[admin change requests part trois or tres or three]

Could the subtitle of The Judiciary of The West Pacific please be changed from "The Court of The Imperium" to, say, "Arbiter Hearings here"?

Could the subtitle of Application Center under The West Pacific Union Intelligence Division be changed from "ISS Application Center" to, say, "Intelligence Division Application Center"?

Apologies to the admins for making a discussion comment here...but, why?

 

You are not authorized, from any post that I have been able to find, to make these changes.

[Proposal: Procedural Rules]

The rebellion clause was not in the Charter....

 

And I do not believe it was ever actually voted on by the Voice prior to its initial dissolution.

 

Also, some of the authority that you give the Voice here was stipulated with Delegate approval, which is now absent.

[Proposal: Procedural Rules]

I would prefer a system where the Advocate was head of a deliberative body and not head of government.

I also dislike all of the wording about overruling or overriding the Delegate. Since when does the offsite dictate to the Delegate in TWP?

[Cormac]

I've not know Cormac to be a liar. He's got some wacky reasoning, imo, but generally he says what he actually believes.

I have it on very good authority that he initially planned to keep it and only gave it up when he realized his position was untenable.

[Cormac]

I feel kind of like Cormac was desperate to portray himself as a hero? Idk.

Honestly, while I don't think we need to thank him, I also don't think we should be condemning him. No response would be appropriate, because his intervention was largely irrelevant and just got him some random publicity. But that's just my opinion.

I agree. He only wants attention so I think ignoring him altogether would be a better 'punishment'.

[Banning URAP]

In my original post I had something in the back of my mind that DEN had some association with known forum destroyers, which I went and confirmed later.

Probably did that the wrong way around, but my first concern was the security of this site.

And yes two of the Admins have couped the region, but they were "family". By declaring for DEN URAP left that association and lost my trust that he would not try and do something stupid forum side.

You may find this hard to believe Vlagh, but I count you as TWP family, which means that there is an implicit trust in terms of things like forum security.

I appreciate that and was not meaning to imply you did anything inappropriate (or indeed anyone did). I just asked if association with DEN was cause for concern because there are others here with such associations.

I did not expect to be dismissed by the admin and basically told that I'm not allowed to ask and that my position was somehow unjustified even though you seemed very clear in your original request.

Since it was clarified that DEN association was not a factor I then asked if it was because he couped the region. I appreciate your point of view on that and can accept that as a reason in and of itself.

Thanks.

[Banning URAP]

No, his association with DEN had no bearing on the decision to ban him from the forum. You are reading more into the thread than is there. BBD is not an administrator, so his is an opinion and request, just as yours would be.

Yet that was not clarified in the decision to ban the player. It isn't an obligation of forum administration to share the reasons why a player is banned, correct. But if a reason for a request is specifically given and action is taken without contradiction or clarification then the (completely justified) opinion that administration acted on those reasons is valid. You stating in what I read as a dismissive and patronising comment that you have 'no idea' where I got that opinion from is insulting.

So, if URAP's association with DEN was not a factor, what was the reason if I might ask your lordships? I find it incredibly hard to believe that an admin panel that includes two players that have couped this very region would advocate kicking a player for the same thing only. And if that is the new policy going forward then I submit myself as a player associated with a former feeder coup/rogue Delegacy and also submit the half dozen or so other players that are active/semi-active here that have done similar elsewhere.

[A public apology]

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

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

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

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

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

[Banning URAP]

As he has declared himself as DEN I suggest a ban from this forum as a probable security risk and potential forum destroyer.

This would seem to indicate that association with DEN was part of the decision since it is the initial request to have URAP banned and states very clearly that his association is one of the reasons, so I guess this is where I got that from?

Obviously, Winnipeg has the right to ban anyone here for any reason. I am simply expressing my opinion that generally I think banning a player for an ingame action is unnecessary.

[Cormac]

Forgive me for this, but I am compelled to comment:

 

Whatever Cormac may have said, he also unbanned the Guardian (Elegarth and any others who were banned, if any); untagged the region, resigned from the WA and helped restore TWP to TWP. In this case, actions speak louder than words, and honestly, it's entirely possible that the original message was a front in order to make what Ivo was expecting to come next more believable.

 

Had he not, then it's possible TWP would still be in DEN hands, and I would still be communicating with various militaries to wake them up, as I did within the first 12hrs of URA going crazy. Actions speak louder than words, had Cormac wished harm, then he would have done his best to perputate that. It's clear to me that he didn't, and through good fortune, TWP is safely in native hands once again. And he also managed to get back at TBRDEN for problems they attempted to cause with Osiris in the past.

I believe the endorse gap was sufficiently high enough to prevent URAP from ejecting enough nations to compensate before the update occurred so the seat would have been lost regardless.  Medio would still be Delegate and he could have (and would have) done all of those things just as easily as Cormac did.

 

Actions do speak louder than words and Cormac's initial action was to send out a very pointed and direct unendorsement telegram to the entire region.  That was his action.  The other side of that was inaction in not removing the nation from the WA immediately.  If he really thought Ivo could come in through a password recovery email then that should have been the top priority and the first action because Ivo could have easily locked him back out before he did anything.

 

I think Cormac sent the message out and then a few hours later when it became apparent that there was zero effect on his situation he decided to cut his loses and claim to be our savior and play it out as his intent all along.

 

That is complete bullshit.  I know, I've spread enough of it in NS in my time to smell it a mile away.

[A public apology]

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

You would have the delegate tied up?

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Cormac]

Check this out.

 

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=354584

 

 see Cormac's comments.

See my comments on what I thought about his.

[Banning URAP]

This is probably going to be unpopular but I do not think we need to be banning people for ingame IC actions.  That is specific to URAP.  Known forum destroyers should be banned.

 

But, I also dislike the idea of banning because of association.  Are we banning all players that have some association with DEN now?

[A public apology]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[A public apology]

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

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

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

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

[A public apology]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A public apology]

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

[A public apology]

I would agree that TNP drew inspiration from the Guardians when it introduced its Security Council. It never had them be appointees of the Delegate, however.

 

Punkdaddy is right that it's a bit more fluid. In fact, Flemingovia isn't TNPSC, even, and never has been.

Are you referring to Security Council 2.0 in TNP?  Because TNP had a Security Council long before TWP had Guardians.  And I seem to remember the discussion around your amendments not having anything to do with TWP at all, but as a 'home-grown' change to an existing structure to account for the introduction of Influence.  At least that is how it reads on TNP's forum archive thread about it.

 

I am all for supporting the past and the legacy of TWP, but as with most old regions, we sometimes generate credit for innovation amongst ourselves where none is warranted.

[A public apology]

Guardians chosen by popularity is a bad move. 

 

I don't want TNP's system here. I know TNP's system well, I'm currently a court justice and admin on TNP's boards. I'm probably the best (I'll put Vlagh as a distant second) person to compare the two systems. 

 

TWP has a system of trust and providing new people and opportunity to prove themselves. TNPs system has a trust component to it but it's much more fluid in terms of who comes and goes in the TNP Security Council. Yes some members have been there for ages, Flem/Grosse/GBM but others are very new. The level of trust needed to get on the SC is different than the Guardians, imo. 

 

As for in-game and off-site separation that really makes us unique, strong, and not victim to many characterizations of delegates such as "this delegate doesn't have the right to be delegate because of X". Nope, game mechanics settle the delegate and if you want to change a delegate use game mechanics to do it. Thus URA as Cormac is the legit TWP del right now. However, we put Guardians in place to protect us should a delegate wish to move the region in a direction that is bad for the community. Guardians are soldiers really and right now we need them, but we are well prepared for this.

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

 

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

 

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

[The Russo Impeachment Debate (cont.)]

I would like to clarify for the voice that we in That Called the Vlagh had no part in the current events regarding URAP and DEN.  Just for the record.

[What do you want from your Delegate ?]

It's good that members clear the air. Although I have no problem with duality in itself, my personal experiences when atempting it were always severely flawed by each character I played having the ability to make animated flags. Having the same IP wasn't good enough!

This is the best non sequitur I have seen in a while.

[A public apology]

There's always more activity when members of TWP and other regions smell trouble. This is mild compared to some years!

I agree.  There were 27 signatories on Ratification Day for the Union.  The current restart has less than half that.

 

I do not believe there is enough activity, even with the 'surge' to maintain the system, which was why it was dissolved to begin with.

[A Call to the Members of the Voice of the West Pacific Union]

Say yes!  Say yes!

 

NS is the perfect place to learn by trial and error.  No one gets killed when we screw up.

Only when someone else screws up...

[admin change requests part trois or tres or three]

I have resigned my position.  Please remove my mask.

[Structure Proposal from the Delegacy]

Then may I rephrase what BBD said:

'Your mask already slipped, Vlagh, if you ever HAD a mask on, that is. By the way, should we be calling you 'Your Imperial Majesty' now?'

Sure, why not.  If you are the current face of what it means to be a part of this community then I am fairly certain my time here is limited anyway.

 

I will continue to note that I have never acted against the will of the Delegate of this region and never plan to do so.  It saddens me that after over a decade of service within this community that a few miscreants like yourself can come along from relative obscurity and cause me to lose position, status, and face within this region.

 

It is equally surprising that no one here seems to think doing so will have no ramifications.  Or, perhaps that is what you seek?  Very well, I will consider giving you your wish.