The Rejected Times - Issue XXIV

[Unibot]

Issue XXIV, July 07, 2014.

>> Liberate Haven

Liberate Haven Stirs Controversy
COMMENTARY | KOGVURON

When Mallorea and Riva first published a draft for "Liberate Haven" last Thursday, one would think that no one could have suspected the sheer level of controversy and debate that would follow. On the other hand, maybe this is what the author intended.

No matter Mall's motives, here are the facts: Liberate Haven proposed to remove the hidden password of the region Haven, a well-known roleplayer region, boasting famous residents like Questers and Kraven. The author made clear that this was designed to open the region to a potential invasion.

This is not the first time that an invader has tried to unlock Haven for invasions. In 2010, Oh My Days of NAZI EUROPE drafted a proposal to liberate Haven. Roleplayers had responded negatively then as they have now, with current II Mentor Oseato describing the proposal as a "massive tyranny and abuse of the Liberation function". That proposal sparked a major debate between the roleplay and gameplay communities, although to a lesser magnitude than the current proposal.

Many roleplayers objected to this most recent proposal. Some feared that the passage of this resolution would set a precedent for aggression against roleplay regions using the Security Council. Previously, the WA Security Council was used to "open up" NAZI EUROPE to invasion. However, using the Security Council against a region not associated with hated real-world ideologies would set a different sort of tone for the future workings of the World Assembly.

Roleplayers also took exception to another clause in the proposal, which accuses Haven of participating in the 2013 coup of The South Pacific in support of Milograd. Many roleplayers claimed that Haven did not take part, with some saying that no Havenites did at all, and others admitting that while some Havenites did take part, this should not reflect on the region as a whole. Opponents of the bill also claimed that it was hypocritical for Mall to justify the "liberation" due to Haven's support for the coup, since Mall was heavily involved in the coup himself. Mall and supporters of the proposal responded to these arguments by displaying evidence of the participation of Havenites in the coup, and by saying that this line played only a minor part of the whole proposal.

Despite all of the controversy surrounding the proposal, the resolution did not even reach the voting floor. The proposal failed to reach quorum within the allotted time, meaning that it would not be voted on. Mallorea did not campaign for the proposal, although other invaders did send out telegrams asking delegates to approve the resolution. Opponents of the proposal also counter-campaigned to great success, with the number of approvals being maintained relatively stable at thirty-nine as soon as the counter-campaign began.

Even if the resolution did get to vote, it seemed likely to fail. The forum response to the proposal was overwhelmingly negative, and even in traditional gameplay circles, the response was cold. Kringalia, WA Delegate of the South Pacific, told the Rejected Time that he"[saw] Liberate Haven and the controversy that followed it as an unnecessary exercise of futility".

"It should be a matter of common courtesy to leave roleplaying regions alone," says Kringalia, "but at the same time I do not believe that this should be an enforceable rule or feature in the game. There has been fault on both sides for being excessively partisan and unwilling to talk civilly. In terms of the proposal itself, I agree with what some people have said, that it is hypocritical of Mallorea and Riva to use the 2013 coup as an argument, when he was one of the people orchestrating it. The truth is that the South Pacific no longer cares about the roleplayers that participated in the coup. This is why there has been no response from the people of the South Pacific to this proposal, because we honestly have no interest in it".

Maybe all the debate was much ado about nothing, however, the proposal definitely has touched frayed nerves in the NationStates community.

---

The Greater Good
EDITORIAL | UNIBOT


“Do I have the right?”

“The Greater Good” is a dangerous and slippery notion, as many have discovered over the passage of human existence. Decisions that at one time seemed justified to us, accumulate and snowball such that they are no longer justified, but instead bear severe consequences for civilization. For example, the careless, rapid industrialization of the twenty-first century may bring with it overwhelming environmental issues and severe climate change – at what point do these externalized costs of business and industry outweigh their benefit to society?

The captioned picture is from Genesis of The Daleks (Doctor Who). In this iconic scene, The Doctor is faced with the decision of whether or not to erase the very existence of the most dangerous and hostile race in the whole of the universe: The Daleks. He decides that although erasing the Daleks from existence would save all of the innocent lives that they have taken over the years, this decision would also erase all of the international cooperation that had occurred in the wake of such a terrible, relentless threat. In some ways, the universe had become a more cooperative intergalactic society in the wake of the Daleks – who was he, The Doctor asked himself – to undo that history of spirit, courage and goodwill?

Recently, in the wake of this “Liberate Haven” debacle, some roleplayers were discussing whether invading should occur at all– this is to say, whether regions should have to suffer through invasions despite not condoning this practice. Todd McCloud, former invader and griefer, entered the debate to argue that invading served ‘the greater good’ – by (i) providing activity through chaos and drama to founderless regions, (ii) providing an incentive for regions to stay active and (iii) diverting active natives to new regions as opposed to old “stagnant” ones. This line of argumentation is a traditional justification for invading – newer invaders like to argue that there is no ethical boundaries in NationStates beyond that which is legal (amoralism)*, which contrasts them with “moralist” defenders, who believe invasions, are wrong. Whereas, arguing that invading serves a ‘greater good’, as Todd McCloud is here, assumes there is a good at all – which in a strange way, places him in the same camp as so-called “moralists” like myself and other theorists over the ages, although we wildly disagree over what is right, wrong or permissible in NationStates.

My first inkling was to deny the logic of “the greater good” theory for a number of reasons:

(1) People ought to be permitted to choose to be inactive. Why should their choices not matter? If a region desires to be relatively inactive, their stake in their own region is greater than the collective’s stake in their own activity.

(2) The threat of invasion doesn’t appear to keep many regions active – so is it really an effective incentive that deters inactivity?

(3) Presuming that the death of regions is a natural process, the length of this process is only prolonged if invading exists, because the brief stint of activity “puts off” the region’s death (according to this logic) as opposed to letting a region succumb to inactivity earlier.

(4) Players often leave the game altogether because of invasions. Todd McCloud’s only explanation as to how this corresponds with the “greater good” was to say that these players would have left anyways – which is not necessarily correct, since they left the game because of an invasion that did not need to happen.

(5) Invading is a game exploit – a piece of bad game design which has been protected and privileged. Every decision by the administrators to change or alter the game code has been vetted to ensure it won’t negatively affect invaders or unbalance the “invasion game” – but this very well could mean that some neat features have been rejected over the years. Bearing this in mind, we cannot confidentially say that the “invasion game” has always been for the greater good of the game -- it may just be for the greater good of itself.

In my experience, contrary to what Todd McCloud claims, invasions don't normally spark abnormal activity – regions will get more inactive because they no longer can communicate over their Regional Message Boards freely, active newer natives get removed (and disheartened) and the occupation drains their community’s life. Meanwhile, occupations require dozens of invaders who, instead of residing in a home where they can be active and contributive, sit in a region they’ve never heard of to act as a “piler”. The overall picture suggests tag-raids are useless spam and occupations are annoying, if not uneventful snoozefests for almost everyone involved.

So, then I wondered: what would I do if I were given two wires like The Doctor was in the Genesis of the Daleks and it was explained to me that if those wires touched… I would eradicate all of the invaders forever in the past, present and the future?

My first instinct would be to hold the wires together, thinking of all of the players who would regain their homes. Concosia would be free and standing… Greece… Hippiedom…Eastern Islands of Dharma. Every loss, rewritten. Every victory, redundant. NationStates would never experience loss or maliciousness or fear on a collective scale, but it would also have never had a reason for courage, compassion or goodwill.

At that point, I wondered if The Doctor might just be right – 10000 Islands would not exist today if it was never invaded by the Empire of Power all of those years ago nor would those regions have allied together in the Alliance Defence Network or the Red Liberty Alliance or the Founderless Regions Alliance and players would have never united under the banner of the United Defenders League or the Pacific Army or the “It’s Only Politics” campaign. So many organizations and coalitions of the willing over the past twelve year would have never formed. Likewise, if it were not for the cause of defending, I figure I may have never met some of my best friends either - defenderdom has brought so many great people together to fight the good fight.

Perhaps it is wrong to value these circumstances as an end in and of themselves instead of as a means for fighting an injustice which (apparently) could be extinguished with the simple connection of two thin, fraying wires. Yet, even still, I cannot help but think that although it would be wrong to judge whether NationStates was “better” off with invaders or not, I still did not have the right to surrender the object of our cooperation and goodwill for the benefit of peace and prosperity.

*The beauty of NationStates’s amoralism is that when faced with the question, “Should invading be legal?”, the amoralist who believes only that which is prohibited is wrong, cannot answer that question without being trapped in an infinite recursive loop, unless they hold some sort of belief of right or wrong that stands as an ethical reference, independent of the ruleset.

---

Opting Out Of Invasions: Reviewing The Proposals
FEATURE | GRUENBERG

"Liberate Haven", the Security Council proposal by moderator Mallorea and Riva to open the historic region of Haven open to raiding in order to demonstrate the superiority of R/D play to roleplay and to extract a punishment for its residents' alleged involvement in Milograd's coup of The South Pacific, has generated a storm of controversy. While thousands of posts spread across dozens of threads have raged back and forth on the proposal's claims, subplots worthy of a Mexican telenovela have spun off, involving everything from signatures and flags to unrelated SC proposals and the meaning of the word "troll".

From the bitter ashes of this raging inferno have risen various proposals from players opposed to the R/D game, or at least to forced involvement in it, discussing ways to "opt out". Many of these ideas are rehashes of those considered and discarded in the past, but some represent new twists. The Rejected Times assesses various proposals, eaching hoping they can help put the lid back on the box Mallorea opened before hope for NationStates itself slips away.

1. Status Quo

The "status quo" represents the situation at present. Many have argued that in a few days, the tumult will die down, roleplayers will return to roleplay and gameplayers to gameplay, and that the whole affair will be largely forgotten: indeed, some players appear to be unaware that a proposal to Liberate Haven has been proposed in the past, and aroused a similar degree of fury, outrage, and moderator intervention.

Strengths: Prevents the admins from having to waste time fixing the game. Actually likely to happen.
Weaknesses: The factionalism and mutual distrust this affair has made evident will only continue to harden.

2. Using The Classroom Mechanism

Common lore has it that every region in NationStates is automatically vulnerable to, and hence a part of, R/D play, but strictly speaking, this is not true: classroom regions, specially designated for educational use, are completely walled off from the rest of the game. Members of these regions can join the WA and elect a delegate, but uninvited nations cannot join the region, making them immune to invasion. Even external contact is restricted through the telegram system. It has been proposed to use the code for classroom regions on request for any region.

Strengths: Would afford regions genuine invulnerability. Mechanism already clearly exists.
Weaknesses: Movement between regions impossible. Would probably require excessive coding overhaul to even consider.

3. Regions Can Declare Themselves Opted Out

The regional tag system, whereby regions can declare themselves "Roleplay", could have the added function of bestowing on regions using specific tags certain immunities. Regions tagged as belonging to parts of the game unrelated to R/D play, such as roleplay, WA, Sports, or General, could be cordoned off from invasion; regions tagged as defender or invader would remain open.

Strengths: Allows regions to change their designations should they wish. Nations can still move out of regions.
Weaknesses: Virtually all regions would likely tag themselves out of the R/D game. Everyone already hates warzones.

4. Founder Succession

Founder succession is an extremely popular idea, so much so that many of the proposed opt-outs to the R/D game all essentially boil down to some variant on this. It would permit founders to designate a successor and should the founder CTE or simply wish to transfer duties, ownership of the region and associated privileges would pass down to the next nation. Some proposals see multiple levels of succession to ensure foundership continued indefinitely.

Strengths: Strong support among many players. The difficulties of refounding can be avoided.
Weaknesses: Has already more or less been ruled out by [violet]. Of no help to regions that are currently founderless.

5. Invitations

The proposed Liberation of Haven has shown the weakness of relying on passwords, but an alternative suggestion is to turn passwords on their head, by requiring that nations be "invited" by the founder or delegate before joining. The option to turn off invitations off would also be available.

Strengths: Invitations cannot be leaked, unlike passwords. Provides better internal security than relying on all members to keep passwords secret.
Weaknesses: Still vulnerable to raider sleeper puppets. Not functionally different than the current situation.

6. Security Networks

A more original proposal involves an expansion of the Embassy system with a system of regional networks, not dissimilar to previously discussed ideas involving "Associations". In this system, even small regions with low endorsement counts could build up much higher Influence counts by networking with larger regions through the Embassy function, to a maximum cap. The feature would therefore benefit smaller regions more than larger ones, but regions with few or no Embassies would still be targets for R/D players.

Strengths: Would not kill off R/D unlike some other suggestions. Gives most help to those most in need and least able to defend themselves otherwise.
Weaknesses: Makes delegate changeovers in small, networked regions hard. Proposed by Unibot, and therefore necessarily immensely and arbitrarily complex.

7. Limited Refounding

A simple idea has been mooted to limit refounding of a region (where all inhabitants are cleared out, and then the final inhabitant moves out and restarts the region at the next update) to the last nation left in the region. This would be of most benefit to currently founderless regions, which would be able to guarantee a refounding without opening them to the risk of "hawking", the practice of raiders sniping a refounding attempt at the last moment, which is a major discouragement to refounding being carried out by vulnerable regions.

Strengths: Offers regions a means of safely refounding. Technically simple to organize.
Weaknesses: Any successful raids could not be counter-sniped by defenders. Guaranteed end-game for any raided regions.

8. The Nuclear Option

Afforess, well known for his creative thinking in technical matters of NationStates, has proposed a bold new Security Council category permitting "eviction", or removal of powers, from founders. Founders have historically been held sacrosanct in NationStates: no permanent harm can come to a region with an active founder, and all regions are encouraged to maintain founders to ensure their safety. But this same protection offers R/D regions a means to hide behind the safety of founders while exploiting the vulnerability of founderless regions. An eviction proposal would strip away this protection and enable R/D regions to be counter-raided.

Strengths: Provides a genuine option for punishing R/D regions. Unlikely to be abused given the SC's defender sympathies.
Weaknesses: Not impossible to abuse, and the mere idea of messing with founders would give many NSers heart attacks. R/D regions probably wouldn't care anyway.

9. The Thermonuclear Option

Many players from various sections of NS have expressed the basic sentiment: they are not looking for a compromise. They simply want to ban R/D altogether. The argument against many proposals is that any form of opt-out would kill off R/D because no one would ever opt in to being raided: even raiders themselves protect their home regions with founders. But, some players argue, if this is truly the case, then there is no point preserving a game type that no one wants to play anyway.

Strengths: People signing up for a nation simulation game might be able to concentrate on nation simulation. Would appease the insane bloodlust of the frenzied minority.
Weaknesses: Never going to happen.

10. Make Gruenberg Supreme Arbiter Of Everything

Strengths: Would immediately guarantee absolute goat-enabled perfection.
Weaknesses: Dick too big, might kill someone.

---

Dear Gameplay
OPINION | KYLARNATIA

Kylarnatia, Roleplay Mentor, speaks to Gameplay about balancing the invasion game...

When asked to write an opinion article for this publication, certainly in light of the recent events, I spent quite some time brainstorming over how to approach this issue tenderly and respectfully. Ultimately, it's going to be impossible to please everybody, but I'm going to try my best to reach across to everyone. For I mean to. There has certainly been a lot of misunderstanding between roleplayers and gameplayers over the past few days, something which neither side can claim total innocence. In an attempt to rectify some of the misunderstandings and petty arguments brewed up in the past few days, I've written this short article for you, in the hopes it'll answer any concerns you have and help you understand where the roleplay crowd is coming from.

First of all, and perhaps most importantly, we don't hate gameplay. We don't hate invaders, we don't hate gameplayers, we don't hate proposal writers in either the General Assembly or Security Council. In fact, I personally admire all the hijinks and heat-fuelled bureaucracy that you guys get up to. Yet in the past few days it has been conceived that we hate everything you stand for due to Mallorea's late "Liberate Haven" proposal. Despite the fact it failed, what irked us is that the entire proposal was unjustified - not only because Mallorea's claims that Haven was "heavily involved" in the coup didn't seem very well grounded, and because the entire proposal came across as if players had the right to "break in" to other peoples regions if they deemed them too inactive. Fact is, as far as we're concerned, that lies solely on a matter of personal perspective which totally disregarded the intended purpose of the region to begin with. Furthermore, we were overly concerned that such a proposal would set a precedent for future proposals to try and break in to even more regions which had, up to that point, remained peaceful. As a result, we felt incredibly under threat from a game we'd not had to be concerned about until now, and were seemingly being forced into it.

Imagine if a roleplayer designed a proposal to liberate a region like "The Americas" simply on the basis that they didn't believe the region was being utilised properly because it "was lacking in adequate [roleplay] activity". That would be pretty absurd, right? I'm pretty sure the residents, let alone fellow regions of the same nature, would be up in arms about such a proposal. As such, I don't think it's outrageous that roleplayers reacted the same way to the "Liberate Haven" proposal, although I like to point out that we have recognised many gameplayers, generalites etc. were behind us too, and we thank them for that.

Even though we've always been told participation is optional, the fact was recently dawned on us that somehow it isn't, despite the fact that - beyond a brief explanation of the mechanic in the FAQ which (from the way I read it, at least) does not stipulate that participation is inevitable - there is no warning of the actual mechanic, not even in the Terms and Conditions. Therefore, the heated debate over "opting-out" springs from this lack of pre-warning that we still had to be involved, despite having always stated our wishes to stay separate from the affair.

This does not mean we adopt a "separate, but equal" attitude, however. Certainly not. We simply believe that it should be left down to a matter of pure choice: if a region wants to participate in invading, roleplaying, general discussion etc., it should be able to do all those things. At the same time, however, if a region does not want to be apart of something for it infringes on their wishes as a group, they should also have the right to abstain from that which they do not want, or at least require more adequate protection from it. Of course we don't think this will be an easy thing to reach a solution on - certainly not - but we know we can all do it together, as a whole NS community. We understand that the mechanic of invading is important to many of you, and I can assure you that I, the other Mentors and the vast majority of the roleplaying core don't want to take that away from you. At the same time, we don't want our roleplay regions taken away from us.

So please, after reading this, take a look around Technical or come and join us in International Incidents, and see what suggestions are being made. We'd love your feedback on all of them, and the more we spend time working together and finding a solution that works for everyone, the less time we can spend complaining and feeling as if we're never going to be able to truly play the game we want to play, as I'm sure we all feel right now following recent events. Lets work at it together, people!


>> News

Afternoon Tea with Ramaeus
INTERVIEW | UNIBOT


"Earl Grey with blackberry and vanilla. Unibot, black. Ramaeus, a spoonful of sugar".

Unibot, Editor of The Rejected Times sits down for a special interview with Ramaeus, newly-elected delegate of The East Pacific...


Unibot: Greetings Ramaeus! So the elections just happened. 21-18 for yourself. How do you feel about the win? And did you ever think you might be delegate?

Indeed. Quite frankly, it's a relief that it's over. It was a pretty tense election. Honestly, I never thought I would be a GCR delegate. I was a little surprised that I was even nominated.

I'm curious. WA Author to WA Author here. How do you feel your experience in the WA has helped prepare you for leadership in TEP?

Well, I'm far more immune to criticism. I'm still open to it, obviously, but my experience in the WA gave me thicker skin. And I'm also far more aware that such criticism is rarely personal.

That doesn't sound like the World Assembly that I know! *puts on a kettle* Your favourite tea?

Earl Grey.

Excellent, that's what I'm making. That'll be two cups then.

Heh... sounds good. I feel like inserting an obligatory Star Trek reference here.

I only quote Doctor Who. Every great decision creates ripples.... Speaking of that! Where do you see the direction of The East Pacific heading - where do you want to take it?

Hmm... For now, I see us improving relations with our fellow GCRs, getting the native populace far more involved on the forum, and just increasing the overall native awareness regarding the regional government. Not too ambitious, I know, but I'm technically just the Delegate-elect!

Quite frankly, being the new Delegate hasn't even sunk in yet.

Those are all good places to start! You say you want to improve relations with fellow GCRs - what's your opinion on GCR unity and the Pan-Pacifica movements and such?

Hmm... it's a nice ideal, certainly, but I think it may be a bit naive. Most of the GCRs are split on the R/D alignment. And that makes GCR unity quite difficult to achieve, IMO.

Too many regions disagreeing with each other on key issues.

On the subject of native populaces - some GCR residents argue that non-forum players shouldn't be catered to, that it's "their decision" to not participate on the forums. Would you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with that. My own experience tells me that sometimes you just have to take the time to reach out to the native populace.

Sometimes, they just might not know about the regional government. Until AMOM started engaging me through TGs, I didn't have any idea that TEP had a regional government.

*hands Ramaeus a cup of steaming Earl Grey* There have been a lot of reforms talked about in The East Pacific - in which area should reforms start first? And why?

I'd have to say that most of the issues regarding the Conclave have been fixed. We now have an active and committed Viceroy and two Arbiter Candidates who have a strong record for activity.

What do you believe is going to be your biggest challenge as delegate?

Hmm... there's a tough one. Right now, it would be getting used to all the nuances that come with the position. As for the future, I can't say with any real certainty.

The summers often play host to coup attempts - if you had to guess a who and a where... go for it!

Heh.... oh, wow. I'd have to say... TRR and Frak. Kinda random, I know.And no offense, or anything.

Believe me, he's tried! You're going to be a summer delegate, however - any ideas on how you're going to keep up activity in TEP?

Several, actually. The biggest one is utilizing Skype. We're also exploring possible cross-regional RP activities. I'm not saying where, obviously. And the idea of a theme has also been tossed around. The rest are a little more minor and focus actively recruiting new nations.

I also plan on liberally using regional telegrams in order to educate and possibly motivate the natives of TEP.

Awesome! TEP's a roleplay-friendly region and I was wondering if you could weigh in on your thoughts on this "Liberate Haven" business?

That we are, that we are. Initially, I was in favor of the draft, mostly due to their involvement in the TSP coup. But now, I'm not too sure which side to fall on. It's kind of a complex issue. Mall has a point regarding their involvement in the TSP coup, but the actual content of the draft falls mostly on traditional raider ideas.

And while that's not a deal breaker for me, it does lower my opinion of the proposal a bit. The RPers do have a point as well regarding continuing their craft relatively undisturbed. But you can't opt out of GP.

Do you think it is fair that they are angry that they can't opt-out of Gameplay?

Hmm... I wouldn't say so. They joined the game. Even if they weren't aware that R/D existed before, that really isn't my concern. If they want to avoid GP as much as possible, then they should take the necessary precautions in order to do so. Namely active founders and non exec WA delegates.

Last but not least: Nominations for hosting the NS World Fair will be coming up in the next couple of months. Do you see that as something that The East Pacific would be interested in?

Hmm...Honestly, I'm not too sure. It's an option worth exploring, certainly. But... it would depend on whether the time invested in hosting it will be beneficial to TEP.

Thanks so much for the interview, Ramaeus - it was a blast! Good luck on your term as delegate and if you've got any final words for our readers, feel free to share 'em!

Heh... don't mention it. O/

---

Month of The Motto
OPINION | CHURCH OF SATAN

For months now, the citizens of The Rejected Realms have been tossing around the idea of a regional motto.

Many mottos were proposed and Unibot, the delegate, has decided that all of the residents of The Rejected Realms should have a say in it. In order to facilitate such a grand initiative, this month's regional polls will be dedicated entirely to that democratic outsourcing. The regional motto will be decided in an "elimination style" poll, wherein for every two days, two different mottos will be pitted against one another. The motto with the most votes moves on until the end of the month, where at long last, at the end of July 31st, the top motto will be chosen!

As you can see below, this is the current status of the votes:



On July 17th, the first two mottos to make it past the first round will go head-to-head for a spot in the semi-finals. The mottos in question are "Never Cruel or Cowardly" and "Per Reprobationem Concordia".

The first one you might recognize as being seen in The Day of The Doctor (Editor's Note: It's from Terrance Dicks) and Unibot's signature on various regional forums -- and for good reason, he suggested it, heh. I think it has a strong chance of making it to the finals.

The third match ended today with Unibot's "The exiled, the lost, the found" beating Cormac Somerset's "All is change, all is movement", 24 votes to 3! Of course they are all fine mottos and I look forward to seeing one of these mottos emerge as the victor. My personal favorite though, "Rejection isn't permanent" will be going to vote on July 11th. I think it sums up the region quite well, despite the fact that our region's name is contradictory to the motto.

---

All Hell Breaks Loose in Region Inc
NationStates' Corporate Region sees conflict in the executive office.
COMMENTARY | JOE BOBS

To those who are unfamiliar with the region, Region Inc was founded in 2010 and was modelled on a corporate structure, with departments and CEOs instead of ministries and delegates. Its fresh approach saw it quickly becoming one of the most popular regions in the NationStates, climbing to over 800 nations in mid-2010. Sadly, the region fell on hard times recently and the population has shrunk to 100, but a group of dedicated members persevere.

This month, however, political infighting broke into all-out war, as relative newcomer Westbrook and long-time member Termy clashed. Termy threatened resignation and even began a vote of no confidence in himself, whilst Westbrook even went so far as to threaten forum destruction.

"The behavior of both members has been far below the level required of elected officials," stated Chief Operating Officer Robert Hawkins. "Public arguments and name calling, public threats of destroying the Region and resignations being offered and then retracted".

Chief Executive Officer Tze was absent whilst the conflicts raged.

Westbrook left the region in a blaze of anger, saying he was "disgusted" by Robert Hawkins, but apologised to other members for his actions, and claimed that tragic events in his real life had led to his aggressive behaviour.

Newly elected Director of Human Resources, Diirez, is focusing on stabilising the region, asking the region to build on improvements and solving the various problems which have arisen from the crisis. Clover, Chief Financial Officer, stated she was "saddened" by recent events, but had "hope and pride" for the future.

---

Cool Flag Brigade Launched
OPINION | CHURCH OF SATAN


Flag of the Week: "Milk Romney". Discovered by Ryno.

The Delegate of The Rejected Realms, Unibot, has began sign-ups for a program called "The Cool Flag Brigade". What is this "Brigade" you ask? A paramilitary organization of some kind? A band of masked superheroes? If only it were true, lol.

In all honesty, it is a loose coalition of players within The Rejected Realms whose mission is it to look through the region's nations for flags that are cool. What happens after that? Well, the Brigadier chooses one flag that will be displayed as the flag of the week. It's a nice little cultural activity and frankly there really are some very cool flags out there!

I've never gone through and looked at the flags here until now, having joined the brigade myself. Those of you in The Rejected Realms, I highly recommend joining. It's very fun and you'll even get some good laughs while you're searching. I know I certainly have.

For example, the nation of Possessed Giraffes has a flag which depicts Rich Uncle Pennybags, well-known mascot of the popular board game Monopoly, kicking back on a reclining chair smoking a cigar. With his fat bank account I'd expect no less. There are very silly ones as well, such as Cocaine Bears, whose national flag features a bear with a face covered in cocaine.

Many more silly and cool flags are sure to be discovered and you can be sure they'll be featured. Keep an eye out everyone!

---

Demonyms Added To Nation Settings
COMMENTARY | GRUENBERG

Demonyms have added to the nation settings change, permitting players to choose nouns and adjectives to describe the inhabitants of their NationStates. Previously, demonyms were purposely avoided in issue choices and nation descriptions where possible, but the change now permits greater customisation. Game admin [violet] announced the changes after consulting with her Issues Editors, players appointed to assist with the coding of new issues for the NS game, to check they were willing to adapt existing and future issues to make use of the demonyms.

The addition of demonyms marks the first new customisable fields for nations since national religions were introduced. Since then, the admins have generally been unwilling to consider additional settings, and the introduction of Factbooks has largely negated their need: common suggestions, such as national sport and national anthem, can now instead simply be written up as part of a Dispatch. But demonyms remained a popular and useful suggestion, with the potential for clashes with issues the only conflict that needed to be resolved. Demonyms can be changed through the Settings page of the NationStates nation menu, and then opening the drop-down for demonyms.


"The settings include options for singular and plural nouns, and adjectives"

The introduction of demonyms has proven popular, with many players immediately making use of them. Nonetheless, there have been teething problems. All nations are automatically set with a default "-ian" suffix for their demonyms, meaning every single nation has to be changed manually should a user wish to customise them, a time consuming process for those with multiple puppets. Additionally, the settings initially did account for pluralisation, leading to complications given the English language's varied treatment of plurals; a custom pluralisation option was later introduced.

---

IIWiki Demoted
COMMENTARY | UNIBOT



IIWiki, the leading roleplayer wiki has had its "regional tag" removed from the site. The ultimate decision was first suggested by Christian Democrats, although moderators had previously come to an agreement to remove the regional tags for all of the NationStates wikis. WikiStates's regional tag was obviously removed for inactivity and the removal of NSwiki's regional tag reflected NSwiki's shift from the Goobergunchia's player-driven wiki to Afforess's mostly bot-driven wiki.

However, Milograd, among other players, were critical of the decision to remove IIWiki's regional tag among the purge of the other wiki's regional tags, especially in light of the declining relations between the roleplay and gameplay communities.

The moderator staff, in their defense, argued that potential users of IIWiki would be able to locate other users of the wiki through the wiki itself, instead of through regional tags.

The owner and founder of IIWiki, Solm, was shocked by the decision and spoke with The Rejected Times recently on the subject.

"A tragedy! I say!" says Solm, "A quality wiki, I say! Quality! Removed from the face of NS because all the other wikis are inactive! It's not our fault we are more active than all the other wikis, 10,000 posts and counting, mhm. Nicer quality articles too, each one meticulously groomed for perfection. But I guess NS no longer appreciates our great service".

Solm lamented the loss, but ended the conversation with a heavy sigh and an optimistic outlook.

"Oh well," says Solm, "IIwiki shall remain advertised in the wonderful signatures of our patrons, who we love so dearly".

---

Equilism and the Rite of Passage
COMMENTARY | JOE BOBS

Joe Bobs takes a look at one of the more unique methods of entering government in NationStates...

To gain membership of the Equilism Senate, one undergoes a ‘rite of passage’. The most recent inductee is The Tricky Barbarian, who is coming towards the end of his ordeal at the time of going to press. But what is this "rite of passage"?

There are two phases, the Questionnaire and the Dare. The former lasts for five days and the applicant must answer all questions posed to them, regardless of content. The latter lasts for two days, and again, the applicant must complete whatever dare is suggested. The applicant may forfeit, but their ascendency to the Senate is delayed by two weeks as punishment.

Questions posed to The Tricky Barbarian included: which parent is your favourite? (Mom.) Describe Equilism as a cake (red velvet). Describe the girth of your phallus in metric terms (No, just no).

A typo in the title of the thread has led to the creation of the goddess Passaga, who is now the subject of many poems of praise from the people of Equilism.

Recent dares have included making a lavish breakfast for Kinzville, changing his flag to a photo of himself in a Santa hat for Small Huts, writing ‘I <3 Equilism" on his arm in Nutella for The Grim Reaper, taking a controversial stance on a topic in NS Gameplay for Klaus Devestatorie, and finding the first post of Equility for Niccassnan.

The rite of passage is certainly one of a kind, and one has to believe that anyone willing to undergo such a process is going to maintain a level of commitment to Equilism. Perhaps we will begin to see versions sprout up across NationStates? Only time will tell.

[God-Emperor]

That's a good interview there.

[Westwind]

The applicant may forfeit, but their ascendency to the Senate is delayed by two weeks as punishment.

 

 

Not quite accurate.

 

The Rite is optional in the first place.  Senate membership requires that you've been on the forum for two weeks, then you can join the Senate without the Rite.  The Rite simply accelerates joining by a week, and gives you a chance to get to know your regionmates better, and more quickly.  There's no two week punishment.  If you forfeit, you still abide the original two week timing, not an additional two weeks.

[God-Emperor]

That's why you're the boss.

[Westwind]

Nah, I don't think there should be a two week waiting period there in the first place

[God-Emperor]

Well, get bossy.

[Westwind]

Alas, I am but a Senator in Equilism.  The Bossy job goes to Founder Chaucerin and Chief Minister The Monkye.

[Joe Bobs]

Apologies Westwind. I did get that from somewhere though. In one of the rites, I forget which, someone went AWOL for a bit and someone else said 'they would have to wait two weeks if they forfeit'.

[Westwind]

They probably either misspoke or forgot.

[God-Emperor]

Or they like gettin' one over on the Times.