Jump to content

A public apology


URAP

Recommended Posts

Considering that the Regional Assembly in TNP has its origins within the North Pacific Directorate and that Gracius Maximus has served in nearly every office within the region I am not so certain I would be a second at all, much less 'distant', since I do have ongoing close diplomatic relations with the Minister.

 

I do not like the separation of onsite and offsite.  I think it is a sham and one that is easily ignored by a Delegate with more resolve than URAP.  The incorporation of the Delegacy in some manner is essential and there is at least one prominent GCR system in place that does not maintain a Guardian-like system, does not have an offsite government that can dictate to the Delegate, and still maintains a strong culture with the Delegate as the head of state and head of government.

 

Coincidentally, I am also uniquely qualified to compare TWP with that system as well.  And it has maintained stability much more effectively and much longer than any of the other GCRs.

Ivan ... I also am uniquely qualified to compare a number of of other Feeder systems with the TWP system ... including that other system of which you speak.  I prefer the separation of Forum and Game because it mirrors the real distinction and independence of the two aspects of the region.  The Pacific reached a stable point over a decade ago that worked for the region and its players.  But to borrow from Star Trek (the TV program and not the region), IDIC.  TWP is a different region with different players (for the most part), maintaining a different style of government here.  If every region were like every other region, there would be no need for more than ONE region in NS. 

 

TP does maintain a Guardian system of sorts with its keeping endos low for anyone not part of the ruling elite.  I describe TP as having a Gatekeeper system rather than a Guardian system.  It works for TP.  TWP works for those in TWP.  Both systes have endured for longer than most have been in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet this system just failed. I'm not trying to be difficult here but the separation of the offsite and onsite directly led to the current situation. Yes, URAP made some (huge) mistakes along the way, but ultimately the insistence of having a wholly separate offsite system is what led to his last unfortunate set of decisions. I can see how the system can work for a set period of time under a certain sort of Delegate but it has to be effectively renewed and/or restructured after ever Delegate change, which to me does not speak to stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the system didn't fail, URAP failed.

If he was Delegate of TP, the failure would have been the same....his failure, not the system.

Come on now, I think we both know that this wouldn't happen in TP. Nations that take the Delegacy there have undergone years of indoctrination prior to even getting close. And if a new Delegate wanted to change the system it could without issue at all.

That said, URAP sought to pursue his own agenda as Delegate. He may have done it in a poor fashion but ultimately it was his right and the Voice effectively took it away from him. It led to stress on his position that would not have occurred if he was working with the offsite instead of against them. He was never declared a rogue Delegate here so that situation should never have occurred, and yet it did. In a very public way. It takes multiple parties to stage the clusterfuck that has been taking place here over the last couple of weeks. It wasn't just URAP even if he 'started' it.

You also know that a Delegate with more resolve and a stronger will would not have put up with it in the same fashion and things would have likely been even worse.

What are the odds that all future Dels here in TWP will be so compliant? It isn't that the system doesn't work, because it clearly can. It is that it only works under very specific circumstances which is problematic in (IC) real world situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is true we did suffer a very minor setback with URA's apparent 'insanity', that is still not reason enough to dramatically change the fundamental core that is TWP offsite/ingame system.
Mistakes will be made, poor choices will be made, we are all human after all.
We learn. We adapt. We modify. The way things are currently, is fluid enough to incorporate those things/entities that would, in the future, address such aberration/anomalies such as you describe.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vlagh I think you see the URAP failing as the system failing.

 

Those are two different things. I also think you see a delegate failing as the system failing. Again, those are separate in TWP. 

 

The one thing I have liked about TWP is that the delegate chair itself while having the most authority wasn't something we (the Guardians) wanted to have as a rotation of the elite. Instead we did want newer folks in the chair (Enlightened Defenders) and people who hadn't been delegate before (Yy4u).

 

That's the difference between TP and TWP in my opinion and one isn't better than another, it's just that within this system we're willing to risk a bad delegate in order for the system we have established to continue. 

 

Elu - thanks for the comment on Flem. I'm shocked. 

 

I also think that TWP has proved influential in many ways b/c the system has worked for so long. I mean, I might chide the new kids a bit but the Guardians enabled us to retake the region fairly quickly. So I'll agree with AGP that URAP failed and the system showed how strong it is and needs to continue being.

 

 

Addendum: Thinking further,  Vlagh in your paradigm if the delegate fails the system fails. This could be true in TP (i'm not an officionado on that one) but in TWP we've built a system that will continue should a delegate fail precisely because delegates can fail. We haven't had something like this in TWP in probably a decade but even so this lasted an update, maybe two. That's not a failing system in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I am being unclear. I don't mind the Delegate failing, that has happened within TP as well in the past and the system adjusts.

My concern is that in those failures one thing remained constant - the Delegate had the authority to fail. Here now that authority is being stripped. It isn't as it was six months ago. The system has shifted within TWP. The Voice maintained the autonomy and ultimate recognition authority of the Delegacy. That has now been made moot and further changes are being added to completely obliterate the Delegates role in that respect. That isn't 'how things have been' here in TWP at all.

Yes, TWP has maintained separation and the community could fashion whatever form of governance that they wished, but it was always with the Delegate's blessing and usually with their support and recognition.

While the new Delegate might do those things the new precedent is that the Delegate can not make changes to the government of TWP and I envision that as a very large potential problem in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I am being unclear. I don't mind the Delegate failing, that has happened within TP as well in the past and the system adjusts.

My concern is that in those failures one thing remained constant - the Delegate had the authority to fail. Here now that authority is being stripped. It isn't as it was six months ago. The system has shifted within TWP. The Voice maintained the autonomy and ultimate recognition authority of the Delegacy. That has now been made moot and further changes are being added to completely obliterate the Delegates role in that respect. That isn't 'how things have been' here in TWP at all.

Yes, TWP has maintained separation and the community could fashion whatever form of governance that they wished, but it was always with the Delegate's blessing and usually with their support and recognition.

While the new Delegate might do those things the new precedent is that the Delegate can not make changes to the government of TWP and I envision that as a very large potential problem in the future.

Provide a viable example of how this supposed trouble can occur/manifest and I may be swayed(a little) towards your perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provide a viable example of how this supposed trouble can occur/manifest and I may be swayed(a little) towards your perspective.

Scenario 1: A year from now a nation that has been appointed a Guardian and takes over the Delegacy wishes to implement a provincial system (since it is somewhat relevant) within the region, taking the authority away from the Voice as the 'official' government of TWP.  The Voice, no longer having any say in how the region operates goes into 'Rebellion mode' and works towards removing or bullying the Delegate into an alternative course of action.

 

Let's say the new Delegate is more inclined to back his/her new system than URAP was and maintains that the provincial system is the way forward while acknowledging that the Voice can continue to exist on the offsite but will not be party to any diplomatic representation for TWP abroad, will not be on the WFE and will not be advertised on the RMB.  

 

This acknowledges the offsite as separate but does not recognize it.  Based on the last few weeks, do you believe that will create an amicable working relationship?

 

Scenario 2: A year from now the Voice, already given authority to ignore the Delegate, decides that they are ready for a new Delegate because of a lack of communication, lack of support with mass-TGs, whatever and seeks to implement a new method of regime change (this has already been suggested by a couple of the newer players here, if they remain and continue to maintain their current beliefs I can see this occurring quite easily in a years time as more players are brought in and exposed to this).  The Delegate, being the Delegate of TWP and historically the ultimate ingame authority, refuses to comply.  Rebellion mode again ensues.  Again, not an amicable working relationship.

 

Effectively, to my mind this simply leads to either a rogue Delegate or a TNP-like system, both of which might work elsewhere but won't work here.  Ignoring the Delegate is not good for TWP in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is it you propose(in simple terms)?

You would have the delegate tied up?
I tend to view it as two sides of the same coin actually. The delegate does indeed have absolute authority by way of game mechanics that the 'virtual' entities off site have to deal with. You cannot prevent a rogue delegate no matter what system is in place. Human behavior nulls that. It is a risk because it is a game and mechanics of the game allow this fundamentally.

The off site is supposedly a representation of the governing body that is The West Pacific, those WA  and non WA. But because it is an entity removed from the game physically, there are no mechanics to prevent any damage by a rogue delegate. Any actions will have to be inclusive of mechanics in game by default, if any effects are to be realized.

How do you securely and effectively 'blend' the two as a harmonious machine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is it you propose(in simple terms)?

You would have the delegate tied up?

I tend to view it as two sides of the same coin actually. The delegate does indeed have absolute authority by way of game mechanics that the 'virtual' entities off site have to deal with. You cannot prevent a rogue delegate no matter what system is in place. Human behavior nulls that. It is a risk because it is a game and mechanics of the game allow this fundamentally.

The off site is supposedly a representation of the governing body that is The West Pacific, those WA  and non WA. But because it is an entity removed from the game physically, there are no mechanics to prevent any damage by a rogue delegate. Any actions will have to be inclusive of mechanics in game by default, if any effects are to be realized.

How do you securely and effectively 'blend' the two as a harmonious machine?

There is no such thing as a rogue Delegate in some systems.  For example, if Pierconium dissolved the NPO tomorrow and set up a new form of government within The Pacific that would be what occurred and the system would adjust around his design, as occurred with the PRP in the distant past.

 

Obviously, that won't work here, and yes, it is two sides of the same coin, which is why I advocate that they can not ultimately be separated completely.  Future Delegates will be more inclined to maintain a system that incorporates them and their authority within it.

 

I think the Voice as it existed on paper before the rebellion clause was a good model for this (and yes, that means some form of liaison, perhaps with limited/curbed authority but still in existence) as it recognizes the Delegate as the ultimate authority of the region.  I do not think the Voice should pass laws that state the Delegate can not make changes because it quite frankly is not true in functioning reality and is just a hope and a wish.

 

And if that isn't sufficient, then I would suggest that TWP adopt a bicameral system that would accomplish the same thing.  An upper house consisting of the Delegate and Guardians and a lower house made up of the Voice.  Both having to ratify laws, with ties going in the Delegate's favor.  This maintains the idea of separate but (almost) equal.

 

It is late here and I am just brainstorming as I type so apologies if that seems a bit muddled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beauty of our TWP system -- as  Isee it -- is that ANY government format can be created in the forum and the Delegate can be a major player in that format both in forum and in game. What we look for in leaders is leadership.  The Guardians system in TWP is simply a failsafe for those times when leadership is weak. 

 

If someone thinks a bicameral construct is worthwhile and can sell the idea to the region, we will go with it.  If someone believes s/he can convince us all to go to the Dark Side and become the biggest damn Raiding Force in all NS history and that leader has a solid action plan  to present to the region, we might even go for that.  If the Delegate decides "Ahh F**k it!!!" and goes roo-pooh crazy, like we recently experienced, no big deal.  The Guardian system is in place to take the hit, correct and reset.  The recent "failure" (if there really was one) can be tied to only two things (imo) ... the lack of resolve and integrity of the URAP player and the retirement (and loss of major Influence) of the primary Old Guardians.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a rogue Delegate in some systems.  For example, if Pierconium dissolved the NPO tomorrow and set up a new form of government within The Pacific that would be what occurred and the system would adjust around his design, as occurred with the PRP in the distant past.

 

Obviously, that won't work here, and yes, it is two sides of the same coin, which is why I advocate that they can not ultimately be separated completely.  Future Delegates will be more inclined to maintain a system that incorporates them and their authority within it.

 

I think the Voice as it existed on paper before the rebellion clause was a good model for this (and yes, that means some form of liaison, perhaps with limited/curbed authority but still in existence) as it recognizes the Delegate as the ultimate authority of the region.  I do not think the Voice should pass laws that state the Delegate can not make changes because it quite frankly is not true in functioning reality and is just a hope and a wish.

 

And if that isn't sufficient, then I would suggest that TWP adopt a bicameral system that would accomplish the same thing.  An upper house consisting of the Delegate and Guardians and a lower house made up of the Voice.  Both having to ratify laws, with ties going in the Delegate's favor.  This maintains the idea of separate but (almost) equal.

 

It is late here and I am just brainstorming as I type so apologies if that seems a bit muddled.

The issue with having a bicameral system is that it is difficult to maintain the offsite activity needed for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with having a bicameral system is that it is difficult to maintain the offsite activity needed for it.

You know what? I get tired of seeing that. The West Pacific has over 5000 nations in it. This nation level (absent Reddit) is sustained for the most part so all those nations are coming from somewhere. Yes, the vast majority might be puppets and yes a lot of nations are just here for a couple of days and they disappear, but that doesn't mean there are only 10 nations in the region worth anything to us here.

I have always seen offsite activity levels as a product of the effort put into the community by the leadership. Unfortunately the leadership in this region has done little to support activity. And I can guarantee you that having an offsite system that ignores the ingame authority of the Delegate does not help the situation at all.

Yes there has been a summer slump and yes it tends to get a bit worse each year but other regions do it. We like to talk about how we innovate this or how others follow our lead on that, well perhaps it's time we followed someone else's lead for a bit and got our heads out of our asses.

Trust me when I tell you that just because it worked a decade ago does not mean it works today. If we fail to adapt we will continue to struggle with activity levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...