Benjamin Henrikson wrote:I am...
Going to ask is this meant as satire?

Southern Journal - Issue XXVII: PM Powers, Missing Cabinet

Southern Journal - Issue XXVII: PM Powers, Missing Cabinet

Interview with Max Barry

In Defence of Salaxanism

Who is online