Balder - State Opening of 19th Storting

[Syberis]

It is interesting to note that half of these linked statements come from a private citizen of Osiris, in addition to the delegate. Sure, that private citizen had been a former delegate of Osiris. But his political importance, once he stepped down from the delegacy, ceased in favor of the current delegate. Shameful that a Bald governmental official had to double down on repeated justifications ad naseum to a private citizen with the same ponderous force as toward the current Osiran delegate.

Syberis is a Guardian of Osiris who was subsequently brought along to official diplomatic discussions with Balder over the incident. Indeed, Altino complained above about Syberis being removed from that discussion.

In any case, the Pharaoh's remarks alone, linked in three of the six posts, made precisely the same argument as appeared in Syberis's post, so the status of Syberis's remarks doesn't change the character of Osiris's response to Balder (i.e. arguing that it is none of our business). Osiris's message was clear.

Rest assured that if Syberis had posted alone, the nature of Balder's response would have been different.

Bullshit. You guys pulled embassies before Altino said much of anything in that chat.

Edit: You also kicked me from the chat for daring to have my own opinion. NES and I argued, you pulled embassies, I maintained I represented myself, nobody contradicted it, you kicked me for saying I didn't represent Osiris in the chat, and just myself with my opinions.

[Onderkelkia]

Syberis is a Guardian of Osiris who was subsequently brought along to official diplomatic discussions with Balder over the incident. Indeed, Altino complained above about Syberis being removed from that discussion.

In any case, the Pharaoh's remarks alone, linked in three of the six posts, made precisely the same argument as appeared in Syberis's post, so the status of Syberis's remarks doesn't change the character of Osiris's response to Balder (i.e. arguing that it is none of our business). Osiris's message was clear.

Rest assured that if Syberis had posted alone, the nature of Balder's response would have been different.

Bullshit. You guys pulled embassies before Altino said much of anything in that chat.

Firstly, you've misunderstood the second paragraph of my post. I am not talking there about any comments by you or Altino in the subsequent Discord negotiations. I am talking about the public posts by Altino linked in my post here, in response to Jar Wattinree arguing three of the six posts were yours.

I suggest that you follow the discussion more carefully if you are going to go around accusing people of "Bullshit".

The point was that Balder would not have felt the need to start negotiations over the future of the alliance without Altino's Gameplay forum posts.

Of course, we were disturbed by your behaviour, including the points you advanced in the Gameplay forum (similar to Altino's points), your unsubtle threat to the future of the treaty (saying we needed "a very serious sitdown") and your tirades on the NSGP server, but Altino's posts on this forum, taken on their own, communicated that the concerns I raised were none of Balder's business. Osiris responded to our clarification by telling us it was none of our concern.

Secondly, Altino sent 22 messages in the Discord negotiations prior to the initial termination of embassies, a number of them substantive, including an outright rejection of Balder's proposal for an Osiris apology at 23:15 UTC and concurrence with your statement that Balder had just ended things at 23:19 UTC. The embassy closure began a minute later. As you don't appear to have read the previous discussion carefully, I will quote my previous reply to Altino:

The embassy was initially terminated, not in a "fit of rage", but at a point when both sides expressly said that the negotiations were over and that the compromise discussed was unacceptable, which meant the alliance would be dissolved. Indeed, very shortly after the embassy was terminated, Syberis asked [at 23:22] without prompting, and without having seen the closure, if we wanted to terminate embassies first, because he obviously recognised that was the stage we were at in the discussion. The issue of embassy termination occurred to Syberis at roughly the same time as it did for Balder, and for a reason. After the first round of talks was essentially over, however, fresh negotiations ensued to try and find a settlement. At the conclusion of that, the Queen, Crown Prince and I agreed that the embassy could remain open by conducting the treaty termination on an amicable basis. There would have been no legal issue had we decided to persist with the embassy closure because embassy withdrawal takes 3 days and the legal process can be completed in that time.

Incidentally, the legal process for terminating the alliance has now been completed well within what would have been the 3 day embassy termination period, if we had not subsequently decided to conduct the end of the alliance on an amicable basis and without the termination of embassies.

Edit: You also kicked me from the chat for daring to have my own opinion. NES and I argued, you pulled embassies, I maintained I represented myself, nobody contradicted it, you kicked me for saying I didn't represent Osiris in the chat, and just myself with my opinions.

North East Somerset removed you from the conversation because you stated you did not represent Osiris and claimed to be speaking as a private citizen.

Before then, we assumed you were speaking for Osiris. It was an official negotiation and the presence of someone with no authority to negotiate in that context was inappropriate and contributed to confusion over Osiris's position when you repeatedly talked about "We" in making statements about the situation and what would or would not be acceptable (not that the positions of Altino or yourself diverged on any of the specifics in any case).

It is inevitably unhelpful and confusing to have an unofficial person ranting away with personal opinions in the middle of a tense diplomatic conversation.

[Altinsane]

It is hard for me to have discussions with you, Onder, with realization of your perspective but offense at your methods. What Syberis was trying to explain in that chat - and what I know you understand but are choosing to overlook because I later re-explained it myself - is that Syberis cannot represent the opinion of Osiris as a region. Neither could NK. They are not the Pharaoh and they do not make the final decision for our region. This is how a basic monarchy functions. They represent our perspective, but I am the sole representative of our collective "word." Understanding this, though, even if it were the case that's Syberis we're just some random in the chat kicking up dust and not one of my Guardians and a former Pharaoh, would it not have been a much better method to ask Osiris that he be removed and not just take it upon yourself to kick him out of chat? Even if you were uncomfortable asking something like that in front of him, a simple DM my direction would not be an unreasonable method. That was a power move. It was undeniably out of order, no matter your opinion on whether he should have been there or not. I could almost physically hear NES' vindictive giggling in my own living room.

Also, I'm getting a bit tired of hearing about Osiris' refusal to meet in the middle. "You say you're sorry and we won't publicly attack you" isn't a compromise, it is a threat. Meeting in the middle would have been a mutual apology from both regions, which is something that Osiris did indeed put on the table, and Balder rejected on the base that it was completely implausible that Balder had done anything wrong. From your own perspective, it was "not about meeting in the middle." It certainly seems to be about meeting in the middle now, while you're trying to fit Osiris' guilt into your narrative.

A third point, every Osiran reaction directly before the closure of embassies between us - including my acknowledgement that it is a shame to see such an old alliance end in a screaming match and the point you bring up of Syberis stating that Balder had ended things - was in response to NES saying "The relationship is over."

..? What did you want us to reply with after that? You said it was over. We believed you.

It is truly difficult to have this conversation, because I do understand your perspective. But the cost of understanding is the knowledge that you are arguing your perspective from a mind that is already made up and has been for quite some time now. You are finding tidbits of information to support your arguments, but not presenting contextually truthful statements anymore. This has turned into a showdown of you trying to make me look guilty and me building walls of defense.i still do not see why you chose to insert Balder into a problem where it was part of the story and not a part of the issue, but that is something you chose for yourself, I didn't choose it for you. Any resulting frustration on the part of Balder can only be attributed to yourself. We have stated several times before our initial post on Euro and during conversations on it that we had no qualms with Balder and did not consider IJCC at fault. You insist on your own guilt. I am not going to pretend that you are guilty just because you for some reason want me to feel this way.

In this, Balder is innocent. Onder is guilty.

[Onderkelkia]

This has turned into a showdown of you trying to make me look guilty and me building walls of defense.

If I may, I will start with this part of your response.

I have zero interest in trying to make you look anything. Balder has addressed the issue and terminated its alliance with Osiris. Balder is done with this.

My statement announcing the impending termination of the alliance was short, factual in nature and even pre-cleared with you beforehand. The statement we released cannot fairly be represented as something put together intended to paint you in an adverse light. As we advised you, we desired to end the treaty in the most amicable way possible. Subsequently, there were various queries posted by others, but I answered them in a way that avoided detailing Balder's specific criticisms against Osiris or you as an individual. You can see that by reading each of my replies prior to your own intervention.

Then, after "a couple of days to stew on this" as you put it, you decided to make this rather strange post launching an attack on Balder. Naturally, I have responded by putting our case forward on each point. If there is any "showdown" at this stage, it is one of your creation and for reasons of your choosing.

Please don't try and turn the so-called "showdown" into something to do with my purposes. It is to do solely with your purposes. Naturally, however, if you re-start an argument, we will then represent our case and marshal appropriate evidence to support it. That applies even if you dislike hearing Balder's view. That is simply a function of the argument re-starting.

Balder has moved on.

In that spirit, I don't intend to entertain any further attempts by Osiris officials to re-ignite the issue. Balder's views are on the record.

What Syberis was trying to explain in that chat - and what I know you understand but are choosing to overlook because I later re-explained it myself - is that Syberis cannot represent the opinion of Osiris as a region.

This is a not a good argument. Officials other than a head of state/head of government can act in an official capacity and speak on behalf of their region. As the Statsminister of Balder, I may have sole legal responsibility for diplomacy, but I regularly delegate authority to speak for Balder in specific contexts.

Syberis stated he did not represent Osiris. Having in effect spoken on behalf of Osiris before then, his presence was creating immense confusion.

Crown Prince North East Somerset, as the person who convened the conversation, was within rights to remove Syberis. As a practical matter, the absence of Syberis offering his allegedly personal opinions subsequently allowed a vastly more constructive and less inflammatory discussion.

Also, I'm getting a bit tired of hearing about Osiris' refusal to meet in the middle.

Where exactly did you hear about "Osiris' refusal to meet in the middle"? The term "meet in the middle" was used by Neo Kervoskia and then the Queen in the course of the actual Discord negotiations, in order to refer to a category of potential solutions, but not to complain about Osiris refusing to meet there.

In none of my posts here have I used the phrase "meet in the middle" or anything equivalent.

A third point, every Osiran reaction directly before the closure of embassies between us - including my acknowledgement that it is a shame to see such an old alliance end in a screaming match and the point you bring up of Syberis stating that Balder had ended things - was in response to NES saying "The relationship is over."

..? What did you want us to reply with after that? You said it was over. We believed you.

This is a misquotation. North East Somerset did not say "The relationship is over." as you quote him. Instead, he said: "And we believe we do have a stake in the matter. [...] So if you can't accept that, you're right, there's no trust. [...] And the relationship is over." The latter message was contingent on the earlier messages. These messages were saying that the relationship would be over if you could not accept Bader's position that we have a stake in the matters raised. Of course, everything Osiris had said up to that point indicated that you did not accept that Balder has a stake in the matter concerned, so it was no surprise that your and Syberis's reactions confirmed that you also believed the negotiations were over. It was a summary of the facts as they were.

Ultimately, at that point, it was reasonable for Balder to assume that the negotiations had concluded, hence the embassy termination. Happily, negotiations eventually resumed and as a result we decided it was possible for Balder to proceed on the basis that in-game embassies would remain open.

Any resulting frustration on the part of Balder can only be attributed to yourself. We have stated several times before our initial post on Euro and during conversations on it that we had no qualms with Balder and did not consider IJCC at fault

On the contrary, your announcement contained several express criticisms of IJCC, from your concerns about the Supreme Military Council's handling of your complaint against Writinglegend, to the idea that the Standing Orders amendment (proposed by Balder) removed sovereign control of regional militaries.

In any case, the issue is not whether Osiris had "any qualms" with Balder or IJCC as a whole. The issue is whether Balder has issues with Osiris. We do, not least Osiris's patronising insistence that Balder is wrong to be concerned about the IJCC (our military), its rules and whether it violates one of our treaties. Balder is perfectly capable of identifying its own interests and, of course, as its democratically elected Statsminister, I am guilty of having a big role in that.

---

The Storting has voted to repeal the Treaty of the Ancient Gods. The Crown Prince has delivered formal notification to Osiris. As far Balder is concerned, the matter is settled. Osiris can continue to re-litigate the matter if it likes, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss this any further.

[Canton Empire]

Why does it always appear that Balder is diplomatically outclassed by every GCR and a large majority of major UCRs?

[Consular]

At work and not the most pleased with people trying to make this amicable ending of the treaty less amicable.

If you're aiming for amicable maybe stop letting this belligerent Statsminister speak for you.

Everything would have been amicable had he had the restraint to not talk in the first place.

He has personally destroyed your relationship with Osiris.

Everything else is him making up justifications after the fact -- something he has a LOT of experience with.

[Altinsane]

Aye. If you are going to continue to dissect my every post in an attempt to invalidate Osiris and consistently overlook every instance of unarguable wrongdoing on your part, then I am inclined to agree with you in that stance. I have a lot better things to be doing than to argue with about something that you've already made up your mind on, regardless of reality. My sincere condolences to Rach.


Later tater.

[Cormactopia Prime]

My sincere condolences to Rach.

I wouldn't feel too bad for her. I <3 her and all, but she could make Balder 100% better with a few clicks of a button, and she chooses not to do so.

[Pergamon]

My sincere condolences to Rach.

I wouldn't feel too bad for her. I <3 her and all, but she could make Balder 100% better with a few clicks of a button, and she chooses not to do so.

I love to click those specific buttons, maybe I could volunteer?

[Ryccia]

My sincere condolences to Rach.

I wouldn't feel too bad for her. I <3 her and all, but she could make Balder 100% better with a few clicks of a button, and she chooses not to do so.

Solorni, follow the trend. Actually take charge of your region. Pushing those buttons will improve Balder's quality of government and its interregional standing would improve by 777%. It is an offer too good to miss. Not a pawn of the Imperialists, but its own region.

[The Sygian]

I wouldn't feel too bad for her. I <3 her and all, but she could make Balder 100% better with a few clicks of a button, and she chooses not to do so.

Solorni, follow the trend. Actually take charge of your region. Pushing those buttons will improve Balder's quality of government and its interregional standing would improve by 777%. It is an offer too good to miss. Not a pawn of the Imperialists, but its own region.

Kind sir, do you have any substantiation to these numbers?

Jokes aside, I do agree.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I wouldn't feel too bad for her. I <3 her and all, but she could make Balder 100% better with a few clicks of a button, and she chooses not to do so.

Solorni, follow the trend. Actually take charge of your region. Pushing those buttons will improve Balder's quality of government and its interregional standing would improve by 777%. It is an offer too good to miss. Not a pawn of the Imperialists, but its own region.

Which trend is that? The trend where more GCR's are relying on the personality and whims of the delegate (and perhaps a small clique around them) to define the much of the personality, direction, and government of the region single-handedly? Because I don't think that's a good trend in the sense of stability and smooth transitions.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Solorni, follow the trend. Actually take charge of your region. Pushing those buttons will improve Balder's quality of government and its interregional standing would improve by 777%. It is an offer too good to miss. Not a pawn of the Imperialists, but its own region.

Which trend is that? The trend where more GCR's are relying on the personality and whims of the delegate (and perhaps a small clique around them) to define the much of the personality, direction, and government of the region single-handedly? Because I don't think that's a good trend in the sense of stability and smooth transitions.

As opposed to the unelected Council of the Hawks, which decides much of the personality, direction, and government of your region single-handedly?

In the past, we've had democracy in most of the GCRs that are now Delegate-focused. Democracy brought exactly the lack of stability and smooth transitions you claim a Delegate-focused system will bring, but we haven't seen that happening under Delegate-focused systems. I think what you meant to say is that a Delegate-focused system makes GCRs harder for people like your friends in the IJCC to exploit and bend to their agenda.

[Eriadni]

The unelected council does a better job than most GCR governments apparently...

Perhaps dels need to rule with their heads, not their hearts.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Which trend is that? The trend where more GCR's are relying on the personality and whims of the delegate (and perhaps a small clique around them) to define the much of the personality, direction, and government of the region single-handedly? Because I don't think that's a good trend in the sense of stability and smooth transitions.

As opposed to the unelected Council of the Hawks, which decides much of the personality, direction, and government of your region single-handedly?

In the past, we've had democracy in most of the GCRs that are now Delegate-focused. Democracy brought exactly the lack of stability and smooth transitions you claim a Delegate-focused system will bring, but we haven't seen that happening under Delegate-focused systems. I think what you meant to say is that a Delegate-focused system makes GCRs harder for people like your friends in the IJCC to exploit and bend to their agenda.

I do in fact believe that a body with a body with a wider base, more dispersed power,
and continual, gradual, offset handoffs of power is more stable, though I’ll acknowledge ahead of the following the caveat that it’s rarely anywhere close to perfect to compare a UCR system that works for a couple dozen people to a GCR system that serves several times that.

It’s funny you make this an attack, though. I bet if I’d +1’d the sentiment, someone would have attacked the other way - “strongly delegate-led regions are easier to influence, only have to convince one person! Also easier to coup if you can be in that line of total succession!” I can assure you, for what it’s worth, that I was just expressing my view on regional leadership, not maneuvering. I don’t like any system where a person alone defines it; any system where one specific person leaving has a chance of throwing the whole system into turmoil.

The alternative isn’t inherently democratic, either. As you kindly mentioned, I’ve spent years inside of a non-democratic system that works to actively breed appropriate internal dissent by selecting members who don’t just bandwagon along, as well as to smoothly transition new members in while continually phasing retirees our so that institutional knowledge is never lost. I might even say that I have spent much of my time over those years working specifically to limit our liability from the Bus Factor.

Are you familiar with the Bus Factor? It’s how many people, at minimum, a project can lose before it fails. You want it to be higher. If some folks got hit by a bus, or less morbidly won the lottery and quit, or in terms of NS maybe just decided they were done with the game tomorrow, how bad could it be? Are there places where your bus factor is 1, a single point of failure where just one person missing grinds major things to an indefinite halt and induces major chaos? What information, processes, and responsibilities can you share in order to lower this risk?

It’s a tangent that I’ve gone off on, becuase strongly delegate led governances don’t *necessarily* have a lower bus factor. But I hope the general point somewhat carries. I’ve watched a lot of raiding regions die becuase their charismatic frontman went poof for one reason or another. TEP might have enough systems that it’d fair reasonably okay, just a rut, if Yuno went poof, but what would happen to Lazarus if Imki did? I know that TBH would do fine if any council member left the game tomorrow, barely a bump in the road. In fact, I credit council’s cyclical, overlapping nature, embracing of internal dissent, and strongly democratic internal structure that discusses and votes on issues before presenting a generally uniform face, all as playing no small part in TBH’s longevity. I think that every region that values stability should strive to be able to say the same about their leadership body. It’s kept us stable and active since arguably late 2011ish, and certainly at least mid 2014, with a fairly large council throughput. How many GCR’s have been stable for the past 5-7 years?

So, yeah, I really don’t think that the “delegate as a strong focusing figure for the region” is one that’s best for the long term. I’m curious to see how various regions handle the transition when their current “statue leaders” move on some day. That’s another side note - I don’t like that it tends to lock people into the role indefinitely until they can find someone they think they trust to be their full successor (whether it’s an heir in a monarchical system, or a technically democratic one where they won’t stop running [and winning easily] until there’s a suitable “candidate” they can endorse to fill their place). There’s some other things I could get into as well, but I’ve already written well more than enough of a 2am wall, vaguely about project management, spawned from an overly aggressive reply to an offhand comment in someone's embassy.

[Altinsane]

Disagree.

I think it's first of all important to go ahead and establish that the government that works best for any particular region works best because of the people and culture in it, not because that Government style is in any way actually superior. You build a place that works for the people you serve. It's easy to critique these systems - and in some cases you're right to critique them, there does come a point where the citizen base or atmosphere of the region has changed so much that the old system doesn't work anymore - but it really isn't fair to just slap a "trend" tag on the lot and assume they have failed, when that isn't the case. Any government system you choose, though, has to think toward its future purposefully, and that's where I think that delegate focused regions have the potential to really shine. In democracies you can dabble in the shady business of cliques and control to make sure you know who will be in Power next so that you can plan for that. Every democratic region I've ever been in has been very competitive and Power grabby. I think the big fault in democracies is less in the sketchy politics, though, which can honestly be a leading source of activity for them, but in the near inevitable decline into incompetency as older people who have kept a stranglehold on Power back down and younger people who have not had a chance to learn take the reigns and send their region spiraling down to the ground floor again. That sort of thing can happen in more delegate-focused regions as well, but I feel like it's not as prevalent of an issue if we're smart about our futures.

I'm not sure how other delegate-focused regions do things, but I feel like I can safely say that Osiris, TWP, and I think NPO approach things with a similar mindset in the form of meritocracy. I tell my people when they are in positions of power that their top priority should be training their own replacement. I've had Viziers in the past who just preferred to do everything on their own because trying to push others to do work frustrated them. But that's not acceptable. I don't see it as ever acceptable for there to be any person in your region that you could not go on without. Pharaoh included. With this sort of deal, transitions of Power aren't that hard. Everyone already knows what they're doing and they just keep on doing that thing. People who are good at what they do and like doing it are always at the top, and people who've gotten tired or are still learning aren't given more responsibility than they're prepared for. The big strength that we have is confidence in mentorship, where we don't have to be afraid that someone we train might turn on us or betray us in some future election, so we can be free to teach them everything we know and create a strong base of competence. The element that anyone inside our own region might be the enemy is just not there. We're in the business of building only. That of course can be it's own problem, as I mentioned before competition in democracies is a good activity push, but I think TBH can understand the other ways that you can push activity in your region without needing any side dishes of bloodthirsty betrayal. TBH is an org and doesn't really have a functioning gov't, but you definitely keep the people in your region busy and definitely put the same sort of emphasis on elevating newer players and helping them realize their potential. Same concept. I can't say that all Delegate-focused regions do this well, but that is the potential behind the idea. It's without a doubt the kind of system where a bad delegate can be real death to the region, and I think in our functions as delegate and in choosing our successors that's something we all have to think about, but new delegates have every chance to be a breath of fresh air for their region and build on to the things that their region already has going for it.

Idk if we can really call Rach a deviation from that "trend," being that she's one of the longest serving delegates in the game, though. She passes her power as Queen on to someone else, but she still is the Queen and if we're all being honest the Democratic part of the whole deal is pretty Consistently the same crowd. Not totally sure where they fit in that equation. Lol.

[Eriadni]

Hear hear Alt!

When will it become apparent that all the UCR vs GCR rhetoric is just protecting the same old group of the same old people who just don't want their power taken away? Good governance is better than anything else, no matter what form its in.

[Xoriet]

Hear hear Alt!

When will it become apparent that all the UCR vs GCR rhetoric is just protecting the same old group of the same old people who just don't want their power taken away? Good governance is better than anything else, no matter what form its in.

I feel like you've been listening to people and not doing any actual research yourself based on this. That's a common thing though, so no big deal.

GCR vs UCR rhetoric has very little to do with "old people" having issues with retaining power. That is simply another dynamic in the game. UCR people can fall under three categories: Explotative relationship with GCRs, symbiotic relationship with GCRs, and mutually indifferent relationship with GCRs.

In case you think I believe this is restricted to UCR relationships with GCRs, I think UCRs can exploit other UCRs, too, and GCRs can also exploit other GCRs. Exploitation of others is not solely the jurisdiction of a UCR-GCR association. The difference is the application and circumstance under which it is applied.

Furthermore, I'd like to note that if the government is legitimate and run by natives of the GCR in question, how they do it is not the concern. I would like to see all GCRs succeed (and I enjoyed the period when some Warzones had this going for them, too) under their chosen method, even if it isn't one that is agreeable with all others. The ideal is GCR harmony, not GCR conflict.

As for claims of "old people who don't want their power taken away", there are plenty of recent examples of new players in GCRs removing older players and creating an order with the same fundamental principles. If that happens, okay. It only becomes an issue when the older players are tossed out for not being fully a part of the new dynamic. Regardless of what changes you think are best for the region, it's unfortunate if you throw out history and experience for a vision that may or may not even work out. I believe you can have a community where you can incorporate both sides in a symbiotic relationship to bring a region out of inactivity.

There's nothing wrong with maintaining and establishing the form of government or leadership that best works for your region. The TBH model, as referenced above, has been very successful over a span of many years. This is a good example of how to run a military. Criticizing Osiris, TP, and TWP for taking an approach of dynamics of a vaguely similar note involving meritocratic, delegate-central government is silly, although I won't say hypocritical because TBH isn't a political region.

Power isn't the point here. It's just the word people like to use because it's a pretty standard and time-worn argument to discredit others.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Altino, I thought I made clear that that alternative didn’t have to be a straight democracy, so I’m a little sad that you started your reply based around that assumption, and not sure if you really read what I was saying based on that and the rest of your reply

[Lord Dominator]

I'm not sure how other delegate-focused regions do things, but I feel like I can safely say that Osiris, TWP, and I think NPO approach things with a similar mindset in the form of meritocracy. I tell my people when they are in positions of power that their top priority should be training their own replacement. I've had Viziers in the past who just preferred to do everything on their own because trying to push others to do work frustrated them. But that's not acceptable. I don't see it as ever acceptable for there to be any person in your region that you could not go on without. Pharaoh included. With this sort of deal, transitions of Power aren't that hard. Everyone already knows what they're doing and they just keep on doing that thing. People who are good at what they do and like doing it are always at the top, and people who've gotten tired or are still learning aren't given more responsibility than they're prepared for. The big strength that we have is confidence in mentorship, where we don't have to be afraid that someone we train might turn on us or betray us in some future election, so we can be free to teach them everything we know and create a strong base of competence. The element that anyone inside our own region might be the enemy is just not there. We're in the business of building only. That of course can be it's own problem, as I mentioned before competition in democracies is a good activity push, but I think TBH can understand the other ways that you can push activity in your region without needing any side dishes of bloodthirsty betrayal. TBH is an org and doesn't really have a functioning gov't, but you definitely keep the people in your region busy and definitely put the same sort of emphasis on elevating newer players and helping them realize their potential. Same concept. I can't say that all Delegate-focused regions do this well, but that is the potential behind the idea. It's without a doubt the kind of system where a bad delegate can be real death to the region, and I think in our functions as delegate and in choosing our successors that's something we all have to think about, but new delegates have every chance to be a breath of fresh air for their region and build on to the things that their region already has going for it.

That's basically what Souls was describing/asking however, how basically that, of how well the region would do if x number of people (usually one) were to disappear for some reason. And basically what you're describing, at least for Osiris, is how you minimize that.

[Altinsane]

That's basically what Souls was describing/asking however, how basically that, of how well the region would do if x number of people (usually one) were to disappear for some reason. And basically what you're describing, at least for Osiris, is how you minimize that.

Altino, I thought I made clear that that alternative didn’t have to be a straight democracy, so I’m a little sad that you started your reply based around that assumption, and not sure if you really read what I was saying based on that and the rest of your reply

Lol, no, you totally did, I'm sorry. I got really distracted by Bus Factor and zeroed in hard on that. And also: the GCRs are either delegate-focused or they're democracies. We could talk about other options, I guess, but we'd have to use our imaginations, because there aren't any right now. But. You didn't think that Delegate-focused regions were good for its long term stability. I was saying if you do it right, it's a model of stability.You just have to have delegates who use their noggins.

[The Sygian]

If you think about it, failure of democracy in sinkers (failure of democracy in all GCRs is a larger narrative that I can go on about if you'd like) is the reason that such a symbolic treaty between Osiris and Balder has been abandoned. For some odd reason that I cannot quite grasp, the citizens of Balder thought that it would be a good idea to elect Onder as Statsminister for like 2 years.

Take Lazarus, for example. Most of the people there are my pals, but damn they have just managed to barely stabilize after MONTHS of beef. I can guarantee it will happen again, because several of the past iterations of Lazarus have the same common denominator - democracy. And in a game that is centralized around politicking and rhetoric, democracy in such large regions just. doesn't. work. as it is intended to.

Delegate focused GCRs are the key to success when success is defined as stability, activity, and growth, especially when it comes to Sinkers.

[Tupelope]

failure of democracy in all GCRs is a larger narrative that I can go on about if you'd like).

id like that

[Cormactopia Prime]

Altino, I thought I made clear that that alternative didn’t have to be a straight democracy, so I’m a little sad that you started your reply based around that assumption, and not sure if you really read what I was saying based on that and the rest of your reply

The options that actually exist are democracy or Delegate-based. There could, in theory, be a third option, but there isn't right now, not in GCRs anyway, and never has been -- which strongly implies there is never going to be a third option. So when you're saying Delegate-based government is unstable and prone to rocky transitions, in context it seems like you're arguing that democracy is preferable to Delegate-based.

And in this specific context, a dispute between Balder and Osiris, it seems like you're arguing that Balder is preferable to Osiris.

That may not have been your intention, but that's how it came across to me and, I think, a fair few other people.

[Unibot III]

I think the dispute is a false dichotomy; in many cases, an autocratic/monarchical GCR is only incidentally stable: there are many cases where an autocrat has been talked out of purging their own government out of power. For instance, the idea that NPO has flawless internal record of stability is blatant revisionism and censorship of behind-the-scene events.

Autocracies are fraught with internal challengers from guardians, vices, regents, vanguards, old guards, and other factions.

The most stable GCRs, big and small, are democratic GCRs that meet certain conditions. The advantage of democracy over autocracy is it facilitates constructive renewal and civil transitions of power to rivals, but it has to meet certain conditions that foster internal and external stability:

• A mature political culture. A regional population needs to believe in, and practice liberal democracy and justice. When ideas like political and meta- amoralism ("It's a game! Coup lolz.") fester, you can't run a functional region without people eventually putting their amusement before their region's interest.
  
  • Effective, liberal citizenship vetting. The main objective of citizenship vetting must be to keep a regional democracy safe from disruption, promoting a mature political culture - citizenship vetting must be given the tools and have the knowledge to make these decisions. Francoist calls for anti- "userite" vetting and Neo-Francoist calls for "no dual membership" rules selects residents for arbitrary and irrelevant characteristics under a misguided orthodoxy that may even slant a region towards disruption and bad faith actors. Many disruptive entryists are feederites, many still are NPO Senators!
  • Rule of Law. Threats to the delegacy and the security of the region, or equivalents to that (like election fraud, ballot-box stuffing) have to be responded to with punishment. Amnesty or failure to prosecute individuals for crimes of these nature snowball into new problems and new threats to the delegacy, undermining a mature political culture.
  • Entrenched Democratic Rights. If rights and freedoms are promulgated, entrenched and revered culturally, they are more difficult to rollback. Constitutionalizing rights means empowering residents, rather than executives.
  • A respected, firmly established mandarinate. A democracy needs senior actors that are widely respected and associated with the region's governance - these aren't official positions, they develop naturally as a product of statespersonship; local residents and the international community turn to these mandarins in times of crises and emergencies as legitimate authorities.
• Open endorsement trading. Strong democracies encourage endorsement trading to promote retention, close endorsement gaps, and more evenly distribute influence.
  
• International support. Allies are necessary to support constitutional authorities in times of crisis.

The issues that have plagued Lazarus, Osiris, and others are cyclical because newly liberated regions are often poor foundations for a liberal democracy for the same reasons they needed to be liberated in the first place! Newly liberated regions inherit the messy horse-trading, grievances, and betrayal that precipitated the downfall of the previous regime. Illiberalism is a cycle. A failed democracy's international credibility is rocked by past crises, its endorsement distribution becomes uneven with purges, new legislatures are flooded with interested, but not necessarily well-intentioned gameplayers, bad actors are given amnesty to heal political divisions etc. Implementing democracies in a 'warzone'-like climate is like trying to hit a reset on a region's reputation, its culture, its people, in a way that is near impossible. It takes time to break such a cycle and it's most easily done if a regime collapses/departs voluntarily and there's a high turnover of membership.

I think Osiris could transition to a democracy without issue at this point and find the monarchical structures unnecessary. Same with Balder.