Embassy of the South Pacific

[Cormac Stark]

The problem with separation is that there is no direct game-related impetus to join the offsite if the government of the offsite is completely apart from the ingame reality. If you want to have a RP-only region then so be it, but if you ignore the Delegate in a GCR are you actually still playing NationStates or are you just taking part in an offsite community that has no actual relevance to the game?

I'm not sure where you're getting that the off-site community won't have any relevance to the game or that on-site will be ignored under a system like this. This isn't 2005; we have Regional Officers now. And even apart from Regional Officers, there are ways to integrate the on-site and the off-site without having a ridiculously powerful executive Delegate. It's really more about integrating the on-site and off-site communities than it is about integrating on-site and off-site power under one office.

Also, if the Delegacy is completely separated from the offsite, how would one even define a 'rogue' Delegate? The offsite community would not depend on who was Delegate and would not even depend on being present within the region, which goes back to the question of whether or not you would even still be playing NationStates at that point.

Again, this is a view of on-site vs. off-site that reduces everything down to a single office. A rogue Delegate would still be a Delegate who overthrows the constitutional government of the South Pacific, which is what has always constituted a rogue Delegate. The idea that the off-site community wouldn't even depend on being present in the region is, frankly, preposterous -- this isn't TWP, the off-site government is the legitimate, constitutional government of the South Pacific, both in-game and off-site. Residents who have little or nothing to do with the off-site government have fought against coups that have sought to overthrow it. Not everyone in the NationStates world reduces regions down to their most basic game mechanics, as you do.

This honestly isn't my favorite way of organizing a Feeder or Sinker government either, but it seems to be what the people of TSP want.

[Unibot III]

This type of system doesn't have to be undemocratic.

I'm not saying it is an undemocratic system. I would criticise the system under two broad complaints: (1) image, (2) activity. I think the idea that a divorced executive would be more unstable is a silly suggestion and has always been silly, given it's a. usually proposed by people who like to coup, b. rogue delegates occur whether the executive is divorced or not from the in-game delegate.

We'll start with image first...

IMAGE

I think this new system would appear undemocratic to new TSP residents and even older TSP residents. Especially given any of the other democratic GCRs have elected delegates and relatively limited terms.

Now, appearing undemocratic is not, in and of itself, an impediment to a region's stability; The Pacific has been openly a dictatorship for most of its existence, the Rejected Realms had the same delegate for seven years to much fanfare, Fudgetopia was delegate for over three years and was immensely popular, and I imagine Rach in Balder will follow a similar course. Democracy is a funny thing because democracy as an idea is incredibly popular, but seemingly everybody loves a 'good' tyrant. But when you have something like a "delegate term" counter which signals that a delegate has been in power for eons, there's a few things that become immensely necessary for the delegate: (1) interpersonal skills, IE: remaining popular and well liked, (2) liberal use of ejection and ban tools, (3) vigilance, and, potentially, (4) wide support from foreign powers. (in the case of NPO, I'd consider CN NPO as a foreign power, for the purposes of demonstration.) These skills and capacities become important because with residents you don't have the luxury of giving them a crash civics course on the separation of powers and the constitution.

Coups are really just battles for credibility and legitimacy - and democracy is a marker that signals greater credibility. So mark my words, there will be coupers who will try to use the "served for X" counter as a justification for a "democratic revolution" - and that exploits a serious vulnerability under this proposed system. You've got all of the bad optics of the NPO but none of its muscle - and that's where the skills and the personality of the "caretaker" become incredibly important. If you pick the wrong chap to apotheosize, Olympus could fall.

For this reason alone I think it would be unwise to move to a divorced executive because you're exposing a region to a new threat to its credibility to get rid of a security problem, rogue delegates, that TSP has overcome (Milograd, Hileville), Balder has overcome (Luxembourg), the North Pacific has overcome (UPS Rail - debatable, Pixiedance, Westwind, Dali?, JAL), Lazarus has overcome (Stujenske), Osiris has overcome (The Dourian Embassy, Cormac Stark, Astarial - debatable.) When I look back on the history of rogue delegates I see a history of losses and laziness. TSP's still standing, Balder's still standing, TNP's still standing, Lazarus's still standing. Only one of those, Osiris, revolted to a new state - and it moved to a system that more closely resembled TSP and TNP.

In other words, I'd say "cool your jets" to the proposed system; rogue delegates are a personal vindication of the phrase, "if you want something done, do it yourself-" because they sure as hell haven't been that effective - not ultimately.

ACTIVITY

This may seem like a tired point, but neither TRR or TSP had a particularly active government when the executives were divorced - and it's a similar story for both regions; Kandarin and Fudgetopia both lamented to NS media that no matter how hard they tried they couldn't inspire the forum government to be more active. I could sit here and come up with some cock and bull academic reason for that phenomenon, but I really don't know why it occurs; my guess would be that having a community figurehead lulls a community into a comfortable status quo - classical conservatism is just a great big lullaby. But what I do know is that both TRR and TSP were more active under a hybrid head of state / head of government - the repatriations of 2011 exploded both regions with enormous activity and energy. With some reflection, one might conclude the Sedgistan & Crazygirl coup of TSP, dare I say it, may have been the most pivotal event in NS since the August Revolution - and funny enough, it didn't last for more than a few days. It was just excellent timing.

So I would be worried if say, TSP puts Tsunamy as its head of state, and .. you know.. that's it. Four months later and the head of government is MIA, the Assembly has stalled half way through a mind-numbing discussion on bicameralism that went nowhere, and the spam/activity forums are the most active part of the forum. What then? Do we declare victory? "We've won the war against everything!" And just, give up?

[Ayvari]

Unibot, I know text walls are your thing, but can you tl;dr it for the lazier among us?

[Dalimbar]

Dali?

You rang?

[Frattastan II]

tl;dr

1) Long delegacies can be used by opponents to discredit the sitting government as undemocratic/oligarchical. Most residents won't even care/be aware that there are offsite elections, and will only look at the same person being 'in charge' for a long time. So a figurehead delegate may become a security liability, rather than an asset.
2) Long delegacies are correlated to low activity. The reason isn't clear, but it's suggested that people get complacent when there are popular figureheads in charge for a long time.

You can safely ignore all the following posts, unless you're interested in: a) an argument between Cormac and Unibot; b) an argument between Rach and Unibot.

[The Silver Sentinel]

You can safely ignore all the following posts, unless you're interested in: a) an argument between Cormac and Unibot; b) an argument between Rach and Unibot.

Both of which are incredibly entertaining to watch.

[Icecream Princess]

You can safely ignore all the following posts, unless you're interested in: a) an argument between Cormac and Unibot; b) an argument between Rach and Unibot.

When did I argue with Unibot?

[Cormac Stark]

Out of curiosity, Unibot, what do you think TSP should change in order to create greater stability, aside from believing they should purge a large number of citizens from citizenship for six months or longer?

[Kringalia]

Citizens who had an instrumental part in attempting to overthrow the Coalition of the South Pacific. This is already moot considering the Assembly has voted on granting amnesty, but it would be better if we provided full context to other people's proposals.

[Cormac Stark]

Citizens who had an instrumental part in attempting to overthrow the Coalition of the South Pacific. This is already moot considering the Assembly has voted on granting amnesty, but it would be better if we provided full context to other people's proposals.

His proposal was actually to purge anyone who participated in the coup at all -- which could include anything as small as joining the illegal forum after the Cabinet initiated the coup -- so no, it wasn't just to go after those who had an "instrumental" role in attempting to overthrow the Coalition. It isn't moot, either, because having lost the argument that the Assembly shouldn't grant amnesty, he has now shifted to a legal argument that the Assembly legally couldn't grant amnesty. He clearly hasn't dropped the matter.

Regardless, my point was to ask him what exactly he thinks TSP should change, aside from a large purge of citizens, to generate more stability, since all he has been able to do in this thread is argue what should not be done.

[Pierconium]

Cormac, ROs in GCRs are dependent upon the good graces of the Delegate, so your primary point fails.

Unibot, the system in TNP pre to post UPS Rail was very different.

[Cormac Stark]

Cormac, ROs in GCRs are dependent upon the good graces of the Delegate, so your primary point fails.

I think you're missing my point altogether, actually, but that isn't all that surprising. You have a very narrow view of NationStates that doesn't make room for people or regions who view the game in any other way than through a narrow focus on basic game mechanics and their supposed superiority.

It's a political game. There is room for social contract theory and other ideas bigger than "the game says the Delegate rules, so the Delegate rules." Game mechanics are meant to facilitate political gameplay, not replace it.

[Pierconium]

Cormac, ROs in GCRs are dependent upon the good graces of the Delegate, so your primary point fails.

I think you're missing my point altogether, actually, but that isn't all that surprising. You have a very narrow view of NationStates that doesn't make room for people or regions who view the game in any other way than through a narrow focus on basic game mechanics and their supposed superiority.

It's a political game. There is room for social contract theory and other ideas bigger than "the game says the Delegate rules, so the Delegate rules." Game mechanics are meant to facilitate political gameplay, not replace it.

Yes, they are called UCRs. There are thousands of them.

I am very familiar with the concepts, I am simply pointing out that ignoring the game mechanics in the GCRs is a recipe for long term disaster.

I am also fairly certain that it isn't me with the narrow viewpoint here, or the inability to understand an argument. Which is why I don't have to point to incorrect logic (for example, outlining that ROs matter so Delegates don't for some ridiculous reason) to make my points.

That said, all I have stated is that it is my opinion that ignoring game mechanics is a mistake, not that it is impossible or that TSP cannot make that choice for themselves.

[Unibot III]

Out of curiosity, Unibot, what do you think TSP should change in order to create greater stability, aside from believing they should purge a large number of citizens from citizenship for six months or longer?

That's the question of the hour isn't it? In short, my answer is: I'm not sure. The problems that are facing TSP are even more complex and personal than, say, Osiris in 2013, where I tried to offer my advice then too.

Here's the long answer...

Whenever you're trying to fix a problem you need to first establish what the problem is. There's lots of 'micro' problems in TSP; stuff that can be fixed:

Administrators. By giving administrators a role in citizenships, government transparency, elections and community moderation, the region has turned administrators into some sort of demigod. A Julius Caesar. This makes the role of 'administrator' very attractive to people who want that moral authority - and it also puts a lot of pressure on, what are essentially supposed to be tech-boys, to act as community leaders and develop interpersonal skills. In effect, the mandate that administrators currently have forces them to be political. The way to resolve this problem is to strip administrators of their non-technical responsibilities.

• Reestablish an Election Commission.
• Create a new citizenship process that does not require an administrator's involvement.
• Some other body should act as a middle-man for the High Court when evidence is locked behind closed doors.

Unicamerialism. Their region was couped and quite a lot of TSP's residents just shrugged. They didn't give a crap about what Hileville was saying. They didn't give a crap about what the Coalition was saying. Something went terribly wrong - and that apathy among normal residents hurt the Coalition's ability to bounce back. Losing the forum and violating the constitution just didn't really "mean" anything to many residents. Sedgistan and Milograd were "bad" because their behaviour affected residents but, Hileville? What does a resident care about a forum? For that reason alone, isolating a democracy to a forum is a bad policy for the future. I would maintain that some kind of bicameralism where residents had a greater say in matters related to TSP would strengthen TSP's democracy and its security.

• In my post on TSP's forum I discuss ways in which a bicameral parliament could have shared and exclusive jurisdictions over matters.

Emergency Protocols. It's illegal for the CSS to intervene if both the Delegate and Vice Delegate go rogue - without first recalling them (which can take ages.) Seriously. This coup demonstrated how poor the emergency protocols performed under the stress of an unorthodox coup. The system that we have currently was based on Sedge and Milograd - Hileville was something new and unanticipated.

• The CSS should be able to declare administrations rogue - with oversight from the Assembly (they can veto the declaration).
• The CSS should be the body that authorizes foreign military troop movement in TSP - not the delegate. Existing treaties should be amended to reflect this.

Bleeding Heart Justice. Justice has always been screwy in the South Pacific - few people are charged for committing crimes they've quite obviously committed and punishment is almost always finite, flimsy and delivered through extralegal means like "Security Threat" declarations, citizenship denials, slaps on the wrist, recalls, Article 9 or arbitrary administrative bans and behaviour that basically amounts to social and political quarantine. Those who are actually charged with something in TSP tend to be people that are incredibly disliked in TSP and they receive a show trial with a big bad sentence. When I created the Parole Board (which was incredibly unpopular and controversial when I proposed it) - it was an attempt to try to bring some consistency to the legal process - it was a system that acknowledged people probably shouldn't be indefinitely banned from TSP and in doing so, that was supposed to encourage people to use the Justice system - because it meant that the sentence received wouldn't be so harsh. Basically TSP faces a problem of being too sympathetic to people that the community likes and being far too unsympathetic to people that the community does not like - and this sullies the rule of law in the South Pacific because popular community figures see less reason to comply with the laws of the region because they know the community will give them a break. Bear in mind, the biggest cases of rule-breaking -- BLT and the Transitional Government -- feature the same people explictly "justifying" attacks on the region's democracy as an attack on a handful of the same few players. You're correct that I do not believe a wholesale pardon will do TSP any good - the lack of criminal justice with regards to BLT never did TSP any good either. The community needs to do more than "heal" - it needs to toughen up and stop treating particular charmers as above the law or else you'll continue to see this behaviour in the future. And you know what, I don't even know where to begin with suggestions for improvement.

• Attorney Generals suck. They usually just charge people they don't like and avoid charging people they like.
• Persona non Gratas only last if the person who receives them is an insufferable ass - like me. They have no basis in the rule, or equality of law.
• Perhaps an anonymous system could be implemented where people can PM the Chief Justice with a suggested criminal case and if the justices believe there is a case to be heard, they open up an indictment thread.

But these are really only smaller issues. The grand issue is that some people don't like other people! Belschaft and Hileville don't like Glen-Rhodes and Kringalia. Todd McCloud would wake up, as if he has smelled bacon, if there was an opportunity to commit election fraud against me (you lost, by the way. Twice.) HEM materializes around elections and coups like a groundhog - you can set your watch to him, seriously - his main beef with the Coalition was it wasn't electing him enough. Wolf is, and always will be, Wolf. I could go on and on about the poor statesmanship behind the Transitional Government. They don't give a damn about the law, they hate a few players who have been successful in TSP and represent a different set of ideas and values than them, and they've been left to run roughshod over the region for years.

That's a big grand issue of differing personalities that can't be papered over. No constitutional reform is going to make any of these players trust each other or even like one another. So, yes, you can fix some stuff, but creating a new Assembly ain't going to change the fact that some gameplayers in TSP hate the other gameplayers. It's an internal interpersonal fight that no other GCR currently possesses which is why the South Pacific has been so torn apart while other GCRs are scratching their heads wondering how TSP could screw up this whole "region" thing so badly. There's lots of constitutional measures that can be implemented to improve TSP's legal and political order but there is no legal solution that can encourage peace for the foreseeable future. For peace, you would have to delve into a more personal discussion and I'm not sure there's enough sincerity or trust for that to happen; the current kumbaya "healing circle" routine isn't accomplishing that - it seems to be a pretty naked attempt to generate sympathy for the side that couped the region, while pinning the responsibility for their coup on the people that they don't like (which are now, presumably, supposed to apologize for being so unlikable that Hileville couped TSP.) I can give you a lot of advice on legal and political systems but when it comes to people and friendship, I'm not a qualified authority.

EDIT: One thing I have suggested, time and time again, with regards to the "grand issue" is political parties. As I've said before, strictly delineating the fault lines in TSP's community could help stabilize the region where an attempt at achieving a "big happy family" hasn't - because it restructures the political fight in terms of the confines of the law. It's not "Belschaft, Hilevile, Todd, HEM, whatever vs. Kringalia, Glen-Rhodes, Farengeto, whatever", it's just "Independents vs. Progressives" or whatever which, in a way, restructures TSP's politics to be less about people and more about ideas - and that's always more healthy.

In other cases where other GCRs have faced a similar impasse, a deep impersonal conflict, the response has always been to coup (OFO, TWP, PRL). That's what made the Transitional Government seem like a natural development. But what makes TSP a very special case is that only one side is willing to coup in TSP - and they're the side that doesn't have the credibility to pull off a coup - and the people who could get away with a coup, won't, because they believe it'd be wrong. This ties an assortment of people who hate each other to a constitutional order where they have to try to live with each other's presence. It's an unprecedented situation so if there's any solution that will let TSP grow and move forward, it's not a plan of action that has helped any other GCR, because TSP's situation is particularly complicated. That's where proposals like "political parties" come into play.

Unibot, the system in TNP pre to post UPS Rail was very different.

True but that's not important for that particular sentence, because I was just saying TNP has survived many rogue delegates.

[Pierconium]

But the sentence in question is immediately followed by 'Only one of those, Osiris, revolted to a new state - and it moved to a system that more closely resembled TSP and TNP.' Which would seem to indicate that you categorised TNP as being the same before and after the coups/rogue Delegates you mentioned. I could also state that the system changed significantly pre to post Pixiedance as well.

Oh well, not terribly important.

[Unibot III]

But the sentence in question is immediately followed by 'Only one of those, Osiris, revolted to a new state - and it moved to a system that more closely resembled TSP and TNP.' Which would seem to indicate that you categorised TNP as being the same before and after the coups/rogue Delegates you mentioned. I could also state that the system changed significantly pre to post Pixiedance as well.

I do consider TNP to be the same region. This is an argument I've had with several TNP historians many times with regards to the continuity and discontinuity of regimes. I understand it's a controversial theory - and feel free to say "TNP and Osiris both revolted towards similar constitutional orders" - it doesn't change my fundamental point.

[Pierconium]

But the sentence in question is immediately followed by 'Only one of those, Osiris, revolted to a new state - and it moved to a system that more closely resembled TSP and TNP.' Which would seem to indicate that you categorised TNP as being the same before and after the coups/rogue Delegates you mentioned. I could also state that the system changed significantly pre to post Pixiedance as well.

I do consider TNP to be the same region. This is an argument I've had with several TNP historians many times with regards to the continuity and discontinuity of regimes. I understand it's a controversial theory - and feel free to say "TNP and Osiris both revolted towards similar constitutional orders" - it doesn't change my fundamental point.

No, it does not change your point, but it does change some of the implications you are making.

Perhaps you should have a word with my friend, Gracius Maximus. He is something of an authority on both UPS Rail and Pixiedance. He also had some dealings with the various governing entities before, during, and after those Delegacies.

[Unibot III]

Perhaps you should have a word with my friend, Gracius Maximus. He is something of an authority on both UPS Rail and Pixiedance. He also had some dealings with the various governing entities before, during, and after those Delegacies.

Maybe I will! Cheers.

[Cormac Stark]

I'm not going to do a point by point response to Unibot's comments, because I agree with many of them and would just be finding a wordy way to say "I agree." So for anything I don't respond to, assume I agree, rather than that I'm ignoring it. I've actually already included some of these suggestions in my own constitutional draft for TSP.

Unicamerialism. Their region was couped and quite a lot of TSP's residents just shrugged. They didn't give a crap about what Hileville was saying. They didn't give a crap about what the Coalition was saying. Something went terribly wrong - and that apathy among normal residents hurt the Coalition's ability to bounce back. Losing the forum and violating the constitution just didn't really "mean" anything to many residents. Sedgistan and Milograd were "bad" because their behaviour affected residents but, Hileville? What does a resident care about a forum? For that reason alone, isolating a democracy to a forum is a bad policy for the future. I would maintain that some kind of bicameralism where residents had a greater say in matters related to TSP would strengthen TSP's democracy and its security.

• In my post on TSP's forum I discuss ways in which a bicameral parliament could have shared and exclusive jurisdictions over matters.

Here's the problem with a bicameral legislature that enfranchises in-game residents. It's threefold and it's persistent:

1. Despite the regional polling feature's possible restrictions, it is still too vulnerable to foreign manipulation through use of puppets.
2. Despite the existence of the regional polling feature, the inability to conduct simultaneous polls makes polling for legislative votes inefficient.
3. There is no guarantee that residents won't continue to be apathetic even after being given a way to participate in-game.

Let's focus on the third point. You note, correctly, that residents largely didn't care about the Coalition -- or the Transitional Government -- during Hileville's recent coup. With a few exceptions, they only really cared about the disruption the whole thing was causing on the Regional Message Board. Your proposed solution is that we need to find a way to include them in the legislature and make them feel like they have a real stake in the Coalition. But what if they're apathetic because they just simply don't care, and will continue not to care once given a vehicle of participation? You then end up with a bunch of apathetic voters who can be easily influenced by, for example, a slick lobbying campaign, or simply by being annoyed with one side or the other cluttering up their inbox or disrupting the RMB. I'm not sure that is at all healthy or will lead to better results in TSP's politics.

It concerns me to enfranchise residents who will unendorse a Delegate (or a CSS member) just because someone, anyone, sends them a telegram saying they should. It concerns me to enfranchise residents who don't care what's going on in the region besides disruption of their chatting on the RMB. It concerns me, frankly, to enfranchise residents who can't be bothered to take the few simple steps it takes to register on an off-site forum and apply for citizenship. I see no evidence that these people care now or will care if enfranchised, and I don't know why we would want people who don't care and are unlikely ever to care voting in the regional legislature. I'm not knocking them; it's their right not to care, and to play NationStates how they want, and regional gameplay isn't for everyone. But it is also our right to say we only want people voting who actually care about the matters up for vote, rather than having decisions made about the area of the game we all enjoy, gameplay, by people who couldn't care less about gameplay.

But these are really only smaller issues. The grand issue is that some people don't like other people! . . .

That's a big grand issue of differing personalities that can't be papered over. No constitutional reform is going to make any of these players trust each other or even like one another. So, yes, you can fix some stuff, but creating a new Assembly ain't going to change the fact that some gameplayers in TSP hate the other gameplayers. It's an internal interpersonal fight that no other GCR currently possesses which is why the South Pacific has been so torn apart while other GCRs are scratching their heads wondering how TSP could screw up this whole "region" thing so badly. There's lots of constitutional measures that can be implemented to improve TSP's legal and political order but there is no legal solution that can encourage peace for the foreseeable future. For peace, you would have to delve into a more personal discussion and I'm not sure there's enough sincerity or trust for that to happen; the current kumbaya "healing circle" routine isn't accomplishing that - it seems to be a pretty naked attempt to generate sympathy for the side that couped the region, while pinning the responsibility for their coup on the people that they don't like (which are now, presumably, supposed to apologize for being so unlikable that Hileville couped TSP.) I can give you a lot of advice on legal and political systems but when it comes to people and friendship, I'm not a qualified authority.

While disagreeing with you passing all of the blame onto Hileville, the Cabinet, and those who participated in the coup -- you're essentially doing the opposite of what you're accusing others of doing to Glen-Rhodes, Kringalia, et al., while absolving the latter of any responsibility -- I agree that seemingly intractable interpersonal conflict is the heart of the problem. I also agree that it can't be legislated away, though I do think correcting regional institutions can help mitigate the damage these interpersonal conflicts are causing. I'm also not an expert in conflict resolution -- to say the least! -- so I don't have an easy answer, or any answer, to this either.

Our answer in Osiris was to toss out the other side of the conflict, declare victory, and rebuild with a stronger foundation. That worked in Osiris. Because it worked in Osiris, I believed it would work in TSP and would be healthier for TSP in the long run, which is why I supported the Cabinet when they decided to dissolve the Coalition and ban the few people they banned. I was wrong; it may have worked in Osiris, but TSP is a different community with different circumstances, and it wouldn't have worked in the long run here because the conflict is deeper than a few people.

EDIT: One thing I have suggested, time and time again, with regards to the "grand issue" is political parties. As I've said before, strictly delineating the fault lines in TSP's community could help stabilize the region where an attempt at achieving a "big happy family" hasn't - because it restructures the political fight in terms of the confines of the law. It's not "Belschaft, Hilevile, Todd, HEM, whatever vs. Kringalia, Glen-Rhodes, Farengeto, whatever", it's just "Independents vs. Progressives" or whatever which, in a way, restructures TSP's politics to be less about people and more about ideas - and that's always more healthy.

This is interesting and I haven't seen others suggest it. Do you believe this is something that should be legislated into TSP's institutions, or something that should be allowed to happen organically with initiative from citizens? I'm not sure how one would go about legislating it.

[Unibot III]

This is interesting and I haven't seen others suggest it. Do you believe this is something that should be legislated into TSP's institutions, or something that should be allowed to happen organically with initiative from citizens? I'm not sure how one would go about legislating it.

I've suggested it before, it sometimes gets support, and sometimes it's shot down because it flies in the face of the idea of TSP being a "big happy family" (at one time this was an image TSP was still trying to maintain - so political parties would have conflicted with that image.)

Since whenever political parties are done as purely initiatives from citizens, one side tries and the other doesn't. So it goes nowhere. I would suggest for political parties to become a "thing" they would probably have to be legislated.

---

How to legislate political parties is difficult and it's a problem I was still grappling with before I left the South Pacific. With elections, political parties are easy:

• Parties would be registered with an independent body, like the Election Commission.
• There would be one candidate for a party per delegate/cabinet race. Requiring "party primaries" as Americans call them.
• Independents could run for executive positions but their chances would be limited because party members would probably vote for party candidates.
• You can only be a member of one party at a time.

But beyond elections, it gets far more difficult to actually fashion a legislature where parties are a necessity. You see the crux of the issue, the elephant in the room, is two elements: (1) elected legislatures, (2) independents. The idea of elected legislatures is political anathema in TSP and I'm not a fan of them either because they limit who can participate in a legislature. But if TSP had an elected legislature, political parties would be very easy to implement (a cool system that I always wanted to try as a newbie used ridings of resident voters like NPO's provinces.)

But when you don't want to have elected legislators, political parties become a difficult notion to maintain under that system because you have no reason to really be in a political party.

The other way to legislate political parties is to, very simply, require people in an Assembly register with a political party. Dead simple but it has implications. I think there's probably a lot of people who would want to retain their status as independent members.

So this system, "Independent members + Party members + Non-elected legislature", proved to be a very elusive system to figure out because it's a paradox. The party members wouldn't have any reason to stick in a party.

I did come up with one solution but there's a number of reasons why it wouldn't be popular. I don't even like it...

Every term, the whole Assembly holds a... let's call it, Assembly census. The census is a kind of a vote or election. It asks a question, "Which party do you support?". Assemblymen and women vote and the census results in this outcome:

30 people vote...

Liberal Party (37% - 11)
Independence Party (33% - 10)
Freedom Party (20% - 6)
KNOCK KNOCK Party (6.6% - 2)
WHOSE THERE!???? Party (3.3% - 1)

After the census, when players vote in the Assembly, their vote is a share in the overall pie - if their party was more popular, their vote's share is bigger, but it's limited by how many people are voting from your party. If you're an independent (someone not voting as a party member), your vote's share would be the equivalent of [[1/# of people voting in the Assembly census.] / # of independents voting].

_{Vote Share from the most recent Assembly Census}
─────────────────────────
^{Number of players voting from the party}


So for example, if I'm a Liberal - my vote would be worth 0.37 x [however many Liberals are voting in this vote]. So, if everybody who voted in the census is voting in a given vote, a Liberal's vote is actually worth less than a KNOCK KNOCK's vote, but if someone is away or missing from a vote (activity I assume would decline), a Liberal vote would be worth a lot more of the vote.

Vote solidarity within a party would also become important.

[Tsunamy]

This is interesting and I haven't seen others suggest it. Do you believe this is something that should be legislated into TSP's institutions, or something that should be allowed to happen organically with initiative from citizens? I'm not sure how one would go about legislating it.

I've suggested it before, it sometimes gets support, and sometimes it's shot down because it flies in the face of the idea of TSP being a "big happy family" (at one time this was an image TSP was still trying to maintain - so political parties would have conflicted with that image.)

Since whenever political parties are done as purely initiatives from citizens, one side tries and other doesn't. So it goes nowhere. I would suggest political parties to become a "thing" would probably have to be legislated.

This is a purely divisive idea as I've been saying whenever someone brought it up for the past three years. It also says something that no one has managed to make it off the ground.

There just aren't enough active citizens to have full parties and there's no interest if legislating them. This is a game, after all, and we have to be pragmatic about how all of it works.

[Unibot III]

I've suggested it before, it sometimes gets support, and sometimes it's shot down because it flies in the face of the idea of TSP being a "big happy family" (at one time this was an image TSP was still trying to maintain - so political parties would have conflicted with that image.)

Since whenever political parties are done as purely initiatives from citizens, one side tries and other doesn't. So it goes nowhere. I would suggest political parties to become a "thing" would probably have to be legislated.

This is a purely divisive idea as I've been saying whenever someone brought it up for the past three years. It also says something that no one has managed to make it off the ground.

There just aren't enough active citizens to have full parties and there's no interest if legislating them. This is a game, after all, and we have to be pragmatic about how all of it works.

It's never been done before successfully because without restructuring the Assembly there's no strategic/rational incentive for anyone to stick in a party. (as explained above)

I would disagree that the idea is divisive. I think trying to pretend we're all on the same page and ought to be on the same page has been far more dangerous for TSP.

[Todd McCloud]

Nope.

The problem with TSP is it is divided into eras - THE MATT-DUCK era, the Fudgie era, the Bellz era, the Hileville era, the Kris / Glenn era, and so on. Every time the region is couped or the forums switch, generally speaking, the previous regime gives way and a new one is formed. But that's kind of the problem. Each time a new era forms, those who were present from the old era(s) or happened to like the way in which they ran fight for that. But it's a bit deeper than that. They fight for validation and recognition. Why? Well, because NS is like that. Folks like to feel validated. Folks like to be recognized.

Really, if TSP wanted to solve these problems, they'd look to do three things - attempt to remove the fighting and bad blood, establish some continuity in the history, and get a more balanced government. The first bit can be solved by absolving past differences and cracking down on any residual venom, which the region has faced quite a bit over the years. For instance, an individual who calls out nations they believe are not in TSP because well, they just don't like them. Cracking down won't solve it - not all of it at least (every region has some kind of bad blood in it), but it will reduce the swelling, so to speak. The second problem, well, find a way to connect the 4-5 various forums and establish a concise history in the region. That way folks can look up who did what and when instead of pot-stirrers volleying incorrect accusations and hoping no one will notice (I noticed some). The third is being worked on by the region right now, and that's definitely a good thing.

If all three of these things are met, TSP gains one item it's had difficulty in obtaining: trust. And trust is the very foundation many good regions are built off of. I believe TSP can do it. It'll be a little tense and there will be fights along the way. But it can be done.

[Unibot III]

Nope.

The problem with TSP is it is divided into eras - THE MATT-DUCK era, the Fudgie era, the Bellz era, the Hileville era, the Kris / Glenn era, and so on. Every time the region is couped or the forums switch, generally speaking, the previous regime gives way and a new one is formed. But that's kind of the problem. Each time a new era forms, those who were present from the old era(s) or happened to like the way in which they ran fight for that. But it's a bit deeper than that. They fight for validation and recognition. Why? Well, because NS is like that. Folks like to feel validated. Folks like to be recognized.

Really, if TSP wanted to solve these problems, they'd look to do three things - attempt to remove the fighting and bad blood, establish some continuity in the history, and get a more balanced government. The first bit can be solved by absolving past differences and cracking down on any residual venom, which the region has faced quite a bit over the years. For instance, an individual who calls out nations they believe are not in TSP because well, they just don't like them. Cracking down won't solve it - not all of it at least (every region has some kind of bad blood in it), but it will reduce the swelling, so to speak. The second problem, well, find a way to connect the 4-5 various forums and establish a concise history in the region. That way folks can look up who did what and when instead of pot-stirrers volleying incorrect accusations and hoping no one will notice (I noticed some). The third is being worked on by the region right now, and that's definitely a good thing.

If all three of these things are met, TSP gains one item it's had difficulty in obtaining: trust. And trust is the very foundation many good regions are built off of. I believe TSP can do it. It'll be a little tense and there will be fights along the way. But it can be done.

That's a nice lullaby but it's simply not true. One side is more than happy to break the law to try to gain power and the other isn't. You've lost the rush for power and now you're coming up with some pseudo-academic tale about the "five TSPs". You're correct in two respects: you want to be validated. You've always wanted that. You wanted to be an administrator even when you didn't want to do anything as administrator. You want everyone to listen to your posts as if they're the gospel from ye' old TSPer. You want to be a beloved member of TSP even when you break the most fundamental rules of the region.

If you actually gave a damn about the region you wouldn't break TSP's law without a care in the world. Full stop.

You're so quick to condemn Glen-Rhodes and Kringalia - because OMIGOD, they aren't interested in your particular clique's brand of politics. In your mind that makes them some sort of evil. And yet: they've never broken TSP law, they've worked hard for the region and they could have couped at multiple points and kicked you and every other BLTer flat on their ass, and the difference between them and the people in the Transitional Government is that they never would. They would give up on the Coalition before they disappointed it - that's how much they love it.

You keep trying to equate Glen and your side and they are by no means moral equals. Glen-Rhodes would never coup the South Pacific and he would have never committed election fraud or blackmailed a delegate or used his position as Justice to cancel a treaty without legal cause. One side is being accused of not being nice and the other side is being accused of treason, blackmail, corruption and fraud. THESE THINGS DO NOT EQUATE.

On the second respect, trust: trust won't happen because you don't deserve anyone's trust; you've never showed Glen-Rhodes, Kringalia, me or anyone else besides your friends why they should trust you; and you're not interested in trusting people like Glen-Rhodes anyways, because you've never cared about actually getting along, you've just cared about advancing your interests and claiming otherwise.

[RiderSyl]

you've just cared about advancing your interests and claiming otherwise.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.