Europeian Embassy - In Solidarity

[Kylia Quilor]

Yeah, pretty much all of this. One of the reasons I bowed out of that thread is how much it was clear the mods weren't listening.

The Founder has long been the best solution for preventing region destruction, and this notion not only massively penalizes this easy and simple solution to regional security but do nothing to solve the problem of nation distribution across the game and the problems of recruitment.

A sound statement by Europeia.

[Syberis]

Yeah, pretty much all of this. One of the reasons I bowed out of that thread is how much it was clear the mods weren't listening.

The Founder has long been the best solution for preventing region destruction, and this notion not only massively penalizes this easy and simple solution to regional security but do nothing to solve the problem of nation distribution across the game and the problems of recruitment.

A sound statement by Europeia.

I think it's apparent that those who proposed the idea have fallen in love with it somewhat - but I think one of the biggest issues is that the players are in the dark as to the design philosophy the staff are committed to.

This disconnect has always existed but I'm consistently surprised by the extent.

[Xoriet]

The idea has more value as a chaos creator than it does as a long-term fix now. Especially given how recruitment was worse than ever this summer for UCRs and WAs in the Feeders have been dying out without a steady replacement stream, indicating a smaller pool of new players versus puppets. Implementing this now would be more catastrophic than helpful in any sense of the word, and for just about everyone. If the objective is to make success tie in with total vulnerability, sure, it’ll work. But at this particular time I don’t see it doing what it is supposed to do in their eyes.

But Sedge made it clear that he plans to nerf some regions at any cost and before putting real thought into how to improve the lot of UCRs as decided by UCRs, so at this point the hope is that some of the others listen to UCR players who will be the most impacted by the change.

[Kylia Quilor]

Well, maybe the design goal is to drive more people away from the game for good? Makes as much sense as anything else. I mean, NS is already a social experiment in what people will put up with.

EDIT: I mean, we have to grant that any solution to recruitment would probably cut into stamp revenue, and that's probably not a workable solution. So perhaps the design goals are just constrained a lot.

Still, status quo would be better than a pile of democracies fighting over a shrinking pile of nations.

[Tinhampton]

(image reads "REPUBLIC OF EUROPEIA | OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT")

Recently, a proposal, tentatively called "Democracy / Autocracy", has sparked discussion in the technical forums of Nation States. The premise of the idea is that players in user created regions would be able to choose between having an executive founder, and thus regional security, or to receive a boost to recruitment by allowing newly created nations to spawn in their regions. While there has been some scattered pushback to this idea, as yet, the major concerns surrounding the changes have not been adequately addressed. Europeia acknowledges that there is a serious imbalance in the game right now that does need fixing, but this change does not come close to addressing those issues and instead appears to shoehorn R/D into the game, and to penalize anyone who doesn't wish to participate.

What is the "serious imbalance?" Who does it affect, how is it affecting them, how can it be resolved, and why is Democracy/Autocracy unnecessary to resolve it? None of these questions are answered by your statement.

In contrast, those who prefer to keep their governmental systems in place in this political game, will, to their detriment, be required to do even more work manually recruiting nations, with the end result being keeping up will likely be impossible.

It is not true to assert that "manually recruiting nations" is the only means by which a region can grow. I believe that Wings of Amnesty grew Ikuisuus to about 170 nations around Spring 2018 while using only API telegramming, which is slower, although my memory might be a bit hazy. I've brought Sophia to about 85 nations in the past, with all of those nations having arrived either from the transition from Auctor, as puppets of friends, or - predominantly - from stamp recruitment.
Nor is it the case that regions who wish "to keep their governmental systems in place" all have strong or particularly active founders whose role as such is politically necessary for their continuations. Autocracies should be able to recruit newly-founded nations from Feeders (and eligible Democracies) just like classic regions can do right now, while Feeders (and eligible Democracies) will continue to put in much effort into creating strong programs to retain spawned nations as they do now.

Many UCRs have noted recently that manual recruitment has been less effective than normal, and to propose a change that does nothing to address this issue, but forces regions to choose either this broken method of recruitment or to forego the security of their founder, seems like a move in the wrong direction.

Peeps, a prominent figure in Europeia, has made seven of the sixteen posts in that thread (Sedge has made four, which mostly seems to boil down to "manual recruitment TGs addressed to individual nations aren't logged in the same way that tag:template recruitment TGs are"). The other five posts have been made by Refuge Isle (the founder of Refugia), Galiantus III (the founder of Conservia), Bernie (the founder of Socialist Union, as Comrade Bernie), Homyland (a TNPer) and Wayneactia (an Osiran who did nothing except express scepticism about Europeia's manual recruitment rates). By no means can these individuals be described as representatives of "many UCRs."
All recruitment "has been less effective than normal." NS Summer, not "manual recruitment telegrams aren't entering inboxes as fast as they used to," remains the most famous and persistent explanation of why this is the case.

Thus far, concerns have been waved aside, with no thought towards or even acknowledgement of the discrepancies laid out above. With Sedge acknowledging that one of the goals of the new system is the ability to permanently destroy communities, cultures, and decades worth of history, it is further alarming that this drastic change, is being advertised as a "relatively simple concept that doesn't make fundamental changes to the game's principles".

Europeia is an Independent region whose military has been widely criticised for using that label when it in fact usually raids regions (the most famous recent exception being Chaylia). Between this and the fact that defenders have been in the ascendancy this year so far, it is surprising to see concern about the fact that Democracies can be raided coming from the Europeian Presidency. Even were D/A to be implemented, nothing is stopping any undecided region from choosing to become an Autocracy (and therefore less vulnerable to raids) anyway.

We feel that this is not only false, but incredibly misleading. Despite protests that this change is radical and doesn't address, but instead relies on, a broken system to create balance in the game, the only questions being pushed are about the system itself. No attempt is being made to reach a middle ground with these concerns. Indeed, concerns about recruitment, even though it is an important part of the successful implementation of this new system, are being shunted off to other threads with no visible support from NationStates moderators.

The word "recruitment" has appeared 45 times in the D/A thread's 170 posts (one of which is a carbon copy of this Presidential statement). Sedge himself has said that there will be "no changes to how TG recruitment works for either type of region" and is right in arguing that suggestions for changes should go in other threads - where I am confident that he, as the Development Manager for Regional Gameplay, will look at them, ask questions and make suggestions accordingly.

Refuge Isle states in the technical thread that "directly assessing the problem of recruitment is a far more useful strategy for admin to make changes in to improve UCR health and break up power accumulation in feeders." In this, Europeia agrees and supports Refuge Isle, alongside other comments they have made in that thread. Despite their thought-provoking rejoinders, the lead is consistently buried, the point missed, and...

At the beginning of this thread, Refuge had a few good back-and-forth conversations about the nature of D/A with Flanderlion and Galiantus. She then made no contributions to the thread for a month until returning on Tuesday to suggest that all feeders be turned into warzones, all warzones be turned into UCRs, and five new feeders be created.

...ultimately the way we enjoy NationStates currently, as sovereign political regions, roleplayers, card farmers, World Assembly loyalists, and issues-focused communities, among others, is being endangered.

Except that this statement is not a consensus statement issued alongside players or regions representing any of these communities, like Europeia's 2017 petition about whether offsite content should be treated as actionable by onsite moderators; rather, it is being issued solely by and on behalf of President Calvin Coolidge.
I would also note that the above snippet also borrows heavily from Refuge's first post in the D/A thread, where she asserts that "the bulk of this site isn't made up of NSGP personalities, but RPers, card player, WA folks, and private issues-focused community minded people." Perhaps Europeia could come up with original rallying cries when they issue their next conservative-minded statement.

Europeia is taking a stance against the changes proposed, and encourages other, like-minded nations and regions to join us in expressing our opposition to these changes, as we've been told that these options only remain on the table so long as they do remain well-received.

Who told the President that Democracy/Autocracy would be abandoned if it received opposition in sufficient numbers?

[Refuge Isle]

Not sure what you're trying to get out of saying that I haven't posted in the thread in a month. Until now, almost no one has posted in that thread in a month.

My opinion was expressed and I said this idea ought not to happen. What are you wanting in addition to that?

Sedge is pushing a proposal to get nations to spawn in UCRs in exchange for founders making themselves non-exec. It's is a good way to open up raiding targets from regions that are struggling to grow, making power pool in established regions instead of the 20 pop ones that are the most vulnerable. The OP suggests that the idea of this will generate conflict and bring more life back into gameplay and therefore the site. The reality is that it will consolidate power into large UCRs instead of GCRs, get start-ups destroyed by baiting them into high risk, or get nations to spawn in dead regions instead of ones where there is guaranteed activity of some variety. That is my "contribution" and is relatively supported by the data I have been linking. The work I have been doing studying the site's health is the same type of work that Peeps has been working on.

In reality, if you wanted to bring more life into gameplay, my suggestion to switch to new feeders and make existing ones warzones accomplishes this more adequately while not beheading UCR viability and user retention. Either way, it is perfectly reasonable to criticise that autocracy/democracy solves no problems, creates an array of new ones, while the area that the site most needs improvement on to accomplish the objectives of this thread is recruitment and GCR power reduction.

[Sedgistan]

Technical suggestions are discussed in the Technical forum, where they are judged on their merits, not on the perceived status of the organisations expressing a view on them.

[Sandaoguo]

Thus far, concerns have been waved aside, with no thought towards or even acknowledgement of the discrepancies laid out above. With Sedge acknowledging that one of the goals of the new system is the ability to permanently destroy communities, cultures, and decades worth of history...

This has been happening since influence was introduced. Europeia has worked closely with raiders who do exactly that, even touting them as your closest military partners. I don't think Sedge would find this complaint very compelling as a result.

[The Python]

Seconding this.

It's a much better solution just to add 3 - 5 more feeders and leave it at that.

[Indusse]

Seconding this.

It's a much better solution just to add 3 - 5 more feeders and leave it at that.

Creation of two more feeders is a good idea.

[Andusre]

The creation of more feeders will not solve the recruitment issues highlighted by several UCRs for months now. More feeders would gradually dilute the power feeders have currently, by dividing a scarce resource amongst more recipients, but the underlying issue of dysfunctional UCR recruitment will be left unresolved. It isn't particularly hard to get a grasp of in my opinion - think from a game mechanics point of view, how would more feeders actually do to help UCRs?

The feeder proposal aside and speaking for myself alone, I find myself both in agreement and in a very similar position to Europeia. I have always played this game in the UCRs and I don't intend on changing that anytime soon; I just do not think Democracy / Autocracy is the way to resuscitate a critically important sphere of the game which has been in dire straits for months now.

[The Stalker]

I already posted this in the tech thread, but seems to me, manual recruit would be about the same as it is now, this wouldn't make manual/stamp recruitment any harder. If anything I would think a large powerful region like Europeia could create a puppet region of sorts, "Europeia Island" and have it be a democracy spawner directing nations to Europeia. Be one new method of recruitment.

Moreover may also make manual recruitment easier if nations are spawning into warzone like democracy, they might be more interested in leaving. I think this is a huge boon to UCRs.

[Xernon]

Speaking on both my behalf and Thaecia's, we strongly agree with Europeia's position on this. I don't think anyone questions the intention of the proposed changes. It is just that this is not the way to go about addressing the imbalances between GCRs and UCRs.

[Pajonia]

TCB will be posting an official statement on this update in the coming days, however it feels important to make a small statement in this thread now. The Communist Bloc fully opposes this update and supports Europeia in their position on this. This update is an absolutely terrible idea, and it is absurd that Sedge is refusing to listen to any feedback from the community. Why doesn't the mod team fix the issue with manual recruitment instead? Oh wait, they won't even admit there is a problem with it. This update is going to make recruitment even more broken than it already is, on top of completely changing R/D and obliterating NationStates history. It would be a massive mistake to push this update through.

[The Python]

Anyone who opposes this change is encouraged to sign this petition.

[Galiantus III]

Since making general arguments against the Frontier/Stronghold proposal is apparently acceptable here...

Stakes. Real stakes. That is why this kind of change is needed.

When NS first started up, there was only one region - the Pacific. Shortly thereafter, players were allowed to create their own regions - just with no founder controls. So people were used to having real stakes in the game. If a region was taken, it was permanent. This was obviously a very short period of time in NS history, but in the following years the fact that so many regions had this foundation meant there were still real stakes.

Fast-forward to today, and now with few exceptions the regions that mean anything are either enormous GCRs or insurmountable UCRs. Adding founders without any counter-balance has taken a toll, and we need something like this to breathe life into the game again.

The real reason so many major UCRs oppose this is because it will shake up the status quo. Of course the people sitting pretty at the top oppose anything that would introduce real competition! Why consider compelling gameplay when that would mean you might have real competition? And lest anyone doubt this: it should be obvious to anyone that the good of NS is Admin's best interest. The same cannot be said of the regions pompous enough to think their word matters more to admin than that of others.

P.S. And perhaps with this change, statements about foreign affairs might actually mean something.

[Unibot III]

I agree with Euro’s statement, they make many good points. I think the tech proposal is being pushed through with obvious objections because the Site Admin sees this as the way to sustainably energize the game, but it’s based off a number of key assumptions that could fall apart and they’re rejecting simpler ideas like new GCRs or war that could excite GP without fundamentally changing it in a way that might not accomplish any of the goals hoped to be achieved.

(Maybe someone should host a G20 summit on the proposal! No whore like an old whore here, hahaha)

[Tinhampton]

The EBC's recent article about the Presidential Election asserts that newly-elected President Lime's "main goal is to tackle the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold update."

Can we expect a significant change of tack from the Calvin Coolidge administration's hardline opposition to F/S - which ran so deep that it even convinced itself that the proposed reforms would "only remain on the table so long as they do remain well-received" - or is the Europeian political establishment overwhelmingly against the change in any event?

[Comfed]

The EBC's recent article about the Presidential Election asserts that newly-elected President Lime's "main goal is to tackle the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold update."

Can we expect a significant change of tack from the Calvin Coolidge administration's hardline opposition to F/S - which ran so deep that it even convinced itself that the proposed reforms would "only remain on the table so long as they do remain well-received" - or is the Europeian political establishment overwhelmingly against the change in any event?

It is possible to be both opposed to the change and acknowledge the need to adapt to it if it is inevitable.

[Sincluda]

The EBC's recent article about the Presidential Election asserts that newly-elected President Lime's "main goal is to tackle the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold update."

Can we expect a significant change of tack from the Calvin Coolidge administration's hardline opposition to F/S - which ran so deep that it even convinced itself that the proposed reforms would "only remain on the table so long as they do remain well-received" - or is the Europeian political establishment overwhelmingly against the change in any event?

As it appears to me, the plan seems to primarily be preparing to adapt to the update, while still being opposed to it. Basically, “it sucks, but we need to be ready.”

[Europeian Embassy]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact Information (Discord): Lime#7630

(Europeia, 9/23/2021) - Lime has been elected as president of Europeia, with SkyGreen24 as his vice president, after a heated election with the final result decided upon by the Europeian Senate on September 20, 2021. No candidate achieved more than 50% of the vote in the initial election, forcing a runoff which was tied between Lime and the opposing ticket, Lloenflys. The final decision was then made by the Senate with a narrow vote of 3-2, for Lime. This will be Lime's first term as president of Europeia, and his main goal is to tackle the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold update.

In his opening address President Lime stated, "[N]o matter what you have done, what mistakes you may have made, and no matter where you are in your career, Europeia will always offer you the chance to succeed."

Following the election, the Europeian Senate has confirmed Lime's nominations for Cabinet. The confirmed Cabinet is:

Peeps, minister of transition;
Kazaman, minister of foreign affairs;
Vlaska, grand admiral;
Calvin Coolidge, minister of interior;
Seva, minister of communications;
Greater Cesnica, minister of world assembly affairs;
Xecrio, minister of radio;
Baobab, minister of culture; and
Sopo, attorney general.

The next election to be held in Europeia will be the general election for the Senate due to be held on October 22, 2021.

[The Python]

Congratulations to Lime and the rest of the cabinet!

[Lord Dominator]

Congrats

[Wentshire]

Congratulations to the new President and their Cabinet!

[Amerion]

Personal capacity ~

A hearty congratulations!