Jump to content

The Rejected Times - Issue XXV


Unibot

Recommended Posts

Cuvl4Yd.png?1?4703
Issue XXV. July 25, 2014.
 
Editor-in-Chief: Unibot | Copy Editor: Gruenberg

 
Table of Contents
 
Part I
 
Not In My Wildest Dreams (Kogvuron)
Bearly Started: A Special Interview with Bears Armed
The Legitimate Point of View? (Glen-Rhodes)
Migration in The Rejected Realms (Starrie)
The Decline of Defending (Cormac Somerset)
 
Part II
 
It’s the End of the World! (Afforess)
The Myth of the Gameplay-Role Play Divide (Joe Bobs)
A Critique of the Wolfist Manifesto (Kogvuron)
We'll see your World Cup and Raise You! (Apox)
The Battlefield Effect (Unibot)
 
Part III
 
Foreign Relations Main Talking Point In The South Pacific Elections (Gruenberg)
Lazarus "Wins" The World Cup (Kogvuron)
World Assembly Legislative League Treaty Ratified By TNP (Gruenberg)
NSG Reacts to MH17 With Shock And Anger, Mostly Anger (Thafoo)
Is TNP's community "cracking at the seams"? (Church of Satan)
World Assembly's 300th Resolution Breaks Record (Gruenberg)
TRR Chooses a New Flag! (Church of Satan)
In Brief - News Round-Up (Gruenberg)
 



 
Not In My Wildest Dreams
FEATURE | KOGVURON
 
The founder of The Rejected Times reflects on its legacy and impact...
 
A year and a half ago, I started the TRR Media Organization on a whim. I saw an opening, an opportunity, and I took it. At the time, there were no real established media organizations, save for the PNN which was always more into satire than reporting. I wanted to help create something special, something unique, and something that we as a region could be proud.
 
We started out with humble beginnings. Issue 1 was only 5 short articles and an interview, and was basically put together by three people. However, as time went on, the Organization grew and changed and adapted in order to fit the current times. Today, the Rejected Times as the Media Organization is now known, regularly pumps out issues with the most insightful editorials, the most informative commentaries, and the funnies cartoons available in NationStates gameplay.
 
I could talk about the Times for pages, but instead I’m going to talk about a couple of other things. First, I wanted to acknowledge the change that the Times has made in gameplay as a whole. As I said earlier, back when I founded the Times, there were basically no serious media organizations. Today, there are many. Most excitingly, many of our fellow GCRs have formed their own media organizations as well. From The Northern Lights to the Independent Herald Tribune, the Rejected Times has helped to inspire a new generation of GCR media organizations. And this is something that we can all be excited in.
 
Second, I wanted to talk highlight the work put in by the staff of the Rejected Times. Our paper truly has the greatest staff of journalists in NationStates. From the all-star writers whose eye-opening op-eds headline pieces, to less-recognized reporters who help keep people informed about what is going on, everyone works extremely hard to meet deadlines, and to keep improving. Today, TRT is so far removed from my original image of what the media organization would be like, and that is great, because the input of so many people has made it far better than what I alone imagined.
 
Third, I wanted to thank everyone who has ever been involved in a publication of the Times. You have transformed a small idea into huge publication, one that will surely last long past most of us here in this game. You helped to build one of the greatest newspapers that this game has ever seen. And you have made me proud to call myself a contributor to the Rejected Times.
 
Thank you, and here is to 25 more stellar issues!
 


 
Bearly Started: A Special Interview with Bears Armed
INTERVIEW | UNIBOT
 
pR0TwKO.jpg?1?4606
Bears Armed sails to victory with "Legal Competence". 7,135 votes to 2,282.
 
Congratulations on your victory with "Legal Competence". For our readers, could you give a brief overview of the resolution?
 
Certainly. It requires that every member nation have and use a fair system of some kind for determining which people there are or aren’t fit to make important decisions for themselves, without needing a parent or guardian’s approval for their actions, whilst leaving the actual details of those systems for the nations (in their variety) to determine locally.
 
If I understand it correctly, this stands as a major success for you in a career-long crusade to push for sapient rights? How did that mission begin and what have been some of your successes and losses along the way?
 
It began quite shortly after I got involved in NS. I started looking at the ‘United Nations’ (the international organisation that we had in those pre-‘WA’ days) a few months after creating my first nation, Godwinnia, and by that stage I’d already decided that the nation had some Fantasy elements in its nature including the presence of groups from a few non-human peoples in its population. This meant that when I started looking for proposal ideas and noticed that there was nothing guaranteeing sapient non-humans the same rights that humans enjoyed, it seemed an obvious possibility to try. However my own first attempt at drafting a proposal on the subject inspired somebody else to create one as well, they submitted theirs before mine was ready, and when theirs was voted-down I turned to other projects instead for a while.
 
Are things complete for the Sapient Rights movement? Or is there more work to be done?
 
There’s definitely more work that could be done, although in some cases that might interfere more extensively with national sovereignty than I or the Bears would really like: We accept the need for international legislation in the case of the most ‘fundamental’ rights, but have a rather narrower view than some nations do about what rights should actually counts as 'fundamental' in that context. 
 
For one thing, I’d still like to see an “Equal rights for non-human sapients” resolution passed, although bearing in mind that at least three other proposals on the subject (including one by me) have already been voted down since the earliest one that I already mentioned here I’m not very optimistic about the chance of that ever happening. 
 
An idea that does seem quite obvious and potentially viable would be a resolution about the rights & duties of the guardians who are assigned to look after the interests of those individuals who don’t qualify to manage their own affairs under the Legal Competence rules. I was going to start work on one myself, as a follow-up to ‘Legal Competence’, but another nation has already started a draft and for now I’ve settled for commenting on that instead.
 
I heard you faced a moderation challenge with "Legal Competence" before it passed. Obviously the proposal survived, so what was the challenge? How was it resolved?
 
All that I know about it is what was posted in the discussion thread: Somebody, their identity not publicly revealed, questioned whether some detail in the text would count as either contradicting or amending an existing resolution — despite my inclusion of a line specifically recognising that earlier resolutions (if still in effect) took precedence over this proposal in any cases where they overlapped — and the Mods decided that it didn’t do so.
 
Although I've known you for a long time, I'm not sure I'm well informed about Bears Armed, the player. How did you find NationStates? How did you get settled down into the World Assembly and the NS Sports community? And how did your bears theme develop?
 
I originally learned about NS, back in 2005, from an online friend-of-a-friend who mentioned that she’d just revived her own nation and posted a link to that page. The basic idea looked interesting, and I had some spare time available, so I created ‘Godwinnia’ that same day and never looked back. I lurked in the forums for a couple of months before starting to post there, learning what was what, and the NS-UN was simply the side of things that attracted me most: I introduced myself there by commenting a bit on some drafts by other people and then went on to start the ‘Sapient Rights’ proposal that I’ve already mentioned, and apparently did so sensibly enough that the existing regulars accepted me quite quickly. The ‘NS Sports’ side of things, which in those days was included in the ‘NS’ sub-forum rather than given a separate section of its own, was a later addition to my interests: Shortly after creating the Bears I was looking for ways in which to introduce them to the outside world, sign-ups for the [first] Summer Olympics happened to be open, and my involvement just grew from there.
 
And why the Bears, you ask? Well, after running various human or mostly-human nations for about a year I decided that I’d like to try the challenge of running an actual non-human nation successfully, I didn’t want to simply resort to using one or another of the well-known concepts from SF&F, a Modly comment in the forum about the illegality of submitting joke proposals on ideas such as that old favourite the “Right to Keep and Arm Bears” put this idea into my head, bears did look rather easier to handle than some of the other possibilities… and I’d always had both a sweet tooth and urges to hibernate when winter came along. ^_^
 
As you may know, The Rejected Times often publishes articles that provide a critical light on issues in the World Assembly, especially in regards to the Secretariat. What issues do you think are most prominent in the World Assembly (if any) and how do you see these issues being resolved?
 
Well, let’s see...
 
a/ Starting with one of the biggest shouting points of recent months, there’s the question of whether Mall made a misjudgement in proposing ‘Liberate Haven’, because a lot of people think he should have realised that doing so would stir up such a major storm and that this might impact on quite a few other players’ feelings about the Secretariat as a whole. My response to this would be: Yes, in my opinion he made a serious mistake. No, though, it obviously wasn’t an abuse of power. No, he shouldn’t “have to” resign, but he should learn from this and be more careful in future… and if he doesn’t learn from this situation, and does something else along those lines that causes such a major kerfuffle again, then maybeso then the Secretariat as a whole would be well-advised to reconsider whether having him in their ranks is overall an asset or a hindrance to their work. 
 
b/ Some of the GA regulars have expressed unhappiness about various recent rulings on proposals’ legality, but although I might have preferred more clarity about the reasoning involved in a few cases I don’t actually have any major objections to raise there. I understand and have no problem with the Secretariat’s current policy of using all of the GA-experienced Mods available to try and get their rulings as correct as possible on the first paw, instead of deliberately holding some back for potential use as a ‘court of appeal’, especially bearing in mind the limited number of judges that they have available: In my personal experience they’ve always been willing to listen to reasoned arguments about the actual facts involved, and past precedents, if the players raising questions actually take that approach instead of trying to insist on changes to the existing rules or just shouting for a second opinion. 
 
c/ And talking about players wanting the rules changed, there’s also the recurring drive by some GA semi-regulars to have the ‘mandatory compliance’ rule abolished… That’s a potential change that I definitely think would be another mistake, because even leaving aside the matter of passed resolutions causing stat changes — which might not always make perfect sense under current circumstances, but would become downright nonsensical if member nations were actually free to ignore any & all GA laws to which their governments objected — if all resolutions became totally optional then where would be the point in trying to hard to craft ‘good’ proposals and get those passed? How much sense would still bothering with that if it would have no more effect than simply tossing ideas out bloggishly on a “take it or leave it” basis? What, in fact, would continue to distinguish the GA from NSG?
 
You've been a modestly vocal anti-invasion advocate for a long time - and in a way, you're both a roleplayer and a gameplayer. So, may I ask: do you see solutions on the horizon for settling the divide between Gameplay and Roleplay? Especially in regards to the "Liberate Haven" debacle?
 
Sadly, no, I don’t. Some raiders might become more “reasonable” about their choices of targets, but I suspect that there will always be others who either attack everywhere that they can or deliberately choose the targets that they know there will be the most fuss about so that — in some peoples’ eyes — they will look more important. As long as the administration continues to regard R/D as a valuable aspect of NS, and declines to introduce any measures that would drastically limit it, we’re probably stuck with more-or-less the current situation.
 
Have you ever considered becoming a defender? Why or why not? *hands Bears Armed a business card tactfully*
 
I’ve considered that, yes, but there are several reasons why I’m unlikely to make defending a major part of my NS activity: RL generally limits my ability to be around at updates, I’m averse to being a cog in a larger organisation (I already get more than enough of that for my liking in RL, and one reason why I enjoy NS so much is being in charge of something — even though that’s only a fictional nation — myself instead…), I think that Bears Armed Mission’s continued GA activity might actually contribute more to both its home region and the game as a whole than just adding one more soldier to the ranks would do, and it really wouldn’t makes sense from an IC viewpoint for Bears Armed Mission to keep moving between regions.
 
However there have been a few occasions, during periods while B.A.M. wasn’t regional delegate, when I’ve shifted WA membership temporarily to other puppets that were already in various other regions so that those could support native delegates against outside threats… and I do have puppets, acknowledged or secret, in quite a few regions…
 
 
The NS World Cup is coming up soon - what are Bears Armed's chances? And how do you plan to roleplay this World Cup?
 
I’d like to say “an easy win”, but to be honest — considering their recent form, and consequent rating — I’d be overjoyed just to get them through the qualifiers successfully and into the World Cup proper again for the first time in a while. I think that that might be possible this time around, looking at how free I will be to spend time on my RPs. And the main theme for this RP? I’m going to continue with a storyline that I actually began several Cups ago, but that was intended from the start to be spread across the years: It’s basically inspired by DC Comics’ classic ‘Crisis on Infinite Earths’ storyline from 1985, although with more of an Ursine aspect…
 
“Look, up in the sky!
Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?
No, it’s SuperBear!”

 
I know you’re a big fan of NationStates Issues and you’ve done a lot of research on how they affect nations and how population rises. What’s your favourite NationStates Issue and why?
 
Careful there, Uni, you almost look as though you’re implying that some issue decisions might actually affect population levels… which we know, despite the fact that some answers look as though they should have effects, isn’t the case.
 
My “favourite issue, and why?” Ouch, that’s a difficult question: So many possible choices… I think that I’ll have to go with #201 ‘Jolly Roger Sighted Off The Port Bow!’, for its novelty value.
 
Thank you so much for joining us for this very special issue, Bears Armed. Good luck in the future, mate. I couldn’t think of a genuinely nicer, more treasured player who we could have shared with the world for this interview. If you’ve got any final words for our readers, you have the floor.
 
Thank you for the compliments, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my opinions.
 
“Remember, dear readers, it isn’t absurd:
A person’s a person, no matter how furred.”

 
And remember, too, that only you can prevent wildfires! ^_^
 


 
The Legitimate Point of View?
Independentism's influence over The South Pacific wanes
OPINION | GLEN-RHODES
 
Disclaimer: The following views are that of the author solely in a private capacity.
 
In early June 2104, the Assembly of The South Pacific found itself yet again debating the region’s stance on military gameplay – whether we are Independent, and what being Independent truly means. This discussion had last been held in late November 2013, when Hileville posed the question if TSP was actually Independent, given the raider and imperialist slant of its foreign affairs. That discussion did not lead anywhere, except to show that Independence in TSP was not monolithic – it has its supporters and detractors, and not everybody agreed on what it meant in the first place.
 
Belschaft, the region’s loudest and most prolific advocate of Independence, proposed a Charter amendment in June 2014 that would have officially re-declared Independence to be one of the “fundamental ideals and principles” of The South Pacific. The language read:
 
"6. Independence; that ours is an independent region, devoid of any prescribed military ideology or alignment, and that our officials shall act on such basis."
 
A year prior, this amendment would likely have sailed through the Assembly. But something unexpected happened. The fault lines that were first exposed in November 2013 were fully opened by Belschaft’s proposed amendment. Opponents to Independence, this author included, vilified the amendment as an attempt to push out non-Independents from the region. Proponents of the amendment denied that, and argued that it’s really defenders (particularly Unibot and myself) who were harming the region by advocating for something other than Independence.
 
However, among those who called themselves Independents, or eschewed any label, there was a clear disjointing when it came to what these people really wanted. Many simply did not care about military gameplay, and assumed Independence was merely another term for not getting involved. Others thought of Independence more in terms of regionalism.
 
The original language of Belschaft’s amendment was changed midway through the debate, abandoning the language of Independence, and adopting something some have started referring to as TSP First:
 
"6. Openness; this region seeks to remain open in matters of military and political alignment, welcoming all citizens and officials with loyalty to the region."
 
While this language is different from that which ultimately made it to the voting floor (although failed to get the requisite 75% required to pass, with the region split 10-7 in supporting it), I believe this marks an evolution in the debate over Independence. Throughout the debate, it seemed that people began to see Independence as a distinct ideological position, with a set of connotations that went beyond merely “acting according to the interests of TSP.”
 
In other words, I posit that TSP now sees Independence for what many have argued it has been all along: an ideology that consistently favors raiding and imperialism, and disapproves of defenders. TSP First arose from that debate as a completely separate ideal, one in which raiders, imperialists, defenders, and neutrals are all capable of having TSP’s best interests in mind, even if they advocate for the adoption if a particular ideology.
 
It’s under this ideal that I made the conscious choice to highlight my disagreements with Independence in my own campaign platform. A year or two ago, this would have been predictable political suicide. In my past two campaigns for Minister of Foreign Affairs, I avoided discussing the topic altogether, instead focusing on internal ministry reforms. However, I always thought that it was a shame TSP could not see people run on their beliefs, because being anything other than Independent was too controversial.
 
The debate over Belschaft’s amendment, and the subsequent failure of even a watered down version, signaled to me that the iron-fisted vision of Independence as the exclusively acceptable ideology of TSP no longer existed. I also saw a dramatic shift in other GCRs. Osiris went raider. Lazarus went defender. The Rejected Realms officially adopted the “defender” label in January 2014, although it had long been a member of the Founderless Regions Alliance.
 
I have no illusions that TSP will adopt a specific military stance anytime soon. There are still people in the region who believe that non-Independents threaten TSP society. There are even more who don’t really care about military gameplay, at least not enough to go all in on any particular stance. But I think TSP will enter into a new era where Independence is not the only legitimate point of view, and where Cabinet members can run on their sincerely held positions. And that is ultimately far better for the region than the alternative.
 


 
Migration in The Rejected Realms
An Empirical Investigation
FEATURE | STARRIE
 
This article profiles four groups of nations -- those immigrating to The Rejected Realms, those emigrating, migrating nations in general, and all nations in total. These are named trr-i, trr-e, wld-m, and wld-s respectively in the graphs. I've collected a sample size of almost 20,000 from each group, found on nsarchive.net. Error bars at 1-std.
 
XvHbxj9s.png
 
This shows the average civil rights, economy, and political freedom of each group of nation. With the exception of economy, nations immigrating to TRR seem to align with the average world nation while nations emigrating from TRR seem to align with migrating nations in general. 
 
xNlOB1qs.png
 
These histograms show the three statistics, with score on the x-axis and frequency of the y-axis. Red, blue, and green show economy, civil rights, and political freedoms in some order which i've forgotten. Curiously, the wld-m group seems to be the only one which has lost the spike right below 60. The wld-s group seems to have a large proportion of nearly maxed-out scores. Beyond that, there isn't a huge visible difference in the charts.
 
uAZeezPs.png
 
I stuck these two charts together for no particular reason. It seems that small nations do the majority of the moving in NS. It is notable that nations tend to leave TRR with a significantly larger population than when they joined. The effect is too large to dismiss as an artifact caused by the sampling window. Perhaps nations CTE less often in TRR. 
 
The influence chart reveals no surprises. Nations taking a quick trip through TRR leave with slightly less influence, and static nations tend to have the most influence. Influence is scored on a scale from 1 to 21, with 1 being minnow and 21 being hermit.
 
22JnQDEs.png
 
These population histograms reveal more detail. Population is on the x-axis and frequency on the y. Note the natural log scale. Small nations make up a significant portion of nations, and the vast majority of nation migrations seems to be from the very youngest of nations, probably settling in a region. Surprisingly, the trr-e chart shows that few of the nations which joined TRR in their youth leave before around 100 million population. Possibly, young nations recruited to join one region rarely leave for another, at least for the first few weeks.
 
8Is58F7s.png
 
For each group, there are two influence histograms. The histogram on the right excludes minnow in order to clearly show the rest of the bars. The trr-i histogram sticks out -- even though many hermits move from region to region, few move to TRR. This hints that the majority of nations moving to TRR don't do so voluntarily.
 
3Wr5mqhs.png
 
Almost 35,000 nations pass through TRR in the last year. So where did they come from and where did they go? These pie-charts show the origin or destination of nations in all four groups. The top twenty regions are shown and the rest are just lumped together in Other. TRR recieves many nations from the sinkers, but barely any GCRs show up in TRR's emigration chart. 
 
The bottom two charts hint that nation migrations are fairly spread out. Although the top twenty regions hold what seems to be a third of the nations in NS, the top twenty in migration handle less than a fourth of moving nations. TRR is a clear outlier.
 
nd0dsv9s.png
 
One crude way to identify activity / enthusiasm is through flags, the rationale being that a collection of puppets is less likely to have custom flags than the average active region. Over a quarter of the nations entering TRR have the default flag, yet only a sixth leave TRR that way. But in general, we can still consider them slackers. Only 12% of all nations use the default flag, and among traveling nations, the figure is under 8%. 
 


 
The Decline of Defending
A NationStates Great War on the Horizon?
OPINION | CORMAC SOMERSET
 
"Defending is dead." You may expect this statement to come from an imperialist or raider partisan, but it came instead from a high profile defender official in a Founderless Regions Alliance member region. Indeed, the decline in defending has been startling. In recent months, defenders have been largely absent at update, neither preventing most invasions nor even attempting to end most long-term occupations. Perhaps the starkest demonstration of the decline in defending was the Lone Wolves United occupation of American Continent, ended after two weeks only by the revival of the Founder, despite minimal support and a comedy of errors on the part of Lone Wolves United.
 
Rumors of the death of defending should, of course, not be exaggerated. Both the raider and defender sides of the military gameplay spectrum have seen declines in the past, with defenders experiencing another recent decline during the summer of 2012 and raiders seeing an early 2013 lull in activity. In both cases, activity resumed after a few months. Still, it must be noted that the decline of defending has lasted longer than usual and preceded the overall 'summer lull' of NationStates by several months.
 
If defending is truly dead, as at least one defender official believes, its passing from NationStates gameplay raises serious questions in regard to regional conflict. For as long as NationStates has existed there has been conflict between regions. Whether it's the overall invader-defender conflict or more specific examples such as the battle between the New Pacific Order and the Alliance Defense Network, there has always been conflict in NationStates and defenders have always been integral to that conflict. If defending is dead and buried, how will new forms of conflict take shape?
 
Some have recently theorized that raiders are trying to create new enemies to replace defenders, or perhaps to become a new generation of defenders. This theory is based on Mallorea and Riva's attempt to pass a liberation resolution against the historic roleplay region Haven, followed shortly thereafter by invasions of roleplay regions Ixnay and American Continent by, respectively, The Black Riders and Lone Wolves United. This theory suggests a coordinated goal to provoke roleplayers into defensive action. Whether there is any truth to this theory, no such goal appears to have been accomplished, as roleplayers have instead continued to insist they want to 'opt out' of gameplay and will not be forced to participate in it as defenders.
 
If defending remains dead, a far more likely scenario is escalation of already existing conflicts that lie just beneath the surface of a previously united sphere of independent, imperialist, and raider regions. Now able to sustain their own invasions and occupations without support from other regions, in recent months The Black Riders have taken a cavalier attitude toward independent and imperialist regions as well as other raider regions. This erosion of unity has already seen Ainur, currently a minor player in the imperialist sphere, seeking formation of an alliance with The Eternal Knights, the sworn enemies of The Black Riders. Other imperialist regions, such as imperialist Sinker region Osiris, have also begun distancing themselves from the Riders.
 
Independents and imperialists, meanwhile, remain natural allies as they share the same fundamental goal: pursuit of regional interests through military policy, rather than advancement of rigid ideologies or apolitical, arbitrary military action. In the absence of a defender threat to their own military operations, it is becoming increasingly difficult for independents and imperialists to politically justify supporting The Black Riders' injudicious and aimless destruction of random founderless regions. For imperialists, who also prioritize the projection of their regional power upon the world stage, the absence of a defender enemy has led to an increase in liberation efforts against fringe invaders such as Right Wing Uprising and The Doom Squad as a means to this end.
 
While these conflicts between independents and imperialists on the one hand and raiders on the other largely remain limited to harsh words, in a world in which words mean everything they could quickly lead to military action. One wrong move against the wrong region could find The Black Riders, the largest and most active raider force, as the new enemies of an extensive and tightly interconnected network of independent and imperialist alliances. If defending remains a ghost of its former glory, NationStates gameplayers should not be surprised to see regional conflict taking a new shape as a 'Great War' between political independent and imperialist regions versus apolitical purveyors of random destruction.




It’s the End of the World! (As we know it)
FEATURE | AFFORESS

I’m leaving NationStates. By now, most readers should be well aware of the circumstances of my second deletion. I don’t think this deletion surprises too many people. Feared, respected, hated, or loved, I don’t think there is anyone left on NationStates that hasn’t formed an opinion on me or my actions as a player. I’ve never minded being a polarizing figure and I embrace controversy, but these two tendencies spell doom for interaction with the NationStates staff. Whether you think the moderators are ivory-tower tyrants or even-handed sheriffs guarding the wild west, there is no room left in NationStates for my cavalier brand of antics. I don’t conceal the fact that I think its better to ask for forgiveness than permission, or that if it can be done, it should be done. Right and wrong is a question for the historians, not the movers and shakers of tomorrow. This attitude of experimentation and disregard for tradition is incompatible with how the staff run NationStates.

My welcome has long since been worn out. I don’t normally mind the vitriol or hate spewed in my direction, anyone who changes anything is always an easy target. The internet can be a hateful place, but it is also the final frontier, where anything can still happen. But I think a tipping point has been reached where most players would rather see me go than see me stay. As a permanent resident of Capitalist Paradise, I’ve always embraced democratic rule. So it is hard for me to justify remaining when the majority would see me gone. I don’t want to stay against the wishes of the community. I’d rather leave, its not my place to dictate how the NationStates community should be run or what it should embrace. This isn’t an apology, I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong. I have a clean conscience. But it is the end of my time at NationStates, so it’s the end of the world.

What will become of my many projects? NSWiki, NSArchives, NationStates++? The NationStates administrator [violet] expressed interest in acquiring all of my projects. We agreed upon an arrangement and all domains, services, and sites will become official NationStates Ltd. assets. This means the NationStates++ extension, NSWiki, and NSArchives are all going “official”, and will continue to be supported into the future. The goal is to integrate the best of the sites & services into the game over time, while continuing to use the sites as a “testbed” for beta testers and non-standard, but much desired features (like puppet management). Users should not see any interruption in services, and their data will remain secure. I’ll be working with the staff to make sure the transfer goes smoothly and my code & projects are well documented.

To my friends, I am glad I had the opportunity to become friends with strangers over the internet, even thousands of miles apart. If you ever want to talk, don’t hesitate to email or find me somewhere to chat. To my users, I am glad I was able to improve your experience on NationStates, even if it was only a tiny bit. NationStates++ was a huge learning opportunity for me and I enjoyed every minute of helping you guys. To my detractors, I wish I could have known you better. In my experiences, most disagreements arise from miscommunications and unmet expectations, not a fundamental “unlikableness” in a person. I always wanted the best for NationStates, even if we didn’t agree on what best was.




The Myth of the Gameplay-Role Play Divide
OPINION | JOE BOBS

In this article, I want to cover the wide range of issues that have arisen in recent weeks on the pseudo-divide between role play and gameplay. In the last issue of The Rejected Times, Gruenberg's excellent article covered the array of technical options aimed at resolving the situation, so I will not go over that ground, though I urge everyone to read it to understand some solutions being discussed. Instead, I wish to focus on the current 'GP versus RP' zeitgeist, dispelling some myths, examining the evidence and looking at a non-technical solution I have proposed.

In the NS History thread, Space Dandy posed the question: have gameplay and roleplay always been so divided? Reploid Productions described the historical relationship as "identical" to today's, which was met with disagreement from others: Unibot cited Francos Spain's involvement in roleplay, while Blackbird recalled that the distinction is a more recent phenomenon, and that 'in character' or 'out of character' were more normal modes of thought in years gone by. My recollections are in agreement with this.

NationStates is a very different place now than it was originally. This is not the beginning of a nauseating voyage of nostalgia and glorification of the past; it is simply true that the game was different. I believe the internet was different. Remember a time before Facebook? When you maybe had a Hi5 or MySpace account, and there was certainly no Netflix or Amazon Prime Streaming, because your internet made a funny noise when it started up and you maybe even went through that horrific AOL screen? This is what I remember when I began playing NationStates (though admittedly, perhaps my technology was worse than most). This is almost impossible to prove, but I feel that internet communities tended to be more specialised then, owing to there being fewer internet users who logged on daily or for long periods of time. NS was no different to the rest of the internet: communities were specialised, often focusing on a political ideology, national identity, or cultural trend.

Let's examine the evidence. Two of the most powerful communities in 2005 were the Alliance of Capitalists, Conservatives and Economic Libertarians (ACCEL) and the NS Communist Party. The ADN and DEN fought their wars, but the vast majority of players were mostly concerned with forging alliances with other regions who came up when they searched 'liberal' or 'Europe', as these would probably be like-minded individuals. In this climate, gameplay and roleplay had no meaning: everyone was both a gameplayer and a roleplayer. One could make certain actions in character or out of character, but it was rare for someone to assert their identity as a gameplayer. or a roleplayer. This recruitment telegram from the ADN from 2003 was written in what we would today call roleplay language.

So, if the divide is an illusion, what's the problem? Are roleplayers upset over nothing? Shouldn't they get equal treatment and be just as prone to invasion as any other founderless region? Mallorea and Riva clearly believes so, as he believes that releasing one's password makes one responsible for allowing invasion. But the logic here is distorted: if roleplayers want no part in gameplay, forcing them to maintain an Intelligence or Security Department to prevent invasion is forcing them into gameplay. He may be factually correct: there is nothing to distinguish a roleplay from a gameplay region in the eyes of an invader. Yet here is the misunderstanding: why ask the question as 'do roleplay regions take part in gameplay by default?' Why not ask: 'is there another way?'

This week the FRA have launched a new tool for roleplayers to use: the FRA Intelligence Support Agency (FRAISA), which will provide security to any roleplay region who requests it, in the form of advice, performing security checks of new nations and, of course, defending and liberating. My hope is that this will provide a temporary fix until a technical solution is found to prevent the raiding of those who do not wish to engage.

This brings me to another point. This debate is not gameplay versus roleplay: I may be accused of being a 'moral defender' for this, but this is invaders versus roleplay. Firstly, the invader philosophy of destruction as a form of creation is a myth. It creates activity for the invaders only. If it does create activity in the natives, it is not the kind of activity they want. If it were, we would see a lot more natives of invaded regions joining invader militaries. Secondly, defenders (bar a few examples) are not solely interested in defending as an end unto itself: they are also interested in region building and the continued existence of communities. This is one of the cornerstones of the FRA.

Call me 'moral' as a dirty word if you will, but defending is in and of itself beneficial to NationStates in a way invading will never be, because NationStates is a text based game born from those years of slow internet, and so it is based on communication and interaction between communities. Defending preserves communities whilst invading does the opposite. I avoid using the term 'destroy' here only because of its connotations of forum destruction; perhaps a better wording would be that invaders silence communities, by silencing their identity through their WFE and flag and their interactions by closing embassies and erasing RMB messages. To those invaders who deny this, look at the outcry over The Black Riders' invasion of Farkistan, which has been called 'desecrating holy ground'.

By following Mallorea and Riva's Liberate Haven fiasco with the invasions of Ixnay and American Continents, the invader and imperial community has fired across the bow of roleplayers, but in doing so they have attempted to draw a division that does not exist between gameplay and roleplay. It is a fabrication of their propaganda. The reality is: it's invaders versus everyone else. Everyone on NationStates who values their community; everyone who enjoys the interactions they have experienced; and everyone who wants to see their creations flourish.




A Critique of the Wolfist Manifesto
FEATURE | KOGVURON

The Wolfist Manifesto is arguably one of the most important documents in the history of military gameplay. In it, Evil Wolf and Scardino laid out a set of principles that have guided raider organizations since 2007. At face value, the Wolfist Manifesto makes Wolfism seem to be a benevolent philosophy that aims to help nations all over NationStates by pillaging their regions and pushing them towards the "enlightened path." However, once one analyzes the document more closely, several interesting conflicts appear, which I will now expand upon.

Are Raiders The Backbone of NationStates?

In Section I of the Manifesto, Evil Wolf claims that "raiders are the backbone of NationStates." Wolf introduces this point by alluding to the Communist Manifesto, and then describing the conflict created by raiders as the most important conflict.

In doing so, Evil Wolf follows the theory of activity set out by The Mighty Pump and Todd McCloud in their pieces "Pump's Views on Activity in NationStates" and "The Necessity of Chaos." Under this theory, raiders would spur activity by creating conflicts, thereby being the "activity creators" in NationStates, and forming its backbone. Wolf's complete ignoring of all non-gameplay factions aside, I challenge this idea by introducing the idea of a world without defenders, such as the one that Wolf proposes will eventually be the end result of Wolfism. Without defenders, raiding would exist. However, most raids would be either a) tag raids or B) one-sided raids. Tag raids generate a little activity for the raider organization, but this activity is mostly meaningless and has no real value. One-sided raids too generate activity for the raider organization, but the lack of hope for a liberation would cause hopelessness to set in among the native population, thereby suppressing activity among communities that were raided. From this, I conclude that raiders are not the backbone of NationStates, because without defenders, any activity generated by raiders would be inconsequential for all outside of an elite few raiders, and would even suppress activity in the rest of the gameplay world. Raiders and defenders together are the backbone of NationStates. This brings me to my second point.

How Does Wolfism Help Natives?

In Section II, Evil Wolf claims that raiding a region "propels [it] towards the enlightened path." This implies that raiding, and Wolfism, somehow helps natives, despite conspiring to deface and occupy their homelands. This is quite an interesting take on military gameplay to say the least.

The premise put forth in this section depends on whether a) raids spur meaningful activity in the target regions or B) the end result of Wolfism is somehow favorable to natives, favorable enough that it would negate any short-term losses. With most raids today being tag raids on regions that are already half-dead, it is safe to say that most raids do not spur meaningful activity for the affected natives. Even in regions targeted for long-term occupations, lasting activity is usually not a result. Out of 16 non-tag raids performed by TBR since 2012 that are not ongoing, 1 is active (Catholic), 3 are moderately active (South America, Ohio, Yorkshire), 8 are inactive (Deutschland, RORMS, Korel, Former United States, Ireland, Coffee House, Orion, Christmas, Western Assembly), and 4 are colonies (Islamic Republic of Iran, UNO, Planet X, The Silver Isles). Although this sample set is not statistically valid for all raiders because it focuses on just TBR, I think the point is clear. Raids simply do not spur meaningful activity in invaded regions. It is safe to say that the Wolfist premise is not true by point (a).

Therefore, it must be true by point ( B) if true at all. This leads me to the last and final section of this piece.


Dictatorship of the Raider

In the Manifesto, Evil Wolf claims that Wolfism seeks to bring about the "Dictatorship of the Raider" by destroying defenderism completely. I assume this would look like a world ruled by raiders, where raiders can go around destroying whatever region they want without opposition, although the term is so vague that it could mean any number of things. Based on this, there are a couple of issues with the Dictatorship of the Raider.

Going back to point ( B) from the last section, the Dictatorship of the Raider would have to be long-term positive to natives in order for Wolfism to be good for natives. I think it is clear that a Dictatorship of the Raider would be an absolute catastrophe for natives, because natives would always have to watch their backs for invasions, thereby being distracted from whatever they actually wanted to do. Thus, I think it is clear that the premise is not true by point ( B), and therefore, Wolfism does not help natives.

More importantly in the military gameplay of today, Wolfism advocates for unity among raiders so that they can create the Dictatorship of the Raider. Theoretically, a world with a Dictatorship of the Raider would be basically utopian for raiders, as there would be no defenders. However, without defenders, raiders would quickly run out of regions to raid and raiders would have to turn in among themselves for the next targets. Because of this, a Dictatorship of the Raider could never last, simply because of the nature of raiding organizations. Raiders will always keep looking for the next target, and sooner or later, that target will be other raiders, causing civil war among the Dictatorship and allowing a new generation of defenders to arise. Raider unity towards the creation of the Dictatorship of the Raider is useless.

Conclusion and Credits

I hope that my critique sheds light on some conflicts and inaccuracies inside of the Wolfist Manifesto. One of the things that I personally found interesting about the Wolfist Manifesto was its modeling on the Communist Manifesto. While the Communist Manifesto argued for a classless society where all are socially equal, the Wolfist Manifesto in fact argues for the elevation of a raider class above all at the expense of natives and defenders. I don't know if this juxtaposition was intentional, but it was certainly an intriguing choice of model by Evil Wolf. Credit to Evil Wolf and Scardino for the writing of the Wolfist Manifesto, and to The Mighty Pump and Todd McCloud for the pieces that I cited in the text of my argument. The list of non-tag raids by TBR was taken from a list of raids by Feuer Ritter. I am unaware of whether this list is complete, but I think any additional raids unmentioned would be unlikely to affect the conclusion much.




We'll see your World Cup and Raise You!
LXIX NationStates World Cup coincides with RL World Cup
FEATURE | APOX

psDK4vz.jpg?1?1244

Apox, Co-Host of the NationStates World Cup, discusses the history and the future of the famed NS tournament...

The NationStates World Cup is by far the longest-running event in the NS Sports section of the forums. Founded in 2003, with 36 different winners since then, it is about to begin its 69th edition, with myself and The Holy Empire (the only nation still-active in the tournament that also participated in WC 1) co-hosting.

It is therefore by far the most prestigious tournament we have in our sub-forum, with numbers regularly topping 180 competing nations since I've taken part, and occasionally more than 200. It is one of the biggest hosting achievements any nation can undertake in NS Sports, only surpassed in size and complexity by NationStates Olympics. The World Cup is intentionally closely modelled on the Real Life football/soccer version: while many nations enter, only 32 qualify for the finals.

There have been significant changes over time regarding the generation of scores, with the first two tournaments using dice to generate results. However, Excel spreadsheets were introduced in WC 3, and by the 5th tournament, excel spreadsheet formats started to focus on the "three Rs": rank, roleplay and random. The balancing of these three components has been a much debated point over the years, with frequent arguments over how random a "scorinator" is. So frequent are both arguments and upset results in games that the community can often be heard to talk of the dread random number goddess known as Margaret, who can be appeased through the sacrifice of rubber chickens.

While a range of scorinators were used in the middle years of the tournament, the current scorinators are typically NSFS (Nations States Footie Simulator) or Xkoranate (a gargantuan scorinator with many different events). A system known as "KPB rankings" tracks each contestant's success (or lack thereof) over recent tournaments, allowing for a fair assessment of each team's current multiverse national football team rank.

However, what really makes the World Cup great is the community. 90% of users who take part in the NSSport sub-forum will enter the World Cup, and there have been many legendary, funny or downright absurd roleplays over the years. Current active teams include squads composed of Orthodox Christian monks, sentient ursines, and absurdly polite gentlemen in top hats, while long-term participants fondly remember the legendary incident involving an egg....; there are even some 'normal' football teams. Nearly every cup, there will be collaborative roleplays between nations, and it is these collaborations, planned or unplanned which makes the World Cup so fun.

Even if winning the damn thing is so hard…




The Battlefield Effect
Where Independentism Goes Wrong…
EDITORIAL | UNIBOT

One of the key observations of this article is that partisan politicians themselves are more irrational, more dangerous, defensive and most of all more partisan, when the entrenchment of their values is threatened. This is the source of what I will call “The Battlefield Effect” and it is a phenomenon which has extremely grave consequences for independentism.

We expect that when a region becomes “independent”, leaders will make more balanced and rational decisions, voters will act more balanced and rational and the whole region itself becomes a more calculative machine. That is the intended purpose of independentism: to pursue a region’s interests above all else. However, from my observations, independentism has the exact opposite effect than intended. Leaders become more partisan, voters become more partisan and the region itself becomes a more partisan machine.

It can be said that The Battlefield Effect occurs when players seek out other ways to confirm their region’s alignment, in the absence of a clear official alignment. When a region lacks a clear alignment that is not the “end” of the debate. Players seek out other ways to signal their region’s alignment and these signalling tools can take on an absolutely irrational form.

For example, you might believe a treaty isn’t just a treaty; it’s an affirmation that “we share common ideals” *nudge* *nudge* *wink*. You could propose a treaty with X, Y or Z or cancel a treaty with X, Y and Z to more closely align a region towards an alignment. Alliancing with other more solidly aligned regions serves to confirm what has been left unconfirmed in the wake of the region’s independentism.

Likewise, you might propose an election isn’t just an election; it’s a confirmation of “where the region stands” *coughs*. If so and so wins or loses an election it signals a shift in a region’s alignment based on the stances of those running – despite none of them (perhaps) running as anything but a closet defenderist or invaderist.

Over the years, I have noticed many issues where military gameplay has played a silent third rail in the political backdrop – players competing over polls, attempting to define their region’s culture with regional flags, holidays, anthems, fighting for control over their forum administrations and court decisions (criminal, civil and legal!), media and immigration policies, promoting roleplay, spam, General Assembly votes, WA Repeals, IRC versus MSN/Skype or sources of international cooperation (i.e., “The NationStates Community”, NS World Fair). Meanwhile others might condemn activities like adspam, UCR recruitment and forum destruction with the question of a region’s alignment playing a vital, although understated role to the discussion.

One of the more common items to manipulate for one’s advantage is the discursive interpretation of history. A closet defenderist might to try to downplay dissonant events and emphasize events that resonate with defenderism, while a closet invaderist would do the same in regards to invaderism. Take for example, The North Pacific, where the legacy of the originally defender North Pacific Army is discounted by some and praised by others, or The South Pacific, where the collective memory of important events is edited, pruned and challenged – the major involvement of invaders in the Sedgistan and the Milograd coups are downplayed or excused and a new narrative is written to suggest that these coups reflect an Anti-TSP FRA, despite the fact that Sedgistan was ex-FRA at the time of the coup, Milograd was not yet a member of the FRA and the Founderless Regions Alliance had supported the coalition in both coups (which is also contested). The histories of coups are especially important as the “narrative of liberation” can resonate with defenderism, but the “narrative of hypocrisy” can clash with defenderism. The Empire’s reign in The East Pacific is often very controversial, for example, with some Easterners attempting to downplay the wrongfulness of the event. Instead, they might emphasize the mistakes of defender forces or the creation of the Concordat as of result.

Since The Battlefield Effect finds that players seek ways to demonstrate their region’s alignment through other ways than an official acknowledgement, there has to be a symbolic process for which players can accomplish this outcome. Namely, players form associations with the desired alignment. Some are strong associations, while others are weak associations. Note that none of these associations are necessarily valid, reasonable or rational.

A strong association is a relationship between the military, people or other regions which are already officially aligned, while a weak association is a contrarian relationship or a tangential relation with an idea related with a clear alignment. The former association is simple: if say Bigtopia is a defender or a defender region, support for them is regarded as a direct, strong association with defenderism. The latter can take on more complex forms. We observe patterns and make poor generalizations: for example, it was argued by some that IRC was more popular among defenderdom, while MSN was popular with invaderdom. These kinds of generalizations serve as the foundation for many weak associations. Likewise, defenders might tie unrelated issues to features of their own rhetoric of compassion, social responsibility and international cooperation or the rhetoric of the invader, which promotes personal responsibility, creative destruction, social darwinism and self- aggrandizement.

The fairy tale of independentism begins with a myth that this ill-fated ideology can find common ground between all regional mates, regardless of creed: the interests of their region. But this rational compromise collapses under scrutiny and practice. Interests are not a solidly defined rational construct, but an ambiguous morass that can be misinterpreted and misconstrued. With room for debate, common ground becomes a battlefield. The product of this clash, forces the region’s decisions to become less rational, even warped by partisanship – avoiding peace and cooperation to evade tacit association with “the other”, while the internal meritocracy of independentism devolves into sheer cronyism. The community relations of the independent region deteriorate as every issue and nearly every decision becomes an ideological space for catty dialectics and more identity politics.

Independentism, in practice, brews all of the vices it condemns (in greater potency than its alternatives): irrationalism, partisanship, a near religious commitment to particular allies and the militarization of the political community.

Perhaps Independentism is unintentionally flawed or perhaps its creators never intended it to be anything else but a political instrument – a trojan horse for invaderism (or its shrewd step-brother Imperialism) or defenderism.

I even reckon that defender and invader regions, with the Battlefield Effect largely not present in their regions, more closely realize the independent ideal than officially independent regions do. Take for example, The Rejected Realms, which — after formally becoming a defender region this year— sought a Non-Aggression Pact with Osiris, an imperialist-invader region. Meanwhile, the citizenry here in The Rejected Realms recently voted a vocal non-defender, Christian Democrats, as its most well regarded executive officer (in terms of performance). The official shift towards defenderism has closed a gaping void… an endless debate in The Rejected Realms, allowing us to focus the past few months on cultural development and growth instead.

In light of this, though, it should be said that imperialists are right to propose that defenderism and invaderism are not “political ideologies” — defenderism, for example is a set of ethical value judgements which can only inform the politician so far. If martial ideologies govern the martial and political ideologies govern the political, it can be said that independentism is a failed project to bridge the two and govern both the martial and the political from a coherent rational egoism. Imperialism is a success in those regards, leading both the martial and the political with a unifying doctrinal vision, whereas the Battlefield Effect is a direct consequence of Independentism's failure to address the political or the martial in any clear, unambiguous manner. Perhaps some of the issue for independentism lies with its use of Realism, an international relations theory, which cannot be applied to internal politics, since Independentism’s rational egoism conceives of a collective regional ego, but does not explore the individual. Martially, independentism is an ambiguous mess that loses ground and is quietly undermined by clearer, more preferred alternatives.

It was a mistake rather to assume that existing defender regions do not already govern their political spheres with a doctrine that can inform leaders what they ought to do, when defenderism —as a value set— is irrelevant.

For example, defenderism cannot normatively propose who you ought to ally with, or better yet, how to design your constitution or whether you should be democratic or autocratic. Yet, defender regions do make these decisions, so there must be some underlying, connecting ideas present. So what could they possibly be? The Red Liberty Alliance had democratic socialism to govern the political and the martial under a thick, established ideology that included the values of defenderism, while the Alliance Defense Network was a dissociative beast – Dr. Jekyll, the idealist, Mr. Hyde, the realist.

But what about contemporary organizations and regions like the FRA, the UDL, The Rejected Realms, Lazarus or even 10000 Islands? All of us have identified as “defender”, giving the false impression that defenderism serves as our political ideology, but there has to be something truly driving our political decisions … a set of ideas that extend to internal issues and are relevant not only to decisions regarding interregional conflicts, but regional politics and culture too.

Next edition, I will explore in depth this elusive ideology without a name – the unspoken doctrine from which defender regions and organizations govern. Dare if you will to enter the mystery and the unknown of the Defender State as I confront the subconscious of our political psychology…

This editorial will continue next edition with a second and final installment, “Political Philosophies of Defenderdom”.




Foreign Relations Main Talking Point In The South Pacific Elections
COMMENTARY | GRUENBERG

The South Pacific has concluded a low key set of summer elections, giving another term to incumbent Delegate Kringalia and Vice-Delegate Arbiter08. Kringalia ran on a platform entitled "Forward", an easy direction to choose given he faced no opponent. The ticket was elected by a margin of 24-5, and will be served by a Cabinet comprising Minister of Regional Affairs ProfessorHenn, Minister of the Army QuietDad, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sandaoguo, and Chair of the Assembly Unibot. The South Pacific also held its traditional vote for "Craziest Person in TSP", which saw 13 voters favour Rebeltopia's particular brand of craziness to the 7 who preferred ProfessorHenn.

While Kringalia, QuietDad and ProfessorHenn were all elected unopposed, Unibot faced the tightest election, winning by only a single vote of 14-13 against God-Emperor. A late vote change proved decisive in determining the outcome. But despite the margin of victory, the election for Chair of the Assembly was not fiercely fought: both candidates faced questions over their ability to commit to the rule given their duties elsewhere, Unibot serving as delegate of The Rejected Realms and God-Emperor holding political office in two other Pacifics. Unibot assured voters he would be able to maintain activity levels, while God-Emperor promised to appoint a competent deputy, an approach Unibot described as unnecessary.

But this was the only point of friction; indeed, so bland was the political debate for this position - an almost impressive feat given the involvement of Unibot, who has proven himself capable of arousing partisan bickering at every turn in the Assembly - that it is difficult to analyse the vote outcome, which may have come down to something as prosaic as the candidates' choice of graphics: while God-Emperor campaigned with a stylish Van Gogh chair, Unibot chose a more prosaic Clip-Art style. The South Pacific voted for functionality over aesthetics.

The centrepiece of the election was the race for Minister of Foreign Affairs, the most fiercely contested Cabinet seat. Four candidates declared themselves, although Sandaoguo and Belschaft quickly leapt ahead of The Republic of Zinnwaldite and The Solar System Scope, both of whom faced accusations of being too inexperienced and failing to understand the role, earning only a single vote each. Sandaoguo won the election with 15 votes to Belschaft's 11, but paid a gruelling price for doing so, facing repeated character attacks by Belschaft, who accused his opponent of lying over everything from whether he was claiming credit for work done by his predecessors, to whether he had underhanded motives in negotiating the treaty with The Rejected Realms.

It was this issue that proved the most controversial, as midway through the elections, in a truly remarkable and no doubt wholly coincidental bit of timing, The New Inquisition announced they were severing their Treaty with The South Pacific in response to the treaty with TRR. While the reunciation was emphasised "not to be seen as an act of war or hostility" by Minister President MagentaFairy, it was also starkly critical of Glen-Rhodes (Sandaoguo) for his previous questioning of their alliance, and of TSP Minister of the Army Geomania for some R/D crap, whatever.

The renunciation of the treaty with TNI was immediately hailed by Belschaft as proof that his darkest prophesies of the outcome of the treaty with TRR were accurate, but it was not enough to swing the election in his favour. That Sandaoguo was reelected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs suggest many in The South Pacific do not share this sense of pessimism about the direction of foreign policy, or that they agree with Sandaoguo's anti-imperialist sympathies. He will now have another term to further his aims, which he had announced as pursuing interregional security not through doomed multilateral agreements, but instead on a gradual bilateral basis, and the success of that project on whether trading a bilateral agreement with TNI for one with TRR proves a wise decision in the long run.




Lazarus "Wins" The World Cup
COMMENTARY | KOGVURON

w23sgwl.jpg

July 13 saw Germany win their fourth World Cup title following a 1-0 extra time victory over Argentina. In addition to German fans, Lazarenes were also quite excited with this development, with their region defeating The Rejected Realms and The South Pacific in the FIFA World Cup Event. Lazarus picked Germany partly because of its status as the birthplace of Karl Marx, the father of communism.

Other regions in the competition did not fare so well. Picking perennial disappointers England, TRR found themselves knocked out in the group stage. TRR Delegate Unibot said, "Short and sweet. Just what The Doctor ordered. We didn't choose England for its chances, let's say that. Hah! It was a pleasure getting to watch the World Cup as a partisan and I hope the others, Lazarus and TSP, had fun too." TSP fared better, picking The Flying Dutchmen of the Netherlands to win it all. The Dutch played well, working their way through to the semifinals through a tough group including Spain and Chile. However, they were knocked off in penalty kicks by Argentina, denying the Event a Lazarus versus TSP final. TSP had to settle for a victory in the third place game over Brazil.

On the whole, it is safe to say the tournament was a huge success. Rejects were very excited about the contest, despite the reservations that some held over their team of choice. Lazarus was even more excited, with the official world cup thread reaching 35 pages long and hosting a commentary on almost every one of the 64 games. Lazarus Chairman Funkadelia commented, "I'm pleased to be able to share this competitive event with our friends in The Rejected Realms and The South Pacific. I think we all know that Germany, and the People's Republic of Lazarus, were all destined to win from the start ;)." TSPers too were excited with the success of their squad. ProfessorHenn noted how Kringalia changed made the WFE orange to support the team and changed his national flag to the Netherlands football logo. This event was truly enjoyed by all who took part.




World Assembly Legislative League Treaty Ratified By TNP
COMMENTARY | GRUENBERG

The North Pacific Regional Assembly has voted to ratify the World Assembly Legislative League Treaty, a multilateral WA agreement between TNP, Balder, Europeia, and the International Democratic Union. Proposed by former TNP delegate McMasterdonia, who had sought to revitalise the region's stagnant WA affairs ministry, bringing in Abacathea as an advisor and reforming policy to exclude citizens without WA membership in the region from voting, the WALL Treaty ratification vote passed 28-8 with 8 abstentions.

The Treaty calls for increased cooperation between the respective member regions in World Assembly affairs, including binding them to consensus decisions on whether to sponsor or oppose proposals, and usurping the powers of the regions' respective WA ministers to provide analyses and summaries of resolutions; the cooperation is also intended to extend to broader policy discussions and activity drives. However, each member retains regional sovereignty in determining their own votes on resolutions.

Three of the regions represent sizeable delegate votes and are known for “stacking” early to influence resolution outcomes; the IDU may seem an odd bedfellow, but share long historic links to The North Pacific, and already technically possess a treaty with the region, although in practice its requirements with regards to WA activity are seldom honoured. As the largest region and leader of the negotiations, TNP will play host to the official WALL discussions.

WALL represents a novel venture, at least for regions of this size. Gameplay treaties in the past have been signed on forum destruction, antifascism, telegram recruiting, and aspects of R/D play, but given the scant regard for using the WA as anything more than a technical means to a game exploit in most gameplay communities WA-oriented treaties have not been actively sought. Indeed, one has to go back to before the WA was even created, to its predecessor the NSUN, to find examples of interregional organizations cooperating on WA matters, such as CACE and ACCEL.

How the WALL will work in practice as such remains very much an open proposition. Personality clashes – a number of those in senior positions within the respective regions have starkly different views on WA policy, and TNP's experiment of appointing WA deputies from opposing ideological camps has seen much butting of heads – could easily derail accord, but if the agreement holds up it could see even greater sway over the direction of the WA falling into the grip of the cabal of powerful regions, further proving the complete irrelevance of the WA forum community.

Whichever path is taken, it promises to be an intriguing prospect.




NSG Reacts to MH17 With Shock And Anger, Mostly Anger
NSG reacted to information nearly as fast as it became available
COMMENTARY | THAFOO

Zg9CXb0.jpg?1?3771

The reaction of all NSers far and wide, from Gameplay and Roleplay to NationStates General, was of complete shock when the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was downed this year.

The grim news was announced via the thread posted by L. Ron Cupboard. Naturally, everyone's mind immediately went to the previous incident, MH370, which had occurred months ago, nearly equally shocking the world as the search progressed for the still missing airliner. One famous NSGer, Ifreann, known for his tongue-in-cheek commentary regarding social and economic issues, claimed, "At some point we have to consider the possibility that God does not want Malaysians flying."

By the third page, however, the tone had changed, with blame going to the Russian government, Russian-supported separatists, or a mistake by the Ukranian military, all highly reminiscent of Iran Air 655, an incident that occurred in 1988 when the United States Navy mistook an Airbus A300 for a warplane, with a death toll of 290, a mere eight fatalities behind MH17.

As NSG topics usually go, however, by page 100, the thread had devolved, ridden with threadjacks and debates, mostly centered around the most suspected culprit in the plane's downing: Russia or Russian-backed separatists. Further developments have continued being posted on the fast-moving thread as they arrive.




Is TNP's community "cracking at the seams"?
OPINION | THE CHURCH OF SATAN

qaADGqg.jpg?1?2103

Lately it has become apparent to some that the community of The North Pacific is tearing itself apart rather fiercely. punk d of The North Pacific expressed concern over this in a post to The Agora of The North Pacific entitled "Cracks at the seams".

However, the citizens of The North Pacific don't seem nearly as concerned on the grounds that these things happen: people will leave regions from time to time and others will stay; this kind of turmoil is unavoidable; it will happen eventually, but The North Pacific will survive as all GCRs do in these situations. I'm inclined to agree with these citizens, though it's nice that punk d is so concerned for The North Pacific.

In response to the lack of concern by fellow citizens, punk d said: "I tend to be paranoid, so hopefully I'm being just that. ... I feel the lack of concern means that the "cracks at the seams" may not be as bad as I suspected. I am concerned about the things I wrote, sure, but if most others are not concerned then it means that the disagreements aren't hitting the core of TNP as I feared."

Cormac also weighed in on this: "I haven't been playing NationStates for nearly as long as Punk, nor have I been as active a contributor to The North Pacific. I do, however, have some experience with community turmoil and community collapse within GCRs.

"I tend to agree with his assessment here. All communities will have their drama, but what I've seen happening in The North Pacific over the past few weeks has a different feel to it. It doesn't have the same feel as past political disputes such as the WA voting policy, the NPA Doctrine, etc. It feels more to me like the serious disputes that led to irreparable rifts in Osiris in 2012 and 2013.

"Whenever I get that feeling in a community, I feel compelled to share my perspective with people. Of course you can take that for what it's worth, or leave it, but I would rather share my impression of the situation and be wrong than not say anything and wonder later if I had done everything I could to call attention to problems and change them."

Crushing Our Enemies replied with a similar response to the rest of TNP which seemed largely unconcerned, hopefully for good reason: "I've been hearing bits and pieces of the craziness of late, and I've had the chance to read through some of it. It seems to me that it will all come to a head, one way or another, and TNP will go on. Maybe not the same as it ever was, but our community can weather this."

Romanoffia, one person largely responsible for the 'craziness', chimed in with: "Hey, people wanted activity and failed to realize that when you ask for activity, you don't always get exactly the type of activity you hoped for. Or worse yet, got the exact activity you were looking for."

In the end, the worst case scenario is a repeat of Osiris, in that new leaders will arise from the conflict and unite the region once more; the best case scenario is that the in-fighting continues and one or both parties involved leave the region, returning stability to it. Frankly this is nothing to be too concerned about but it should be watched closely. I hope all goes well for The North Pacific. I may not have invested anything into the region myself, but I'm a citizen too and I don't want anything bad happening as a result of the in-fighting.




World Assembly's 300th Resolution Breaks Record
COMMENTARY | GRUENBERG

Statheads in the World Assembly had two reasons to get excited about child pornography as the 300th Resolution ever passed broke the all time record for the highest percentage in favour. Wrapper's Child Pornography Ban passed by a margin of 8486 to 649, representing 93% of votes in favour; in doing so, it eclipsed even such highly supported resolutions from the World Assembly or its predecessor, the NSUN, as Outlaw Pedophilia, Female Genital Mutilation, Prevention of Child Abuse, Child Pornography Prohibition, and On Female Genital Mutilation – the list itself suggesting the kind of issues on which the WA has the biggest consensus.

The vote reflected a rare moment of GCR unity in favour, and an equally rare moment when prominent anti-WA delegate Noctaurus of Gatesville did not cast a vote against. Indeed, the largest vote against came from Duck-Boss, raider delegate of the occupied region of Anarchy. This vote irritated the natives of Anarchy for implicitly associating their region with support for child pornography. The Black Riders explained that they voted against not based on the political issue at hand, but rather as part of a general pattern of doing everything to antagonise natives: according to the ever poetic Coraxion, "Our actions will always show bad taste, from point of views of an average NSer".

But even deliberately provocative votes like this did nothing to the overall margin of victory, which surprised even its author. "I thought for sure that passing a Moral Decency/Significant proposal would be more of an uphill battle. Category aside, I could see how some would vote against it on technical grounds, like the definition of pornography, or the age of consent, or other reasons like, it doesn't go far enough, or goes too far, or it should ban hentai, or it shouldn't ban realistic CGI. There were so many plausible reasons to vote no," admitted Wrapper, who roleplays a Stargate-themed pacificist nation in the World Assembly and had previously tasted defeat with their unpopular World University of Peace proposal.

The resolution arose out of a concern that the restrictions in existing WA legislation, such as Prevention of Child Abuse, did not go far enough to ban child pornography, and real life precedents played their part, as Japan finally banned the possession of child pornography. This motivated Wrapper to write a proposal in comprehensive fashion: "This, along with Sciongrad's very persuasive arguments, convinced me that a possession ban was absolutely necessary." Wrapper can now boast, in similarly annoying fashion to Safalra, to being the most successful resolution author in history - while the WA may have occasion to consider where it is at 300, and whether progress on issues of less obvious consensus is still possible.




TRR Chooses a New Flag!
OPINION | THE CHURCH OF SATAN

For several months now the citizens of The Rejected Realms have been debating whether or not to choose a new flag for the region.

It started on October 11th of last year when Frattastan telegrammed Milograd, asking for a more refurbished flag. The aim was to have a more modern version, so the region seemed less old-fashioned. Milograd posted 3 versions, one of which he scrapped, the second a definite improvement from the first and the last one being his finalized version, which looks vert sharp. Almonaster submitted one as well although it isn't quite up to par with Milograd's last one. Unibot submitted one too. Personally I think it's a good second place option. In the end when the issue went to vote, TRR delegate Unibot went with Milograd's finalized version. The vote ended at 10 For, 5 Against.

As of 9:28PM EST on July 14th the change was put into place. The Rejected Realms' new regional flag is now the following:

FRseNgb.jpg

We're grateful for Milograd's contribution to the region and I'm sure this flag will fly over TRR for years to come! Thank you so much Milograd, from all of us at The Rejected Realms!




In Brief - News Round-Up
NEWS | GRUENBERG

Flag Thief's Return

NationStates's most infamous imposter, Flag Thief, has returned after a long absence from the game. Announcing their resumption of vexillological villainy, Flag Thief immediately stole the fiery phoenix flag of YoriZ, having noticed the ongoing drama of the occupation of Anarchy. Flag Thief often chooses high profile targets for their banner burglary, and had soon moved on to a new unsuspecting victim: The North Pacific delegate McMasterdonia, subject of a Commendation vote in the Security Council (with which Flag Thief will be familiar, having themselves been Condemned for their actions in a previous vote). The Rejected Times will be watching for further acts of flag thievery by the returning rascal.

Games of the IX Olympiad

The NationStates Summer Olympics, officially the Games of the IX Olympiad, have been selected to be held in Zube and Kytler Bay City, hosted by The Kytler Peninsula for the first time. The Summer Olympics are organized using the xkoranate scorinator created by Commerce Heights, and are the largest multisports tournament in NationStates, with over 50 nations having already entered. Signups, open until July 31 at 23:59 UTC, are permitted by all nations in NationStates regardless of previous involvement in NS Olympic or Sports events, and are being coordinated via spreadsheet in this thread.

NS++ bought by NationStates

NationStates has entered discussions to acquire NS++ from Afforess. Following the deletion of Shadow Afforess for threatening the region of Haven with a password cracking tool, the mechanics of which would have broken NationStates rules, there were fears that NS++ might close down, but [violet] has now taken steps to ensure its continuation. Game staff have long disclaimed any official sanction for NS++, but this would now become the first tool created by players to be officially supported by the game. Details have been closely held while negotiations continue, but there is every sign that NS++ will continue to be made available to all players, with only the loss of its ad-blocking feature.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know TRR should change the format. There is actually a lot of interesting information but the

method should be used. Leave the first few sentences of an article and spoiler-ize the rest. That'll make it more palatable for the reading audience to read what they are interested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not possible, I'm afraid. Many of these new-fangled IPB forums do not have a consistent spoiler tag (I've considering doing that in the past). It's hard enough as it is to reformat every edition for IPB.

If NS's GCRs would stick to ZB it would be possible to do an issue organized with

tags. But we don't even have horizontal rules across the board yet, due to IPB's stinky compatibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...