Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Kedri]

Is a confederation sustainable in the long term?

Kedri is has a history of pirate rule, and is emerging from its days stuck in the Gold Age of Piracy, and the new government wants to move away from piracy and modernize the country. So far, the system I have in place is very similar to America under the Articles of Confederation, except Kedri has a Westminster-style parliamentary system with very weak powers at the national level.

The main reason for confederation is Kedrians want to retain parts of their pirate heritage and value direct democracy, and emphasize the local level of government as being the most important.

However, I imagine some Kedrians moving towards a federal system to promote a greater unity in order to survive in the world.

[Crookfur]

Hello,

Could someone take a look at my factbook on vampires and give me suggestions on their biology and how it affects them? Such as metabolism and so on.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... id=1097937

It's an interesting approach to realistic vampires as people and as such the ability to "turn" normal humans just really doesn't seem to fit or appear even vaguely feasible.
Perhaps the "venom" is simply a more concentrated form of the saliva with more potent effects to the point that being bitten becomes out right addictive to the victim?
Maybe as a result it makes it relatively easy to create limited numbers of wholly devoted thralls. Furthermore it might sound more plausible that the withdrawal symptoms can be countered to a degree by the injection of raw blood so you could create more "vampires" without having folks change species entirely.

You might want to address interspecies sexual compatibility: are the vampires close enough to man that a mating can produce viable fertile offspring (as is suspected to be the case between us and the neanderthals) or would the offspring be infertile (think ass/mule)?

[The Islands of Versilia]

Hello,

Could someone take a look at my factbook on vampires and give me suggestions on their biology and how it affects them? Such as metabolism and so on.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... id=1097937

It's an interesting approach to realistic vampires as people and as such the ability to "turn" normal humans just really doesn't seem to fit or appear even vaguely feasible.
Perhaps the "venom" is simply a more concentrated form of the saliva with more potent effects to the point that being bitten becomes out right addictive to the victim?
Maybe as a result it makes it relatively easy to create limited numbers of wholly devoted thralls. Furthermore it might sound more plausible that the withdrawal symptoms can be countered to a degree by the injection of raw blood so you could create more "vampires" without having folks change species entirely.

You might want to address interspecies sexual compatibility: are the vampires close enough to man that a mating can produce viable fertile offspring (as is suspected to be the case between us and the neanderthals) or would the offspring be infertile (think ass/mule)?

I see. Thank you so much.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Is a confederation sustainable in the long term?

depends if canada survives to 2100

[The Macabees]

Is a confederation sustainable in the long term?

Paraphrasing, I believe, Edward Gibbon, "We shouldn't ask why Rome fell, we should ask why it lasted so long."

No government is sustainable over the long-run.

The source of this instability, the weaknesses, the caveats, is what makes it interesting to study and RP. Embrace the imperfections.

[Ainin]

Is a confederation sustainable in the long term?

depends if canada survives to 2100

Canada isn't a confederation. "Canadian Confederation" is the name of the event by which the Maritime colonies were fused with the United Canadas into a single state. The Canadian federal government is far too strong and the provinces have no sovereignty, so it's just a federation.

[Kazarogkai]

Is a confederation sustainable in the long term?

Well the icelandic commonwealth lasted for nearly 300 years before the Age of Sturlung(long civil war) caused it's collapsed. Heck that's longer then the us so there is that. You might want to look them up it was a pretty interesting society when it came down to it with the ideas behind it being something you might be interested in.

[Tule]

Is a confederation sustainable in the long term?

Well the icelandic commonwealth lasted for nearly 300 years before the Age of Sturlung(long civil war) caused it's collapsed. Heck that's longer then the us so there is that. You might want to look them up it was a pretty interesting society when it came down to it with the ideas behind it being something you might be interested in.

I would be careful looking at the Icelandic Commonwealth through a modern lense.

The chiefdoms that the commonwealth was composed of were private property. They could be bought and sold and they were. They were then conglomerated until the country turned into a violent Oligarchy. Eventually the country was sold out to Norway.

It's an inherently unstable system, it was doomed from the start.

[Kazarogkai]

Well the icelandic commonwealth lasted for nearly 300 years before the Age of Sturlung(long civil war) caused it's collapsed. Heck that's longer then the us so there is that. You might want to look them up it was a pretty interesting society when it came down to it with the ideas behind it being something you might be interested in.

I would be careful looking at the Icelandic Commonwealth through a modern lense.

The chiefdoms that the commonwealth was composed of were private property. They could be bought and sold and they were. They were then conglomerated until the country turned into a violent Oligarchy. Eventually the country was sold out to Norway.

It's an inherently unstable system, it was doomed from the start.

ohh I know, still had some pretty cool ideas though especially if one is going for an anarcho-capitalist(yea I know that's a contradiction but shut it) society it's a semi useful blueprint for how to potentially make one. Plus the fact that it lasted 300 odd years prior to the age of Sturlungs, aforementioned civil war/conglomeration, compared to the United States of america which has lasted less than 250 years, doesn't seem that horrible of a track record.

Still it's kinda known from the get go that Rapidly libertarian societies are inherently unstable and ultimately suffer from issues related towards external and internal power plays being that they are in effect a giant power vacuum waiting to be filled. Nonetheless the Icelandic commonwealth was in comparison to say Revolutionary Catalonia a much longer lasting and established society hence is probably the best template to start from since it was arguably the most successful by that standard.

Me and a few other guys actually spoke on this on another thread where we talked about this society and potentially ways it could have been maybe improved so that's cool. If your wondering one of are main ideas related towards making the place a bit more sustainable relates towards the issue of the chieftainships namely their finite nature which ultimately allowed them to be consolidated. A good way to prevent that maybe would be by allowing an infinite number of chiefs not constrained by geography like they were in OTL. The way this would work is basically any freeman with a reasonable knowledge of the law would be allowed to claim himself as a chief though just like before he lacked any sort of power until he was able to gain followers who would allow him to represent them in court. By getting rid of the geographical divisions this would allow said chiefs to compete nationwide for followers and thereby keep competition up and consolidation down. Said chieftainship would unlike in OTL die with the individual in question and would not be trade able as private property consequently this would again prevent consolidation just like before ultimately keeping any sort of big man type figure from rising like they did in OTL.

Of course eventually it's gonna come to an end, we acknowledged that, since as mentioned before even if this system is made fool proof against internal power grabs it's still very venerable to external power grabs which will eventually happen. Someones gonna wanna conquer them. But at the very least it could maybe be put off for a while, maybe till the discovery of the new world when large scale sea travel became more normalized?

Just to add a bit the Icelandic commonwealths chieftain system was heavily in part an inspiration for the creation of my own nation's legal system actually and in part my own personal fantasy system that I envisioned. That and Somali Xeer. I mentioned it on another thread but it has some relevance here so here you go:

The Tribunes

For the second body the goal is from the onset the creation of a body whose task will be ensuring minority rights and with that their interests are protected from attempts by the majority of stripping them away. By that nature it will not be a body which is meant to be beholden to democratic and especially partisan influences in general for said interests are already ensured by the former body more than adequately. Hence appointment and elections are out as a methodology. Instead the system I propose and the one that is the topic of this thread is Sortition. Specifically Sortition from eligible members of the Judiciary. So with that In mind let me continue by elaborating on this along with the structure of the system in question.

So one might ask what will be the nature of this body? Well as mentioned before this would broadly speaking have the powers known by Montesquieu as those subscribed to a Judiciary that being the power to interpret the laws of the nation. The actual structure will overall be rather similar to the former body albeit designed to be in a sense a more hierarchical with those above having greater and greater powers depending on the levels they are on. With that the system itself will be comprised of various levels of what will be termed tribunes the most organized into a pyramid. At the bottom are the Municipal Tribunes which will function as courts of first instance, simultaneously at the top will be what will be known as the National Tribunes will function as courts of last resort, the remainder in the center(local,state,regional,etc) will function as the courts of appeal for Tribunes immediately preceding them. Said tribunes will be further divided up based on the different forms/aspects of law that they focus on these will be but will not be limited to: Constitutional, Criminal, Civil, Family, Commerce, and Military law.

With the exception of the Constitutional Tribunes which will be "fixed" tribunes are not technically permanent standing bodies but only formed and whose members only serve on a semi-as needed basis. The members who comprise these bodies are derived from pools encompassing the areas mentioned(municipal,local,state,regional,national) from what are known as Archons and Jurists. These two types of individuals are similar but different at the same time with Archons being Scholars of Law in general and Jurists being Scholars of more humanistic pursuits like say liberal arts and philosophy and to a degree an advocate. On a Tribune they will have slightly different functions depending on what stage of a trial the Tribune is in. Within the inquisitive stage the Archons will be the voting members with the Jurist functioning in an advisory role in a as needed basis. In contrasts at the sentencing stage they will actually become voting members with the ultimate idea being they are there so that not only the rule of law is preserved but the spirit is too.

The actual numbers of members of a Tribune will vary mind you depending on the level of Tribune, lower Tribunes have smaller numbers than higher Tribunes. For example Municipal Tribunes may be comprised of 12 members while National Tribunes will be composed of say 60 members. To compose these Tribunes said Archons and Jurists will be chosen from the aforementioned pools based on what level the case is currently in via sortition from all eligible members. They will serve until the completion of said Tribunes tenure, the length of the trial/case. The exception to this rule are the aforementioned Constitutional Tribunes whose members are again chosen by sortition but who serve a single fixed term of about 1-3 years only being eligible to return to that specific body after all other eligible have had a chance.

The qualifications to become a Archon or a Jurist are simple. In the case of both one must have a doctorate in the respective fields applying to what ever they are pursing. In the case of Jurist it has to be a degree pertaining to philosophy or liberal arts or some other degree focused on the humanities. For Archons they need a degree in Law. Now onto where things differ. In the case of the Archons they simply need to declare themselves upon completing of their degrees a legal scholar and upon doing so will be registered on the Municipal pool of Archons where they live in by their fellow Archons. In the case of Jurists they need something a bit different. Upon completing their degree they can if they wish declare themselves a legal scholar also but said position has no particular power on it's own until they gain what are known as followers. In a similar manner to the goðar of the Icelandic Commonwealth the Jurist must gain followers who agree to be represented by them within the tribune whenever they are involved in such matters.

Mind you something to make mention of before I go on I made mention that Jurists sit on the Tribunes as somewhat of equals to the Archons and are called on an as needed basis. The way that works is as such. When a trial begins in it's inquisitive stage from the get go their is automatically going to be atleast 1 Jurist that being the Jurist representing the aggrieved party(assuming there is one). When a suspect is found during the inquisitive stage the Jurist representing them will soon after join the tribune for as long as the person remains as such unless they become regarded as the potential guilty at which point they will be a permanent fixture just like the last Jurist. Any additional Jurist, known as neutrals, can be called upon to serve on the tribune their quantity being at the minimum required to be equal to half the number of current sitting Archons on the Tribune not counting the first two. They are for the most part chosen on a voluntary basis with confirmation being affirmed by the sitting members of the Tribune. If not enough volunteers can be solicited though then sortition can be used to gain more.

Now with that finished how exactly will this system play out and work? To put it in simple terms lets say you are the aggrieved party and want Justice so what do you do? You find a local Archon and you must get them to a agree to hear your case. If said Archon thinks said case has merit they will give their signature of approval. If not then you needed worry, you simply have to find another. A preliminary Tribune can only be formed once you have gained enough Archons to fill the necessary Tribune. So in the case of a Municipal Tribune(court of first instance) you need say 12 Archons. These Archons will then deliberate on whether the Case is of merit and worthy to be seen before a proper Tribune, not on who is guilty or not. If they say yes then they can make their way to the local court house whereby they can initiate a Selection Ceremony. This Selection Ceremony will be where the Sortition is made in the first place with all Archons present in the Municipal Pool, who are not currently serving in a tribune, having their names dropped in the proverbial hat. Upon the completion of this letters of action will be sent to each of the 12 Archons whose names where chosen and they will appear at the court house as soon as possible. In order to prevent Corruption and to protect them from retaliation said Archons names will not be known with their identities concealed.

The same will be true of the neutral Jurists. The trial will henceforth commence in a manner resembling the current one until the Tribune decides to make a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or not proven. In the case of a guilty verdict the Prosecuted may appeal to a higher Tribune, in the case of not guilty the Prosecutor may appeal to a higher Tribune, in the case of a verdict of not proven then they both may appeal for a retrial. If the verdict of guilty is made though the Tribune will adjourn until a certain deadline has been passed for appeals unless it was by a National Tribune at which point appeals are not possible. Regardless the Tribune in question will re adjourn and come together in what will be termed a sentencing Tribune where justice will be meted out. The Jurists, whose numbers will not exceed those of the Archons, will be allowed to vote at this point and the overall goal is consensus to bring everyone to a reasonable sentence that satisfies all parties.

It's a bit jumbled but it's my first major attempt to put my ideas in such a regard down on paper so to speak. Your thoughts?

[Kedri]

I would be careful looking at the Icelandic Commonwealth through a modern lense.

The chiefdoms that the commonwealth was composed of were private property. They could be bought and sold and they were. They were then conglomerated until the country turned into a violent Oligarchy. Eventually the country was sold out to Norway.

It's an inherently unstable system, it was doomed from the start.

ohh I know, still had some pretty cool ideas though especially if one is going for an anarcho-capitalist(yea I know that's a contradiction but shut it) society it's a semi useful blueprint for how to potentially make one. Plus the fact that it lasted 300 odd years prior to the age of Sturlungs, aforementioned civil war/conglomeration, compared to the United States of america which has lasted less than 250 years, doesn't seem that horrible of a track record.

Still it's kinda known from the get go that Rapidly libertarian societies are inherently unstable and ultimately suffer from issues related towards external and internal power plays being that they are in effect a giant power vacuum waiting to be filled. Nonetheless the Icelandic commonwealth was in comparison to say Revolutionary Catalonia a much longer lasting and established society hence is probably the best template to start from since it was arguably the most successful by that standard.

Me and a few other guys actually spoke on this on another thread where we talked about this society and potentially ways it could have been maybe improved so that's cool. If your wondering one of are main ideas related towards making the place a bit more sustainable relates towards the issue of the chieftainships namely their finite nature which ultimately allowed them to be consolidated. A good way to prevent that maybe would be by allowing an infinite number of chiefs not constrained by geography like they were in OTL. The way this would work is basically any freeman with a reasonable knowledge of the law would be allowed to claim himself as a chief though just like before he lacked any sort of power until he was able to gain followers who would allow him to represent them in court. By getting rid of the geographical divisions this would allow said chiefs to compete nationwide for followers and thereby keep competition up and consolidation down. Said chieftainship would unlike in OTL die with the individual in question and would not be trade able as private property consequently this would again prevent consolidation just like before ultimately keeping any sort of big man type figure from rising like they did in OTL.

Of course eventually it's gonna come to an end, we acknowledged that, since as mentioned before even if this system is made fool proof against internal power grabs it's still very venerable to external power grabs which will eventually happen. Someones gonna wanna conquer them. But at the very least it could maybe be put off for a while, maybe till the discovery of the new world when large scale sea travel became more normalized?

Just to add a bit the Icelandic commonwealths chieftain system was heavily in part an inspiration for the creation of my own nation's legal system actually and in part my own personal fantasy system that I envisioned. That and Somali Xeer. I mentioned it on another thread but it has some relevance here so here you go:

The Tribunes

For the second body the goal is from the onset the creation of a body whose task will be ensuring minority rights and with that their interests are protected from attempts by the majority of stripping them away. By that nature it will not be a body which is meant to be beholden to democratic and especially partisan influences in general for said interests are already ensured by the former body more than adequately. Hence appointment and elections are out as a methodology. Instead the system I propose and the one that is the topic of this thread is Sortition. Specifically Sortition from eligible members of the Judiciary. So with that In mind let me continue by elaborating on this along with the structure of the system in question.

So one might ask what will be the nature of this body? Well as mentioned before this would broadly speaking have the powers known by Montesquieu as those subscribed to a Judiciary that being the power to interpret the laws of the nation. The actual structure will overall be rather similar to the former body albeit designed to be in a sense a more hierarchical with those above having greater and greater powers depending on the levels they are on. With that the system itself will be comprised of various levels of what will be termed tribunes the most organized into a pyramid. At the bottom are the Municipal Tribunes which will function as courts of first instance, simultaneously at the top will be what will be known as the National Tribunes will function as courts of last resort, the remainder in the center(local,state,regional,etc) will function as the courts of appeal for Tribunes immediately preceding them. Said tribunes will be further divided up based on the different forms/aspects of law that they focus on these will be but will not be limited to: Constitutional, Criminal, Civil, Family, Commerce, and Military law.

With the exception of the Constitutional Tribunes which will be "fixed" tribunes are not technically permanent standing bodies but only formed and whose members only serve on a semi-as needed basis. The members who comprise these bodies are derived from pools encompassing the areas mentioned(municipal,local,state,regional,national) from what are known as Archons and Jurists. These two types of individuals are similar but different at the same time with Archons being Scholars of Law in general and Jurists being Scholars of more humanistic pursuits like say liberal arts and philosophy and to a degree an advocate. On a Tribune they will have slightly different functions depending on what stage of a trial the Tribune is in. Within the inquisitive stage the Archons will be the voting members with the Jurist functioning in an advisory role in a as needed basis. In contrasts at the sentencing stage they will actually become voting members with the ultimate idea being they are there so that not only the rule of law is preserved but the spirit is too.

The actual numbers of members of a Tribune will vary mind you depending on the level of Tribune, lower Tribunes have smaller numbers than higher Tribunes. For example Municipal Tribunes may be comprised of 12 members while National Tribunes will be composed of say 60 members. To compose these Tribunes said Archons and Jurists will be chosen from the aforementioned pools based on what level the case is currently in via sortition from all eligible members. They will serve until the completion of said Tribunes tenure, the length of the trial/case. The exception to this rule are the aforementioned Constitutional Tribunes whose members are again chosen by sortition but who serve a single fixed term of about 1-3 years only being eligible to return to that specific body after all other eligible have had a chance.

The qualifications to become a Archon or a Jurist are simple. In the case of both one must have a doctorate in the respective fields applying to what ever they are pursing. In the case of Jurist it has to be a degree pertaining to philosophy or liberal arts or some other degree focused on the humanities. For Archons they need a degree in Law. Now onto where things differ. In the case of the Archons they simply need to declare themselves upon completing of their degrees a legal scholar and upon doing so will be registered on the Municipal pool of Archons where they live in by their fellow Archons. In the case of Jurists they need something a bit different. Upon completing their degree they can if they wish declare themselves a legal scholar also but said position has no particular power on it's own until they gain what are known as followers. In a similar manner to the goðar of the Icelandic Commonwealth the Jurist must gain followers who agree to be represented by them within the tribune whenever they are involved in such matters.

Mind you something to make mention of before I go on I made mention that Jurists sit on the Tribunes as somewhat of equals to the Archons and are called on an as needed basis. The way that works is as such. When a trial begins in it's inquisitive stage from the get go their is automatically going to be atleast 1 Jurist that being the Jurist representing the aggrieved party(assuming there is one). When a suspect is found during the inquisitive stage the Jurist representing them will soon after join the tribune for as long as the person remains as such unless they become regarded as the potential guilty at which point they will be a permanent fixture just like the last Jurist. Any additional Jurist, known as neutrals, can be called upon to serve on the tribune their quantity being at the minimum required to be equal to half the number of current sitting Archons on the Tribune not counting the first two. They are for the most part chosen on a voluntary basis with confirmation being affirmed by the sitting members of the Tribune. If not enough volunteers can be solicited though then sortition can be used to gain more.

Now with that finished how exactly will this system play out and work? To put it in simple terms lets say you are the aggrieved party and want Justice so what do you do? You find a local Archon and you must get them to a agree to hear your case. If said Archon thinks said case has merit they will give their signature of approval. If not then you needed worry, you simply have to find another. A preliminary Tribune can only be formed once you have gained enough Archons to fill the necessary Tribune. So in the case of a Municipal Tribune(court of first instance) you need say 12 Archons. These Archons will then deliberate on whether the Case is of merit and worthy to be seen before a proper Tribune, not on who is guilty or not. If they say yes then they can make their way to the local court house whereby they can initiate a Selection Ceremony. This Selection Ceremony will be where the Sortition is made in the first place with all Archons present in the Municipal Pool, who are not currently serving in a tribune, having their names dropped in the proverbial hat. Upon the completion of this letters of action will be sent to each of the 12 Archons whose names where chosen and they will appear at the court house as soon as possible. In order to prevent Corruption and to protect them from retaliation said Archons names will not be known with their identities concealed.

The same will be true of the neutral Jurists. The trial will henceforth commence in a manner resembling the current one until the Tribune decides to make a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or not proven. In the case of a guilty verdict the Prosecuted may appeal to a higher Tribune, in the case of not guilty the Prosecutor may appeal to a higher Tribune, in the case of a verdict of not proven then they both may appeal for a retrial. If the verdict of guilty is made though the Tribune will adjourn until a certain deadline has been passed for appeals unless it was by a National Tribune at which point appeals are not possible. Regardless the Tribune in question will re adjourn and come together in what will be termed a sentencing Tribune where justice will be meted out. The Jurists, whose numbers will not exceed those of the Archons, will be allowed to vote at this point and the overall goal is consensus to bring everyone to a reasonable sentence that satisfies all parties.

It's a bit jumbled but it's my first major attempt to put my ideas in such a regard down on paper so to speak. Your thoughts?

I based Kedri’s system on an even more decentralized version of Switzerland, though I already knew about the Icelandic Commonwealth. I could see Kedri having a similar system, but with captains instead of chieftains given the Pirate heritage of Kedri.

The National Council, the closest thing Kedri has to a national government, is based on the Icelandic Commonwealth’s parliament, but the members are chosen democratically.

But since Kedri has a power vaccuum, I have been toying with the idea of a fascist or Communist takeover.

[Prosorusiya]

Any thoughts on a more modern police vehicle for my nation? I have always had trouble rectifying what kind of vehicles I should favor for the average patrol anyhow. The problem mainly lies in the fact that much of my nation is rural, but then there are a few fairly major cities, and these two environment tend to demand different vehicles. Currently we assign UAZ-469s to the more rural precincts and the Lada 2101 to urban precincts.

But as I've been looking into it, it seems nowadays that many police departments are using SUVs as patrol vehicles, and indeed even interceptors! What are peoples thoughts on this? From what I have read in someways these vehicles lose out in not having body-on-frame construction which makes repair easier, and are slower compared to older vehicles (though not in the case of the Lada and 469, I'd reckon!). I have also heard that four wheel drive vehicles are often not drivable after a ramming maneuver? On the upside these new SUV's are a lot more advanced than older police vehicles, better for the environment, and safer. Is the trade off worth it? With a faster SUV I might actually be able to standardize on a single patrol vehicle too, since it could handle urban and rural environments...

[Normund]

Is a unicameral legislature a good idea? Would it work with a presidential system, where the president is both head of state and government?
What are the pros and cons of unicameralism vs bicameralism?

[The Akasha Colony]

Is a unicameral legislature a good idea?

It is neither a good idea nor a bad idea. It is simply one alternative among many. Whether it is "good" or "bad" depends on the aims it is meant to achieve.

Would it work with a presidential system, where the president is both head of state and government?

Why wouldn't it? The number of chambers in the legislature has no effect on the overall division of powers between the executive and the legislature. It only affects the division of power within the legislature itself.

What are the pros and cons of unicameralism vs bicameralism?

The primary benefit of a unicameral legislature is that lawmaking becomes much faster as there is no possibility of deadlock between two chambers. In a parliamentary system this is even more pronounced because the possibility of deadlock between the legislature and the executive is also eliminated.

This is also the primary drawback: minority groups basically get shafted by the majority party because they have no ability to slow down or deadlock legislation in other chambers or by controlling the executive.

[Kedri]

How likely would a tropical archipelago escape colonization, especially by European powers?

Kedri is such a country, though I originally had the canon be that it was colonized by the British but the pirates drove them out. Now, it’s just that Europeans attempted to colonize Kedri and failed.

[Great Nortend]

Having nothing there of value or worth would be possible. I think that's why there are some islands off India or near there that have never been colonised.

I'm going to re-post this, because no one replied and I still want some help.

I am trying to figure out a nice government system based on hereditary positions and old European courts. I've got these eight Houses of Lords 'great officers of state', as well as a few Houses of Commons ministers. All are cabinet level positions, and I would like to consult with the people on this thread as to whether these ministerial positions are realistic for a functioning country. Boards in Great Nortend don't have 'Presidents' but instead Chairmen or Masters, probably since 'President' sounds a bit republican and 19th century Nortan governments were at pains to prevent any republican thinking. Cabinet-level boards have masters whereas other boards have chairman.

Lord High Steuard: The speaker of the House of Lords and the senior-most judge under the King, deputising for the King in the Court of the King-in-Council, as well as presiding in impeachment cases in the Court of the Noble Lords. Held by The Earl of Barminster*
Lord High Chancellour: The deputy speaker of the House of Lords and head of the Court of Chancellery and the Court of the Noble Lords. Administratour of church lands and funds and Keeper of the Great Seal of the Realm, and responsible for administrating the courts. Held by the Bishops of Chepingstow, who appoints a Vicar-General to manage his ecclesiastical and religious duties.
Lord High Chamberlain: The head of the Royal Household, and in charge of the Royal palaces and castles, as well as organising ceremonial occasions such as state visits and weddings, and also serves as the King's representative in the House of Lords. Also serves as the Chief Justice of the Court of the Ermine Office. Held by The Earl of Godsucham*
Lord High Treasurer: The controller and official head of the King's Treasury and Exchequer, and Prime Minister of the Government. Held by The Duke of Limmes.
Lord High Admiral: Political and professional head of the Navy Royal. Held by The Duke of Derham
Lord High Constable and the King's Marischal: Originally the commander of the royal armies. Nowadays, the Chief Justice of the King's Marischal and Constable's Court, and Field Marshal of the Royal Army. Held by The Marquess of Lasmere*
Lord Master of the Horse: Responsible for the running of the Royal Mews, hound kennels, stud farm, coaches, carriages and all other equine matters. His remit has expanded into the realm of trade and transport infrastructure in general, and is also ex officio the Lord Master of Trade. Held by The Baron de Stanfield. He appoints a deputy, the Gentleman of the Horse, to manage the day-to-day running of the Royal Mews.

Chancellour of the Exchequer: Deputy to the Lord High Treasurer, he is in charge of the Exchequer, that is, of collecting taxation, duties and levies, raising revenue for the Treasury. Nowadays, he also controls the fiscal policy of the Government. Held by the Rt. Hon. Peter Hofton.
King's Clerk: Minister in charge of home affairs, policing, national security, fire brigades, the constabularies and other domestic matters. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Aaron Billings.
Attorney General: Chief law advisor to the Crown, and also has control over most prosecutions by the Crown. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Finch.
Foreign Secretary: Minister in charge of foreign affairs and foreign diplomacy. Held by the Rt. Hon. George Drachington.
Secretary at War: Minister in charge of the administration and organisation of the Royal Army. Held by the Rt. Hon. Frederic Hondel.
Postmaster General: Minister in charge of the running of the General Post Office. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Lachlan James.
Master of the Board of Education: Responsible for schools, universities, educational standards and colleges. Held by the Rt. Hon. Dr Thomas Wolfuller.
Lord Master of the Board of Farming: Responsible for management of agricultural practice, enclosure and surveys parishes by productivity. Held by the Rt. Hon. The Lord Baker.
Master of the Board of Railways: Responsible for the railways, and Second Lord of Trade. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir William Gouldon.
Master of the Board of Health: Responsible for health services, hospitals, nursing and social care. Held by the Rt. Hon. James Kinson.
Surveyour General of Forests and Woods: Responsible for the administration of Crown land and the Royal Forests. Held by the Rt. Hon. Jonathan Hall.

These are the respective departments/ministries. Have I missed anything crucial?

• His Majesty’s Treasury: Lord High Treasurer (the Prime Minister)
• His Majesty’s Exchequer: Chancellour of the Exchequer
• The Clerk’s Department: The King’s Clerk
• The Foreign Department (Office): Secretary of State for Foreign and Welch Affairs
• The Attorney General’s Office: His Majesty’s Attorney General
• The Lord Chancellour’s Office: Lord High Chancellour
• The Lord Chamberlain’s Office: Lord High Chamberlain
• The Admiralty: Lord High Admiral
• The War Office: Secretary of State at War
• The General Post Office: His Majesty’s Postmaster General
• The Cabinet Office: Minister for the Cabinet Office
• Board of Trade: Lord Master of the Horse
• Board of Agriculture: Lord Master of the Board of Agriculture
• Board of Education: Master of the Board of Education
• Board of Railways: Master of the Board of Railwats
• Board of Health: Master of the Board of Health
• The Surveyour General’s Office: His Majesty’s Surveyour General of Forests and Woods

[The Akasha Colony]

How likely would a tropical archipelago escape colonization, especially by European powers?

Unlikely. Though not entirely impossible, depending on the level of "colonization" you are referring to.

Tonga never surrendered its sovereignty to a foreign power unlike practically every other island group in the Pacific, although it did accept protected nation status from the British.

Kedri is such a country, though I originally had the canon be that it was colonized by the British but the pirates drove them out. Now, it’s just that Europeans attempted to colonize Kedri and failed.

The primary problem is the rivalry between European powers which encouraged them to take even fairly worthless territories so long as it meant their rivals could not seize them. This is especially acute for those nations late to the colonization game, like Germany, the US, and even Japan, all of which had to squabble over only a handful of remaining unclaimed territories but were absolutely determined to take whatever they could find as all of the profitable colonies had already been claimed.

Which means that I suspect the only real chance of remaining "independent" is by becoming affiliated without surrendering sovereignty like Tonga, which I doubt is what you're after. Otherwise you end up like Hawaii.

[Minoa]

Minoa is reviewing how it joined the UN:

In September 2024, Minoa applies to join the UN. It is, or will be, recognised by all but one UN member.

The only UN member not to recognise this new country is the UK, who has veto power. The UK opposes Minoa’s accession because the founder defected from the UK as a result of some huge scandal (e.g. Brexit, Grenfell Tower or Windrush). I'd suspect that their international standing would be severely tarnished by the Brexit.

As expected, the UK vetoes Minoa’s application. If I recall correctly, there cannot be a veto from any of the five permanent members for a nation to join the UN.

Now here is the bit I am reviewing: the current idea is a consortium of nations led by France and Russia tables a GA resolution to have Minoa replace the UK, in the same way as Mainland China replaced Taiwan back in 1970. The resolution gets two-thirds majority in the GA, albeit only just, largely because Minoa and the UK are totally unrelated.

The question here is whether this scenario will hold up properly.

[Kyneland]

Questions:
I. How possible is it for heathenry or paganism to continue existing after the Christianisation of Scandinavia, particularly on an island like my nation?
II. What loopholes in international law could be used to continue repressing Christians/Muslims/Jews and continuing animal sacrifice?
III. What reasoning could I use for Kyneland’s heathen culture persisting?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Questions:
I. How possible is it for heathenry or paganism to continue existing after the Christianisation of Scandinavia, particularly on an island like my nation?
II. What loopholes in international law could be used to continue repressing Christians/Muslims/Jews and continuing animal sacrifice?
III. What reasoning could I use for Kyneland’s heathen culture persisting?

The answer to all of this is a big army (failing that an atom bomb). A heathen polity can defend itself against outside incursion it can maintain its culture. If it isn't then "international law" will change to eliminate you.

[Bears Armed]

Minoa is reviewing how it joined the UN:

In September 2024, Minoa applies to join the UN. It is, or will be, recognised by all but one UN member.

The only UN member not to recognise this new country is the UK, who has veto power. The UK opposes Minoa’s accession because the founder defected from the UK as a result of some huge scandal (e.g. Brexit, Grenfell Tower or Windrush). I'd suspect that their international standing would be severely tarnished by the Brexit.

As expected, the UK vetoes Minoa’s application. If I recall correctly, there cannot be a veto from any of the five permanent members for a nation to join the UN.

Now here is the bit I am reviewing: the current idea is a consortium of nations led by France and Russia tables a GA resolution to have Minoa replace the UK, in the same way as Mainland China replaced Taiwan back in 1970. The resolution gets two-thirds majority in the GA, albeit only just, largely because Minoa and the UK are totally unrelated.

The question here is whether this scenario will hold up properly.

Do you really see the UK trying to veto a nation's UN membership because one of that nation's current leaders is a "failed" UK politician? Seriously? Maybe if they'd tried to stage a coup here, or actively worked for the enemy in wartime, but I think probably not for anything less than that.
And if Minoa was only "founded" recently enough for one of those listed incidents to have been involved in the founder's career, how could it possibly be powerful/important enough to be seen as a suitable replacement for the UK among the SC's 'permanent' members?

[The Akasha Colony]

Minoa is reviewing how it joined the UN:

In September 2024, Minoa applies to join the UN. It is, or will be, recognised by all but one UN member.

The only UN member not to recognise this new country is the UK, who has veto power. The UK opposes Minoa’s accession because the founder defected from the UK as a result of some huge scandal (e.g. Brexit, Grenfell Tower or Windrush). I'd suspect that their international standing would be severely tarnished by the Brexit.

As expected, the UK vetoes Minoa’s application. If I recall correctly, there cannot be a veto from any of the five permanent members for a nation to join the UN.

Now here is the bit I am reviewing: the current idea is a consortium of nations led by France and Russia tables a GA resolution to have Minoa replace the UK, in the same way as Mainland China replaced Taiwan back in 1970. The resolution gets two-thirds majority in the GA, albeit only just, largely because Minoa and the UK are totally unrelated.

The question here is whether this scenario will hold up properly.

It sounds rather absurd, to say the least.

I have no knowledge on the background of your nation but it seems extremely unlikely that the UK would bother vetoing a country's UN membership because one of its leaders was involved in some kind of nebulous scandal. Brexit would be ancient history by 2024, given the way international relations works. Not like it's going to seriously hurt the UK's relations anyway. Whether the UK is legally a part of the EU, it is still a close trading partner of Europe and has far stronger relations with it than some random nation that arises out of the blue.

On top of that, I have no idea why France and Russia would have any interest in replacing the UK, a nation with which they have had many decades of relations (and which is a strong geopolitical ally of France) with some random nation that seems to have just been founded out of nowhere. Russia might not have the best relations with the UK but it would be extremely aware that should such a process be used successfully against the UK, Russia itself could soon find itself the subject of such a coup given that it has no shortage of enemies.

Lastly, and perhaps the most absurd part is that I have no idea why anyone would think of replacing the UK's membership with some other unrelated state's delegation. It doesn't make any sense. The PRC replaced the ROC because that seat was reserved for "China." When the UN was founded in 1945, the ROC government controlled mainland China but by 1971, it was pretty clear that the PRC was in charge and that the ROC wasn't going to be able to retake the mainland anytime soon. So the seat was transferred to the "legitimate" Chinese government that controlled the vast majority of "China." Likewise, Russia inherited the USSR's seat in the UN as the single largest and most powerful of the USSR's successor states, which was a logical outcome.

[Bears Armed]

Questions:
I. How possible is it for heathenry or paganism to continue existing after the Christianisation of Scandinavia, particularly on an island like my nation?

Highly unlikely, unless you're only talking about a few bands of nomadic Sami up in the far north or something like that. If the nation was of any significant size or controlled anything worth having then, even if it could resist any Christian-run governments of the other Scandinavian nations, there would probably have been crusades from 'western' Christendom in general to impose Christianity (with a Christian upper class started by crusades' leaders), as was the case in RL for Prussia/Courland/Livonia/Estonia. (Lithuania did manage to avoid conquest, admittedly, but still found [eventually] converting voluntarily to be the safest course...).
Well, unless your gods are actually real IC, and intervene to prevent any Christian takeover, I suppose...

Iceland was converted, the Faeroes were converted, and any RL Scandinavian colonies further west than that (such as Greenland) were founded by settlers from lands that had already been converted.

[Minoa]

Minoa is reviewing how it joined the UN:

In September 2024, Minoa applies to join the UN. It is, or will be, recognised by all but one UN member.

The only UN member not to recognise this new country is the UK, who has veto power. The UK opposes Minoa’s accession because the founder defected from the UK as a result of some huge scandal (e.g. Brexit, Grenfell Tower or Windrush). I'd suspect that their international standing would be severely tarnished by the Brexit.

As expected, the UK vetoes Minoa’s application. If I recall correctly, there cannot be a veto from any of the five permanent members for a nation to join the UN.

Now here is the bit I am reviewing: the current idea is a consortium of nations led by France and Russia tables a GA resolution to have Minoa replace the UK, in the same way as Mainland China replaced Taiwan back in 1970. The resolution gets two-thirds majority in the GA, albeit only just, largely because Minoa and the UK are totally unrelated.

The question here is whether this scenario will hold up properly.

It sounds rather absurd, to say the least.

I have no knowledge on the background of your nation but it seems extremely unlikely that the UK would bother vetoing a country's UN membership because one of its leaders was involved in some kind of nebulous scandal. Brexit would be ancient history by 2024, given the way international relations works. Not like it's going to seriously hurt the UK's relations anyway. Whether the UK is legally a part of the EU, it is still a close trading partner of Europe and has far stronger relations with it than some random nation that arises out of the blue.

On top of that, I have no idea why France and Russia would have any interest in replacing the UK, a nation with which they have had many decades of relations (and which is a strong geopolitical ally of France) with some random nation that seems to have just been founded out of nowhere. Russia might not have the best relations with the UK but it would be extremely aware that should such a process be used successfully against the UK, Russia itself could soon find itself the subject of such a coup given that it has no shortage of enemies.

Lastly, and perhaps the most absurd part is that I have no idea why anyone would think of replacing the UK's membership with some other unrelated state's delegation. It doesn't make any sense. The PRC replaced the ROC because that seat was reserved for "China." When the UN was founded in 1945, the ROC government controlled mainland China but by 1971, it was pretty clear that the PRC was in charge and that the ROC wasn't going to be able to retake the mainland anytime soon. So the seat was transferred to the "legitimate" Chinese government that controlled the vast majority of "China." Likewise, Russia inherited the USSR's seat in the UN as the single largest and most powerful of the USSR's successor states, which was a logical outcome.

I think on balance, I will have to review how Minoa was founded (Greece, Macedonia, Western Turkey and Blagoevgrad) – there would have to be a strong anti-establishment movement for this to happen (although it is reasonable to expect that the formation of Minoa would happen in stages, such as referendums under international observations), but if I recall correctly, economic crises can be a motivation for revolutions of any kind. If I recall correctly, Erdogan has been messing up Turkey’s economy badly.

Regarding Britain’s hatred for Minoa, it seems that the founder, also to be rewritten also but remaining anti-Brexit, would have to do something big to attract the ire of the UK. Possible ideas could include running a large and successful divestment campaign that sends the UK economy into a spiral due to capital flight, but the challenge there would be how the founder can get the rest of the world to substitute the UK in terms of imports: in my opinion, it is possible: e.g. the financial sector could be taken over by Frankfurt or Paris, while a lot of countries produce various things like steel and clothes.

Anyhow, I am happy to redo everything. The development of Minoa had been terribly patchy up to now due to RL commitments.

[Great Aletia]

Is a confederation sustainable in the long term?

Kedri is has a history of pirate rule, and is emerging from its days stuck in the Gold Age of Piracy, and the new government wants to move away from piracy and modernize the country. So far, the system I have in place is very similar to America under the Articles of Confederation, except Kedri has a Westminster-style parliamentary system with very weak powers at the national level.

The main reason for confederation is Kedrians want to retain parts of their pirate heritage and value direct democracy, and emphasize the local level of government as being the most important.

However, I imagine some Kedrians moving towards a federal system to promote a greater unity in order to survive in the world.

I can't comment on whether or not it is sustainable, but it would be interesting to portray the periodic centralisation and decentralisation of a confederacy. Before my nation became an empire, it was a confederal republic. The central government started off relatively strong, but became weak over time. The state began to centralise under the presidency after an alien invasion, but the process was slow, and was incomplete when the republic was overthrown. The monarchy subsequently completed the process, establishing a strong central government.

[The Akasha Colony]

I think on balance, I will have to review how Minoa was founded (Greece, Macedonia, Western Turkey and Blagoevgrad) – there would have to be a strong anti-establishment movement for this to happen (although it is reasonable to expect that the formation of Minoa would happen in stages, such as referendums under international observations), but if I recall correctly, economic crises can be a motivation for revolutions of any kind. If I recall correctly, Erdogan has been messing up Turkey’s economy badly.

Economic factors can encourage changes in government and in weaker states can be a contributing factor to (attempts at) revolution but they do not suddenly cause an entire population to completely reform their national identity. Even in the throes of their debt crisis, the Greeks had no ambition to join with Turkey, Macedonia, or anyone else. In fact, the debt crisis may very well have strengthened the Greek identity as Greeks tried to stand against what they felt were unfair demands by German and other European creditors. Erdogan is almost certain not to face any sort of "revolution" for his poor management of the economy given that he has such a firm grip on the levers of power and Turkey is a relatively stable state. Just look at how much worse things are in Venezuela, yet the Maduro regime remains in power and Venezuelans have no sudden interest in resurrecting Gran Colombia.

Regarding Britain’s hatred for Minoa, it seems that the founder, also to be rewritten also but remaining anti-Brexit, would have to do something big to attract the ire of the UK. Possible ideas could include running a large and successful divestment campaign that sends the UK economy into a spiral due to capital flight, but the challenge there would be how the founder can get the rest of the world to substitute the UK in terms of imports: in my opinion, it is possible: e.g. the financial sector could be taken over by Frankfurt or Paris, while a lot of countries produce various things like steel and clothes.

Why would they want to replace the UK? The UK is a stable, well-known, trusted, and long-standing member of the international community. It enjoys cozy and firm relations with the entire Western alliance (including Western-allied Asian nations). Even post-Brexit, it will remain a major contributor to NATO and other Western-aligned security organizations. There is much more to the UK's integration into the global economy and brotherhood of nations than just "it has some banks and manufactures steel."

Brexit doesn't really change any of this except at the margins and only in the short to medium term. Businesses look out for their best interests and so long as the UK remains in their best interest, they have no reason to flee. You don't persuade the world to suddenly dump its fifth largest economy. The attempts at BDS against Israel have made no appreciable progress beyond the academic sector which has had virtually no effect on the Israeli economy as a whole.

How some random British guy manages to get Western Turkey (full of Muslim Turks) to unite with Greece (full of Orthodox Greeks), Macedonia (full of Orthodox Slavs), and part of Bulgaria (full of a different type of Orthodox Slavs) is also more than a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. Especially in the span of what appears to be just five years or so given the timeframe from "fucking up Brexit" to "founding a nation out of nowhere and trying to get it to replace the UK at the UN." I'm not sure if you've noticed but relations and historical ties between Greece, Turkey, and Macedonia have not been particularly close for... centuries.