Balder - State Opening of 19th Storting

[Greater Moldavi]

There is no such thing as a coup in a GCR. As a 'coup' is defined as an illegal act it is an impossibility. The sitting Delegate can support or restructure the government at will. It is then up to that Delegate to maintain support within the region as continued justification of its 'rightness'. If that Delegate is then replaced by another nation then the subsequent Delegate can again change the system of governance with the same stipulations and requirements, but it does not make the preceding acts illegal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

There is no such thing as a coup in a GCR. As a 'coup' is defined as an illegal act it is an impossibility. The sitting Delegate can support or restructure the government at will. It is then up to that Delegate to maintain support within the region as continued justification of its 'rightness'. If that Delegate is then replaced by another nation then the subsequent Delegate can again change the system of governance with the same stipulations and requirements, but it does not make the preceding acts illegal.

Sure, Jan.

[Greater Moldavi]

There is no such thing as a coup in a GCR. As a 'coup' is defined as an illegal act it is an impossibility. The sitting Delegate can support or restructure the government at will. It is then up to that Delegate to maintain support within the region as continued justification of its 'rightness'. If that Delegate is then replaced by another nation then the subsequent Delegate can again change the system of governance with the same stipulations and requirements, but it does not make the preceding acts illegal.

Sure, Jan.

I'm not sure who 'Jan' is.

Regardless, the fact remains. Just because you can't produce a wall of text that obfuscates the issue doesn't make it any less valid.

[Roavin]

It's the same old story, really.

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

...etc...

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

[Kylia Quilor]

I still somehow think he wouldn't hold the same position if the NPO delegate of the Pacific was overthrown and a brand new exact opposite system was put into place.

[Greater Moldavi]

It's the same old story, really.

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

...etc...

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

Perhaps, although I believe that the Delegate being the ultimate authority in the region is because it is a servant of the region and is so by virtue of having the most endorsements in the region, thereby accommodating both game mechanics and sociological factors.

But, the fact that one of those sides actually has to willfully ignore game mechanics is quite telling.

[Kylia Quilor]

You can't make that claim when the Delegate is banjecting everyone who gets more than a few endorsements. When the Delegate mandates they be endorsed or else, you're not exactly manifesting some true will of the region, in a meaningful sense.

[Greater Moldavi]

I still somehow think he wouldn't hold the same position if the NPO delegate of the Pacific was overthrown and a brand new exact opposite system was put into place.

And you would be completely incorrect. If the Delegate of the Pacific fails in its duties to hold onto its position then it does not deserve the mantle that has been bestowed upon it. Also, the Delegate of the Pacific can dissolve the New Pacific Order at will, and has done so in the past - although modern retcon has incorporated the differing versions of governance as temporary rebrands of the same thing.

Please feel free to point to any place in my fifteen years here where I have held a different position on the supremacy of the Delegate nation in the GCRs.

[Greater Moldavi]

You can't make that claim when the Delegate is banjecting everyone who gets more than a few endorsements. When the Delegate mandates they be endorsed or else, you're not exactly manifesting some true will of the region, in a meaningful sense.

Of course I can, and I just did. Amazing how that works.

If the region did not wish to have the Delegate as the Delegate they could remove their endorsements of the nation. It is that simple. The power to remove opposition is a right and a privilege that comes with the position. It is the responsibility of the Delegate to maintain stability and security, that is the reason the tool exists.

[New Rogernomics]

I hardly think Lazarus took a "lenient" position towards members of the PRL who opposed NLO so much as it let all such people off entirely.

I didn't mean to imply that it let all such people off, rather that some were let off.

What value is such a consensus amongst a membership whose composition was shaped as a result of the September 2013 coup? Even those who joined years after the coup may well not have joined if Lazarus had always remained a neutral democracy with no history as a major defender power in the FRA.

That would depend on how many actually participated or endorsed the coup, as I said before the numbers of people that actually participated began to dwindle. I don't want to get into the semantics much about what constitutes a native, but plenty of people did join who were raider aligned, and the demographics did change in that respect, regardless of what the 2013's coup may have done. What I am trying to argue here, is that coups rarely succeed in cementing a regional position - and in Lazarus there was a shift back to a neutral position R/D wise. The best opportunity within a democratic system to change a regional position, regardless of what may have contributed to it's development, is a vote.

However, if Lazarus had been serious about reversing the effects of the September 2013 coup, it could have taken a number of additional steps:

1. Formally and consistently acknowledging that the September 2013 coup was in fact a coup and lacked any justification;
2. Punishing the perpetrators and supporters of that coup for their actions, separate from the NLO crisis, and including its Defender backers;
3. Dissolving the alliance with The Rejected Realms, a region which remained allied with the PRL throughout the defender dictatorship;
4. Dissolving the alliance with The South Pacific, a regime which actually allied with the defender dictatorship while it was still in existence;
5. Issuing an unreserved apology to those banned by Feux and Harmoneia, and offering a complete and unconditional pardon;
6. Issuing an unreserved apology to the former allies of Lazarus who were impugned by Feux and Harmoneia as they sought to justify their actions.
7. Renouncing all ties with the defender regions that resulted from the coup (as opposed to staying on in the FRA until it closed down in October 2016).

Did Lazarus do a single one of those things? I think not.

I think you have to look at Lazarus, in terms of what was actually possible within a democratic system. While a Delegate could have done the first in that list, two through seven weren't achievable throughout the Humane Republic on-wards, due to a lack of voter support. In order to have made two through seven possible, it would have required suspending voting rights of large numbers of citizens, and that would require charging people with a crime. Even if anyone partially or fully connected to the 2013 regime, through citizenship or otherwise, was removed. Then it still would have left a more than sufficient number who would have been opposed to two through seven on that list. If Lazarus had an authoritarian system, it would have just meant a flick of a pen, so to speak, but under the Humane Republic and later constitutions that was beyond the Delegates power i.e. it would be down to the courts or the regional assembly.

Can you name a single occasion where the LLA sided with Independent and Imperialist powers against the FRA or other defender entities?

I wasn't involved with military operations, as I didn't support the defender stance of the region. So that's a point I would have to coincide, all I can really say in support of the Lazarus position was that the LLA wasn't compelled at a higher-government level to commit to an operation with the FRA or other defender organizations. In terms of the constitutionality, it was prohibited to raid outside of warzones, so that would have obviously limited what the LLA could have done, even if it wished to side against the FRA or defender organizations, in it's operations.

What good is this? The people of Lazarus felt unhappy about supporting the FRA but did so anyone because they felt sentimental?

That is meant to be a demonstration that Lazarus had gained autonomy from the defender sphere? If anything, it shows that the underlying preferences of Lazarus were no longer defender, but that the effects of having been a defender dictatorship continued to endure in the form of that sentimentality.

Not everyone did however. Back in 2015, there were 13 ayes to ratify the new FRA charter, 3 nays, and 3 abstentions. For relevance of voting within Lazarus, a vote needed a majority of ayes to pass. So at the very least that is 31.5% of the region that didn't agree to ratify the charter.

It is certainly much more autonomy than under the PRL, unless you are seriously suggesting that the PRL would have allowed a free vote to leave the FRA to exist, and be given the opportunity to succeed. Though as I point out above, the outcome could not have been changed without effectively ending the democratic system, or a court removing citizenship and voting rights. Realistically administrations couldn't have done the later, unless the court were to have charged someone with a crime.

That hardly illustrates that Feux and Harmoneia's September 2013 coup was fully reversed.

Fully reversing the coup was largely impossible within a democratic system, as I point out earlier on, unless someone had brought up a case in the courts, and even then, it wouldn't have substantially changed the voter numbers against such changes.

A major discussion that conveniently resolved in favour of staying in the FRA, in spite of the apparent unhappiness.

It resolved in favor of staying on the condition of adequately reforming the organization, though that didn't happen. Generally on positions of treaties, and agreements with other regions or organizations, conscience votes were the general regional position, so it fell to private citizens whether they wanted the FRA to continue. Of course, if I am to infer from previously in the discussion, you would likely view this as evidence of a regional community corrupted, as it was unwilling to unable to leave the FRA.

Radical short-term action may have been required if the September 2013 coup was to be genuinely reversed and defender interests confronted.

Being afraid to rock the boat is what allowed defender forces to retain influence. The defenders display no similar reluctance before acting - as they illustrated with the September 2013 coup and as they have now illustrated again with the Revolt. Opposing that takes firmness and determination.

Above, I outline seven steps that could have been taken to reverse the consequences of the September 2013 coup. If they seemed so unthinkable or impossible to achieve with the Lazarus community as it was now constructed, then that only shows that the region was irredeemably corrupted.

They were largely impossible, in terms of the constitution, due to lack of possible popular support in the assembly for such a list, which in itself would have required large numbers of citizens to be charged and stripped of citizenship just for being 'defenders' - which isn't justifiable in a democracy without evidence of wrong-doing. The majority of those potentially liable for the events of 2013 on-wards, couldn't have removed enough votes, if such a case removed citizenship from those liable and still remaining in Lazarus anyway. Essentially, it would have required a Delegate to coup the region, and purge large numbers of nations based purely on their R/D orientation, and even then it still wouldn't bring back pre-2013 Lazarus.

We are not talking about The Rejected Realms and The South Pacific holding diplomatic relations with PRL Lazarus.

We are talking about them each respectively retaining and forming alliances with PRL Lazarus. Forming alliance with a government entails supporting them. These regions committed to defend the PRL regime against those purged who were seeking to overthrow it. They undermined Lazarane sovereignty.

During 2013 onwards for sure. Though during the post-NLO era, and before recent events, it would be very hard to make the case that TRR and TSP directly or indirectly intervened in Lazarus internal politics. In fact with the later instance, we had members in Lazarus that weren't always on the best of terms with TSP's government. I had formally retired from Lazarus when they occurred, so you would have to ask the relevant factions their position on whether TRR and TSP are intervening now, and in which way. However, I should specify however that I am talking about while the FRA existed, and not the post-Celestial Union events.

Naturally, the number of former participants in the PRL dwindled with time. That doesn't diminish the regime's long-standing effects.

You acknowledge that Lazarus "was not the same in terms of community and affiliations it once was" as a result of the September 2013 coup and that this affected Lazarus's foreign policy. That is why Balder is supporting the Lazarus Government against the Revolt who want to preserve the 2013 coup's effects.

Not saying there weren't long-standing effects, as I pointed out earlier, Lazarus was moving gradually back to a neutral stance - because the defender orientation wasn't an organic position, but one imposed effectively by the PRL.

Reversing the 2013 coup may have been "near-impossible" to achieve under the previous framework.

That does not make it acceptable. That is why the Undead Dominion is preferable as a framework for restoring Lazarene sovereignty and autonomy.
[...]I would refer you to the list of seven steps I detailed earlier on this post.

If the community of Lazarus was not ready for those steps, then that only goes to show that it remained corrupted by the September 2013 coup.

I can't agree or overly disagree on that point, as the points you laid out, were largely impossible to implement, within the limits of the Humane Republic and later constitutions. It required someone that was active within the full period of the PRL, NLO, and so on, to make a formal charges to the court with evidence, or for an assembly vote, the later as I said earlier would have been mute due to lack of popular support. So for basis of argument, if you feel that Lazarus had failed, it would be more in people not coming forward to place charges or in that the assembly wouldn't have voted for your points.

[New Rogernomics]

There is no such thing as a coup in a GCR. As a 'coup' is defined as an illegal act it is an impossibility. The sitting Delegate can support or restructure the government at will. It is then up to that Delegate to maintain support within the region as continued justification of its 'rightness'. If that Delegate is then replaced by another nation then the subsequent Delegate can again change the system of governance with the same stipulations and requirements, but it does not make the preceding acts illegal.

Eh? If the constitution of a region stipulates that regional elections for a delegate must take place, and through that framework a succession is set up through the Delegacy, and a Delegate goes rogue against that constitution, then that is a coup, as it is an illegal seizure of the state and overturning of the previous constitutional framework - whether the rogue Delegate keeps the constitution in place or not, the succession framework has been interrupted. Within a GCR, unlike a UCR with a Founder nation, the Delegate does realistically rule through endorsements, and as such is the absolute authority, but if the community agrees to a government framework, and the usurper Delegate throws out that framework arbitrarily, then it is illegal. Whether a transfer of power is justified, is kinda irrelevant to whether a Delegacy overturned under a constitutional framework of succession, is illegal - as in itself, that is overthrowing the previous state or agreement of the community. I would agree with you, if it is an authoritarian system, but where a constitution and framework of succession exists for the Delegacy, overturning that is illegal. Justified or not.

[Kylia Quilor]

I still somehow think he wouldn't hold the same position if the NPO delegate of the Pacific was overthrown and a brand new exact opposite system was put into place.

And you would be completely incorrect. If the Delegate of the Pacific fails in its duties to hold onto its position then it does not deserve the mantle that has been bestowed upon it. Also, the Delegate of the Pacific can dissolve the New Pacific Order at will, and has done so in the past - although modern retcon has incorporated the differing versions of governance as temporary rebrands of the same thing.

Please feel free to point to any place in my fifteen years here where I have held a different position on the supremacy of the Delegate nation in the GCRs.

If the dissolution of the NPO included a replacement government that openly rejected every fundamental underpinning of the NPO's doctrines and ideas? You'd just be absolutely cool with that? No challenge at all? No issues? That's not how people work.

Of course I can, and I just did. Amazing how that works.

If the region did not wish to have the Delegate as the Delegate they could remove their endorsements of the nation. It is that simple. The power to remove opposition is a right and a privilege that comes with the position. It is the responsibility of the Delegate to maintain stability and security, that is the reason the tool exists.

You can't *accurately* make the claim. I can make the claim that the moon is made of green cheese until the cows come home.

If endorsement count is all that dictates who can decide what happens with the region, than you are artificially inhibiting that process by preventing other people from accumulating more endorsements. You are creating a socio-political factor above and beyond the game mechanics.

[Onderkelkia]

I hardly think Lazarus took a "lenient" position towards members of the PRL who opposed NLO so much as it let all such people off entirely.

I didn't mean to imply that it let all such people off, rather that some were let off.

Whereas I did mean to say that they let all such people off.

Even the minority of PRL leaders who were punished were sanctioned due to the NLO crisis, rather than explicitly for the PRL itself.

I think you have to look at Lazarus, in terms of what was actually possible within a democratic system. While a Delegate could have done the first in that list, two through seven weren't achievable throughout the Humane Republic on-wards, due to a lack of voter support. In order to have made two through seven possible, it would have required suspending voting rights of large numbers of citizens, and that would require charging people with a crime. Even if anyone partially or fully connected to the 2013 regime, through citizenship or otherwise, was removed. Then it still would have left a more than sufficient number who would have been opposed to two through seven on that list. If Lazarus had an authoritarian system, it would have just meant a flick of a pen, so to speak, but under the Humane Republic and later constitutions that was beyond the Delegates power i.e. it would be down to the courts or the regional assembly.

Much of your remaining response also focuses on this point (that the expectations I outlined could not be satisfied within a democratic system).

It may well be that it was impossible to reverse the effects of Feux and Harmoneia's September 2013 coup with the community that evolved following that coup. That the community of Lazarus was unable and unwilling to face up to its past is immaterial. Particularly in light of the defender-backed Revolt, that is exactly why the constitutional and political direction offered by the Undead Dominion of Lazarus offers better hope for reversing the 2013 coup.

[Greater Moldavi]

And you would be completely incorrect. If the Delegate of the Pacific fails in its duties to hold onto its position then it does not deserve the mantle that has been bestowed upon it. Also, the Delegate of the Pacific can dissolve the New Pacific Order at will, and has done so in the past - although modern retcon has incorporated the differing versions of governance as temporary rebrands of the same thing.

Please feel free to point to any place in my fifteen years here where I have held a different position on the supremacy of the Delegate nation in the GCRs.

If the dissolution of the NPO included a replacement government that openly rejected every fundamental underpinning of the NPO's doctrines and ideas? You'd just be absolutely cool with that? No challenge at all? No issues? That's not how people work.

Of course I can, and I just did. Amazing how that works.

If the region did not wish to have the Delegate as the Delegate they could remove their endorsements of the nation. It is that simple. The power to remove opposition is a right and a privilege that comes with the position. It is the responsibility of the Delegate to maintain stability and security, that is the reason the tool exists.

You can't *accurately* make the claim. I can make the claim that the moon is made of green cheese until the cows come home.

If endorsement count is all that dictates who can decide what happens with the region, than you are artificially inhibiting that process by preventing other people from accumulating more endorsements. You are creating a socio-political factor above and beyond the game mechanics.

As I have stated multiple times in the past, if the Delegate of the Pacific dissolved the NPO that would be its right. I wouldn't claim it as illegitimate even if I found it abhorrent. My personal ability to disagree with a system of government has nothing to do with the legitimacy of that system.

Your assessment regarding my 'claim' is incorrect and your comparison is a false likeness. The creation of the sociology-political factor is part of the game and therefore a part of the mechanics. The removal of competition is part of the game. There is nothing artificial about it as it is part of the system.

[Solorni]

I have just surpassed the 200 endorsement Mark again and hope to break our record which I believe is around the 211 to 212 range.

[Ikania]

Did Harmoneia ever apologize? If I recall correctly she had also insulted Balder because while we did not initially condemn the coup; we did take issue with Lazarus purging people from its region.

Regardless of other people's thoughts on the matter, I would indeed be interested to see what she thinks about this all.

[Greater Moldavi]

I have just surpassed the 200 endorsement Mark again and hope to break our record which I believe is around the 211 to 212 range.

Congratulations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Congratulations are in order for THX1138, as well! They've reached 20 endorsements, 10% of the democratic and much beloved Queen's, far above the generous 7.5% the free people of Balder are usually allowed to have!

[Onderkelkia]

Congratulations are in order for THX1138, as well! They've reached 20 endorsements, 10% of the democratic and much beloved Queen's, far above the generous 7.5% the free people of Balder are usually allowed to have!

Someone seems upset that Balder has an effective security policy.

As with most GCRs, Balder's democracy functions through political institutions on our off-site forums, not through in-game endorsements.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Congratulations are in order for THX1138, as well! They've reached 20 endorsements, 10% of the democratic and much beloved Queen's, far above the generous 7.5% the free people of Balder are usually allowed to have!

Someone seems upset that Balder has an effective security policy.

It's "effective" in the sense that the entire security system is predicated on the trustworthiness of a single person, assuming that there wouldn't ever be a situation where NES ousts Rach. Quite an assumption

Broad base cross endorsement is superior. And, of course, it allows the proletariat to actually participate in a core game mechanic!

[Kylia Quilor]

Someone seems upset that Balder has an effective security policy.

It's "effective" in the sense that the entire security system is predicated on the trustworthiness of a single person, assuming that there wouldn't ever be a situation where NES ousts Rach. Quite an assumption

Broad base cross endorsement is superior. And, of course, it allows the proletariat to actually participate in a core game mechanic!

Shouldn't you be going into the Pacific's embassy to complain about their Endocaps too, then? Or at least bitching about them in Neutral Ground?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

It's "effective" in the sense that the entire security system is predicated on the trustworthiness of a single person, assuming that there wouldn't ever be a situation where NES ousts Rach. Quite an assumption

Broad base cross endorsement is superior. And, of course, it allows the proletariat to actually participate in a core game mechanic!

Shouldn't you be going into the Pacific's embassy to complain about their Endocaps too, then? Or at least bitching about them in Neutral Ground?

Alternatively, GR could urge TSP to try not having an Endo cap, and see how that goes.

[Onderkelkia]

Someone seems upset that Balder has an effective security policy.

It's "effective" in the sense that the entire security system is predicated on the trustworthiness of a single person, assuming that there wouldn't ever be a situation where NES ousts Rach. Quite an assumption

Broad base cross endorsement is superior. And, of course, it allows the proletariat to actually participate in a core game mechanic!

Large UCRs have functioned perfectly well for periods up to over half a decade on the trustworthiness of a single person. Why not GCRs? Why are GCRs obliged to make themselves vulnerable to the possibility that a third party could mount an attempt to seize the ultimate source of in-game authority?

There is a reason why Balder has been more politically stable than the other two sinkers over the long term. We avoid the risk of a fixed-term head of government undertaking a coup for political reasons. It also minimises the risk of an external attack from the likes of you - clearly that disappoints you.

[Solorni]

I'm trustworthy

I don't even know how to coup.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I'm trustworthy

I don't even know how to coup.

The secret is, you are the coup. From years ago. You've always been the coup!