Open Letter From the Mentor Team, Re: Security Council

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Really? All laws? Even the unjust ones we've seen in so many countries that discriminate against certain groups?

There is a quote I am rather fond of, it's "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".

The majority rules, and if Mall's proposal is allowed to pass, it's either because the majority approved it or the majority stayed silent and let the minority dictate to them via a vote that everyone is allowed to participate in. If you choose not to vote, that's all on you.

However, does this proposal make Mall a bad Forum Mod? Pfft, not anymore then Sedge's Coup of TSP.

That's not democracy, it's tyranny by majority.

No, that is democracy. It is a direct democracy though, which is why direct democracies like in Greece do not exist anymore. Most of modern democracy falls under republican democracy which is the concept that the majority is hindered by the government, as such it doesn't create a "government dictated by mob rule".

[Aurora Confederacy]

whoops wrong board

[Evil Wolf]

That's not democracy, it's tyranny by majority.

That would only be true in this case if Raiders were the Majority. Sadly, we are not.

[Yasuragi]

That's not democracy, it's tyranny by majority.

That would only be true in this case if Raiders were the Majority. Sadly, we are not.

You have a sizable percentage. Additionally, you have the support of the code, the admins, the moderators, and Max himself, all the while claiming that R/D and RP are equal.

It's not tyranny by majority, it's tyranny by minority.

[Scolopendra]

to Scolopendra unjustly banning nations for flags

To keep the record straight, this has been addressed.

[Imperializt Russia]

That would only be true in this case if Raiders were the Majority. Sadly, we are not.

You have a sizable percentage. Additionally, you have the support of the code, the admins, the moderators, and Max himself, all the while claiming that R/D and RP are equal.

It's not tyranny by majority, it's tyranny by minority.

Is there a word for that that isn't Apartheid?

[Monfrox]

Except that laws are put in place to protect people, not to force them into something they don't want to do.

Really? All laws? Even the unjust ones we've seen in so many countries that discriminate against certain groups?

There is a quote I am rather fond of, it's "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".

The majority rules, and if Mall's proposal is allowed to pass, it's either because the majority approved it or the majority stayed silent and let the minority dictate to them via a vote that everyone is allowed to participate in. If you choose not to vote, that's all on you.

However, does this proposal make Mall a bad Forum Mod? Pfft, not anymore then Sedge's Coup of TSP.

Democratic laws are put in place for the people. I live in America, which is a Republic, and there's very few I have to deal with. There is no law that states that I, as a US citizen, have to participate in a physical sport where I am very likely to get injured just because my government says so. There is no law that says I must start to drink alcohol once I turn 21, or pick up smoking when I turn 18. There is no law that says I have to start playing the lottery and at casinos when I am old enough.

Rest assured that the majority will not be allowing this proposal to pass.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That would only be true in this case if Raiders were the Majority. Sadly, we are not.

You have a sizable percentage. Additionally, you have the support of the code, the admins, the moderators, and Max himself, all the while claiming that R/D and RP are equal.

It's not tyranny by majority, it's tyranny by minority.

The problem here is that it is only a democracy when it is convenient, otherwise it is an oligarchy.

[Giovenith]

Little late, but I would also like to sign.

[Evil Wolf]

It's not tyranny by majority, it's tyranny by minority.

Really? If raiders are minority tyrants who rule over you all by powerful voting blocks, then how come we've never been successful in doing so?

Like I said before, this vote won't pass, but even if it does, it is one example of raiders winning a vote in the Security Council stacked up against literally dozens of examples where we lost.

You have a sizable percentage. Additionally, you have the support of the code, the admins, the moderators, and Max himself, all the while claiming that R/D and RP are equal.

Everyone, legally, gets just one vote. So yes, in that sense, we are all equal in the Security Council. One player, one vote.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You have a sizable percentage. Additionally, you have the support of the code, the admins, the moderators, and Max himself, all the while claiming that R/D and RP are equal.

It's not tyranny by majority, it's tyranny by minority.

Is there a word for that that isn't Apartheid?

Nope, Apartheid is basically what legislated segregation is.

The proper word is Oligarchy.

[Yasuragi]

It's not tyranny by majority, it's tyranny by minority.

Really? If raiders are minority tyrants who rule over you all by powerful voting blocks, then how come we've never been successful in doing so?

Like I said before, this vote won't pass, but even if it does, it is one example of raiders winning a vote in the Security Council stacked up against literally dozens of examples where we lost.

You have a sizable percentage. Additionally, you have the support of the code, the admins, the moderators, and Max himself, all the while claiming that R/D and RP are equal.

Everyone, legally, gets just one vote. So yes, in that sense, we are all equal in the Security Council. One player, one vote.

I'm referring to the infringement of R/D onto those who simply wish to RP.

Within R/D, things are much more equal. Outside of R/D, the hierarchy, as confirmed by multiple moderators and mentors, is that R/D is above RP, all the while claiming that the two aspects are equivalent.

[Edlichbury]

You have a sizable percentage. Additionally, you have the support of the code, the admins, the moderators, and Max himself, all the while claiming that R/D and RP are equal.

It's not tyranny by majority, it's tyranny by minority.

Is there a word for that that isn't Apartheid?

Ridiculous? Shameful? Cancerous?

[Marquesan]

Argument: RP players should not have to deal with Gameplay.

We do aim to ensure that players who want to completely isolate themselves from the I/D game can do so. That is part of the NS philosophy. The chief tool we give players in this regard is Founders: a region with an active Founder is essentially immune to invasion. We also provide regional passwords and the ability for Delegates & Founders to eject and ban residents.

Complete isolation is not possible, though, since all regions have their feet in Gameplay (even if their heads are elsewhere). Regions are defined and governed by Gameplay rules. All this is very low-level and not at all central to why RP regions exist, of course, but you enter Gameplay the second you create a nation.

Thus, while we support the right of communities to isolate themselves, we cannot always allow them to do so in the exact manner they want, because their link with Gameplay is inextricable.

We were essentially told that passwords WERE our opt-out and then, in the form of a pseudo-trolling by a Mod no less, we were told "Fuck you, they're not." We're being told that in order to not play the game we have to play the game. See what I mean?

Oh, I certainly do. This is part and parcel of my frustration: passwords have always been an imperfect opt-out and we spun them as though they are. We say "oh, RP and Gameplay are both equivalently valid and welcome and valuable methods to play" and the way regional mechanics work--are allowed to work--pretty much puts the lie to that.

I completely and understandably get the rage. From behind closed doors, I've reasoned, argued, cajoled, delivered, and shouted that rage to power for ten years.

Ten.

Years.

And this is where it's got us.

In all honesty, it's always been "in order to not play the game we have to play the game"--Gameplay is king; it's baked in right from the foundations up with how regional mechanics--not even capital-G Gameplay mechanics, just the bare-bones code--work. That's why that quote of mine that someone somewhere has in their sig has me saying that 'abusing the system is the game;' originally UN Delegates were just one step up from UN Members and regions had no controls, but people could move between them and they did, 'crashing' and 'camping' and 'squatting' and making themselves unwelcome. The Delegates were given regional controls to deal with the crashers/squatters/campers and then that meant that if the campers were UN Members themselves they could steal the Delegacy and kick everyone else out in regional griefing. We had to get elbows deep into ajudicating the difference between regional drama and for-the-lulz griefing, and that was horrendous, so we added Influence and Founders and passwords: Founders and passwords as something /like/ an opt out, and Influence to remove judgment calls regarding regional refounds. So of course Gameplay organizations used these tools themselves to build 'impenetrable' fortresses even as they figured out ways around the passwords by lurking and Founders by waiting for them to cease to exist. Liberations came up as a way to open up captured regions that were passworded, but of course, as we've all been made extremely aware as of late, that sword cuts two ways and can be used as a weapon of liberation or of violence depending on the whim of WA delegates and members.

Every single tool we've come up with to address the problem of--in my opinion--a certain level of interactional jerkery has only been incorporated into Gameplay, and TPTB dig that. They think it's cool and clever. I'll agree so far as it's clever.

So to bring my ramble back to full circle after the history lesson, the truth really is Gameplay uber alles; we've (the mods and admins) have only hidden that fact behind its implication in the code even while we say (and mean, in most cases) that everybody's equal and contributes value. We're as philosophically inconsistent as anyone else, especially when we think that we're trying to do the right thing. Fact of the matter is that, albeit without malice, you've been sold a bill of goods. We should come right out and say what the game mechanics prove: Gameplay takes precedence.

We don't, other than my occasional grumbling (someone found a link to where I admitted my opinion on R/D yonks ago) and we as mods-and-admin set ourselves up for this. This is the bed we've made, and if I've got anything to say about it (doubtful), we'll sleep in it because it's only fair.

Nothing personal. I'd be quoting the same thing if it was Nerv or Farn who said it.

It's less "taking it personally" and more "outside of context it almost looks like I approve, when the intended tone was a gritted-teeth grimace."

Well, there's the crux of the whole issue right there in a nutshell. This is also a much softer tone than yesterday's jackbooted party-line. We may be closer to a resolution today, ladies and gents. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we are.

[Evil Wolf]

I'm referring to the infringement of R/D onto those who simply wish to RP.

Within R/D, things are much more equal. Outside of R/D, the hierarchy, as confirmed by multiple moderators and mentors, is that R/D is above RP, all the while claiming that the two aspects are equivalent.

As a very, very old raider, who started raiding Pre-Influence under the old Griefing Laws and always hearing all the older raiders claiming that the mods had an anti-R/D bias, or at least an anti-raider bias, I find it amusing to find RP players claiming that moderators have "pro-R/D" bias after all these years.

The irony does not escape me.

[Virana]

The mods have supported Malls actions throughout this entire ordeal. From Sedigstan's "it's only Politics" and, "he's allowed to lie" post, to Scolopendra unjustly banning nations for flags, all these mods have shown that they have granted themselves free reign. Their failure to issue an official apology as a team shows that there is no integrity or humility left among the mods. If there are mods who don't want to see RP regions raided then they need to speak up. As for your bit about not being able to troll, I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not. Keep in mind a mod started this whole thing, not the people in this thread.

No. The moderators have worked to enforce the rules and analyze Mall's actions on the basis of those rules. It is not their job to make rulings based on their personal opinions. In the WA, you are allowed to lie. It is only politics. That's how the WA works. Mall has not broken any rules.

Scolopendra did not "unjustly ban" nations for flags. Those flags did contain content that could easily be considered flamebaiting, and so they were removed.

Candy Lane, I've made a post about this before. The mods aren't against RPers. Not all of them want to see RP regions to be indiscriminately raided. If anything, more moderators support RP than those who support R/D.

In general, the moderation team has shown astounding care in issuing warnings. As Swith said, not all of them agree with your opponent in this debate. They're just doing their job in enforcing the rules and taking action where necessary. You'd be very surprised at the level of support we have from the moderation team.

Accordingly, I'd like to briefly thank the NS moderation team for their diligence throughout this whole thing. You've all done well in keeping order, enforcing the rules, and ensuring that this debate continues in a civil and mature manner.

[The Jonathanian States]

I've created a new flag, but I'm in two minds regarding its legality - is it worth checking with tthe mods first?

Shiny.

Well, if you want to go with "democracy" how is raiding any "democratic" when you are forcing people to play?

If it goes to vote and the people allow it, it's as democratic as it gets.

I didn't say democracies are always moral, now did I? Also, speaking of democracies "forcing people to play" we have a name for that in Real Life. It's called "Laws".

Still isn't democratic as not everybody has voting rights (WA[And therefore SC]-membership).

Also, even if it were democratic, I'd have to take a Godwin here. Democracy isn't by definition just.

[Virana]

I'm referring to the infringement of R/D onto those who simply wish to RP.

Within R/D, things are much more equal. Outside of R/D, the hierarchy, as confirmed by multiple moderators and mentors, is that R/D is above RP, all the while claiming that the two aspects are equivalent.

As a very, very old raider, who started raiding Pre-Influence under the old Griefing Laws and always hearing all the older raiders claiming that the mods had an anti-R/D bias, or at least an anti-raider bias, I find it amusing to find RP players claiming that moderators have "pro-R/D" bias after all these years.

The irony does not escape me.

To be fair, the mods aren't pro- or anti- anybody. Each of them have their own opinions. Everybody thinks they are unfairly persecuted, in every debate or issue. RPers think mods are anti-RP; invaders think mods are anti-invader; defenders think they're anti-defender; generalites think they're anti-NSG. There's no irony there.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Wait, did I never specify my desire to sign? Let me rectify that. I sign.

[Evil Wolf]

Still isn't democratic as not everybody has voting rights (WA[And therefore SC]-membership).

You have to register to vote in Real Life, don't you? By your definition, that's forcing someone to partake in the democratic system, and thus that isn't democracy...except that argument is utterly ridiculous.

You want to vote on and affect WA matters without being in the WA? Too bad. I want to vote in France, but I'm not a citizen there, therefore, I can't vote. Does that make the French Government undemocratic and unfair? I'll leave that for you to decide.

[Virana]

Also, even if it were democratic, I'd have to take a Godwin here. Democracy isn't by definition just.

You have to register to vote in Real Life, don't you? By your definition, that's forcing someone to partake in the democratic system, and thus that isn't democracy...except that argument is utterly ridiculous.

In most countries you don't have to register to vote if you don't want to. Compulsory democracy is intrinsically undemocratic because it eliminates the option to opt out of voting. But that's a separate debate.

[Swith Witherward]

-snip-

Thanks for the kind words Swith, you always know how to be eloquent.

Thanks. I also tend to ramble.

[Evil Wolf]

In most countries you don't have to register to vote if you don't want to.

That's right, and if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the choices those who did vote made.

You don't want this Security Council resolution to pass? WA up and vote against it. You don't want it to pass but you don't want to join the WA? Then don't join the WA and hope NS votes your way. You're not going to get your cake and eat it too. It's one or the other, as it always has been in NS since the SC was introduced.

[The Candy Lane]

I'll sign.

[Virana]

In most countries you don't have to register to vote if you don't want to.

That's right, and if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the choices those who did vote made.

... what? Of course you do. I didn't vote in 2012 for Obama or Romney. I criticize Obama. Of course I have that right—I disagree with his policies. You have the right to complain about any policy you don't like. Whether you voted against it or not has nothing to do with it.

In the end, this issue is larger than just about a single resolution. We know it most likely won't pass. That's not what this debate is about. This debate is about the morality of introducing an opt-out function (since the current ones, as I've indicated, aren't sufficient). An opt-out would give people a choice of whether or not to participate in the R/D game. Isn't a freedom of choice a basic tenet of democracy?