The Rejected Times - Issue XX

[Unibot]

Issue XX, May 19 2014.

Editor's Note

When the biggest story in NationStates is hoopla over a picture of a monkey urinating in its own mouth, it's time to give up on journalism. However, it's our twentieth issue and we couldn't let our faithful readers down.

We sunk our feet into the ground and continued to trek towards every good story we could find on this (admittedly) slow news week. Some real dandies in this issue: a rare interview with Krulltopia, a fantastic statistic analysis from our statistics wiz, Starrie, a must-read plea from one of our newest authors to his home region (Lazarus), our usual thought-provoking opinion articles and Koguvron, The Time's Founder, made a surprise return with another solid article.

---

An Interview with Krulltopia: Five Years In
INTERVIEW | UNIBOT


The clock strikes "five" for Krulltopia.

The Rejected Times sits down for a rare interview with The Pacific's Bunny Tyrant on the eve of his fifth anniversary as leader...


Greetings Krulltopia! Did you expect to stand as delegate for as long as you have when you took office, oh so many years ago?

No I did not. To be honest I didn't even expect to be delegate. But I took the job because it needed to be done.

What did you expect it to be like as delegate and were there any surprises along the way that you encountered?

I went in holding no expectations, which I think worked out well for me. What surprised me most is how people reacted to what I would consider minor things. An example of this would be the ‘BanSpam’ act. A little bit of background may be required for readers, as it is actually quite common in the Feeders and Sinkers now, but we were the first to implement it. For years, The Pacific had strict rules on AdSpam, which gradually got stricter and stricter as AdSpammers got more and more obnoxious.

Eventually I floated the idea of just banning adspammers on sight, but although it was well received, not many people thought it would work… except for one Pacifican who asked “Why don’t we try it?” So I did. In the long term, it obviously worked, but I was amazed by the over reaction to it from some quarters, especially from those who claimed it was against game rules despite mods telling them it wasn’t, multiple times. I mean, some of the complainers didn’t even use adspam and there were multiple futile attempts to over throw me that came from that. Since some of my predecessors had banned thousands of nations without this much uproar, I was a bit confused to say the least. It should be noted that these were a vocal minority, and the rest largely agreed with me. I just didn’t expect them to be that vocal, I was expected a lot of apathy to be honest.

You've always struck me as a really clever leader. Someone who gives enough rope for others to hang themselves -- a silent authority perhaps. How would you describe your own leadership style?

I tend to get multiple opinions from the Senate on certain important issues before making a decision. I also allow a great deal of freedom in decision making; I trust my Senators and Officers in their roles. Occasionally I step in and veto certain decisions, but this happens very rarely.

If there were a secret book entitled The Emperor's Manual Book and it was all about how to be a great leader, written in the blood of Franco for Emperor's Eyes Only and all of that jazz ...and you were to break the cardinal rule and share with us the first line of this handbook -- what would it say?

"Don't be an idiot."

We often talk of The New Pacific Order as a constant. Of course, the faces change. So do the ideas. How does your tenure so far compare and contrast with the other eras of The Order?

I’m not entirely sure. I think we have streamlined a lot over the years while keeping certain things constant. The PG for instance has been fairly consistent, although it’s role (and occasionally name) has changed over the years. To be honest I try not to compare myself to those in the past, as it distracts from the now.

In what ways do you think The New Pacific Order is misunderstood nowadays?

One of the main themes I've noticed is that people have associated us with one side of the Invader/Defender game. To put us into either category is false. We have worked with either side that is true, but we do not categorise ourselves as either. We simply work with whoever gets the job done, whatever that may be.

Thus far, what is your personal highlight of your reign and what has been the greatest challenge that you've faced as leader?

My personal highlight was waking up to find that the Supression feature had been added to the game. It made the BanSpam act worth it and finally made more people realise how pointless adspam was. Not something I could claim credit for myself though, but very satisfying nonetheless. As for challenge…there was a certain experienced and tenacious player who took various potshots at the delegacy seat during the early stages of my reign, so I had to learn very fast. It was certainly an eye opener, as they used practically every trick in the book. Of course I learned from that so it also made future attempts a bit easier to deal with.

There have been other challenges of course, some internal and external, but that is the one that comes to mind first.

You may be known as a stabilizing figure, but recently we've seen a new doctrine in The New Pacific Order, new allies and friends, new faces. I was going to ask what's more important, stability or change, but it's probably obvious that a region needs both, so, how do you balance stability with change?

In order to keep stability, sometimes change is necessary. There are often aspects that hold us back, for example Francoist Thought. Although it was a solid foundation, the game has changed so much that it is no longer entirely relevant. Therefore a new line of doctrine had to be introduced that reflects the changing times whilst keeping true to the principles of the New Pacific Order. Stability and change go hand in hand, otherwise how else would we survive? I know some people seem to think the Pacific doesn’t change, but that's just, like, their opinion.

The big question: Francos Banner or Crimson Standard ?

Crimson.

Favorite NPO/PRP Delegate, besides yourself? Why?

I find it a bit unfair to assume I would consider picking myself. I think it’s a tie between Pierconium and Moo, for very different reasons. Pierconium tended not to care what people thought of him, and brought a unique spin to the NPO whilst he was in charge. Moo because, when I joined the Senate, it quickly became clear how hard he fought to keep the NPO alive, and that he succeeded.

If, God forbid, you had to leave NationStates unexpectedly tomorrow, do you know who would replace you?

Yes, but I’m not going to tell anyone as I like to keep people guessing.

---

Lazarus and Imperialism
OPINION | FUNKADELIA

Before I begin any substance of this piece, I would like to make it clear that no part of this piece is in my official capacity as a representative of the People's Republic of Lazarus. These opinions are my own and are not necessarily those shared by the People's Republic of Lazarus.

In the early minutes of May 14th, 2014, the WA Security Council resolution "Liberate Liberal Haven" was passed. I'm certain that many raiders, defenders, imperialists, and any other other types of military forces were simply chomping at the bit to either free Liberal Haven from its Nazi oppressors or clamp down on the region for themselves and wrest control from the occupiers. Regardless, as was published on May 14th, the Founderless Regions Alliance and multiple other defender and anti-Nazi groups came together with the intent of returning Liberal Haven to its natives. When it came closer to the time of the operation, it had been decided that FRA Arch Chancellor Milograd and The South Pacific General Geomania would be leading the operation, with a Lazarene puppet serving as a lead for the mission.

We began to reach zero hour, just before the operation was set to begin and the pre-op preparations were taking place, those in the military IRC channel were informed that we would be forced to work with the United Imperial Armed Forces. Needless to say, many people had objections to this decision. Doing any sort of work with the UIAF runs counter to the entire goal and target of the Lazarene Liberation Army. The LLA serves to protect those who would be disenfranchised by imperialists that seek to seize their region by the throat and squeeze the remaining life out of it. By participating in this operation with the UIAF, several Lazarenes were forced to operate in a manner that is opposite to the entire ideology that is shared People's Republic and its military. Of course, there was no way that the LLA could have backed out. The operation would have lost its already endorsed lead and a considerable number of endorsements. Because it was so close to the time of the operation, there was nothing we could do. The Lazarene Liberation Army was forced to help the UIAF achieve a victory.

However, Lazarenes should not be giving the imperialists an inch. Allowing the imperialists have a victory, no matter how big or small, runs counter to the harmony that Lazarus constantly strives for. As I have stated before, the imperialists are a threat to the world, and I disapprove of any collusion or cooperation with, or assistance of any imperialists. As Lazarenes, we have been subject to the chains of imperialism in the past. We were lucky enough to free ourselves of those chains and rise like our Phoenix to become the bustling People's Republic we are now. This conflict sits near and dear to the spirit of the Lazarene people. I for one object to defenders providing any substantive help to any sort of imperialists. These people seek to debase stable and peaceful operations across the world, from exuding influence over the largest GCRs to harassing and strangling the smallest of UCRs. Their goals are plain to see. Imperialists seek to do what they can to attempt to control the entire world and establish oppressive governments that stifle culture and freedom. They try to create two classes on their social ladder, the superior and inferior, and use their power and influence to serve themselves and oppress the socially inferior. How can we truly call ourselves defenders if we decide that it is okay to work imperialists, whose actions run exactly counter to everything that being a defender stands for?

---

Does "The Lemming Effect" Exist?
OPINION | STARRIE

We will look for evidence of the "lemming effect", the tendency for members to follow the crowd and vote towards the winning side, which causes early votes to have a greater effect.

If the effect does exist, we should be able to see that when one side has n% of the total votes, the proportion of new votes towards that side is more then n%. For example, the side 70% of the votes should be getting more than 70% of new votes. This effect is not expected to hold up when n is close to 100, because the population is not completely composed of lemmings.

Since the effect does not hold up at high proportions, we should see a downward curve in a plot of the effect if it exists which means the coefficient of the x^2 term in a quadratic regression line should be negative

The difference between the current and total proportion increases as the proportion of votes increases. Imagine the true opinion happens to be 50%. An early pile of 70% might cause less positive votes (60%) than an early pile of 90%, which might pull 70% positive votes. Therefore, the higher pile is more effective, but the difference in proportions of the current total (the current pile) and the newest votes decreases from -10% to -20%.

When all these conditions are satisfied we will be able to claim that the lemming effect does exist.

For all of the following charts, the x-axis shows the proportion of total votes currently going to the winning side. The y-axis shows the proportion of the newest votes going to the winning side. Each point represents a bucket of 1000 consecutive votes.

This first graph, of all votes, has the majority of points above the line y = x, which means the first condition is met. A single sample t-test gives us a p-value of 0.0141.



A plot of the residual values, which shows the strength of the effect, reveals that there is a upward trend, meaning that the effect becomes weaker as the proportion grows higher as expected. The 95% confidence interval for our plot, (-5.200, -0.749), is completely negative.



Next, we use the bootstrap method to find the confidence interval for the x^2 coefficient of a quadratic regression line drawn through the original plot. The 95% interval is from -2.49 to 2.87, with a mean of 0.42. While this does not follow our expectations, it does not seriously endanger the hypothesis of the lemming effect because it merely says the effect does not decrease as we expect.



If we look at only votes from delegates, counting all votes as a single vote, we get a p-value of 0.0003 that the points are above the line.



A regression line for the residuals also shows a general downward trend, with the confidence interval for the slope at (-1.78,-0.55). It seems delegates are not immune to this effect.



The confidence interval (-1.86, 1.01) for the coeffient is even less conclusive in this case. It does give some indication that the lemming effect exists though.



If we weigh the delegates based on their vote count, a different picture shows. Although the mean is still above the y = x line, it is only slightly above, and p = 0.6135. Since endorsement-heavy delegates may participate in early vote piling, and are therefore not affected by the lemming effect, it is expected that we've failed to find conclusive evidence of it.



As before, the regression line for the residuals is also decreasing, but the confidence interval (-2.758, 1.194) includes zero, so we do not have good evidence to suggest it really is below zero.



Our coefficient here is in the interval (-1.95, 0.35), which is the closes out of the three to be statistically significant. However, we cannot conclude that the effect exists here because it appears that the vote piling nations not susceptible to the lemming effect.


(note: some plots were done with buckets of 500 rather than 1000 votes, and that is why the dots do not match up exactly)

We can conclude that the lemming effect probably exists and is effectively employed with early vote piling, although a larger sample size is needed in order to achieve higher statistical significance.

---

Escade resigns as Vice Delegate
New Vice Delegate chosen
COMMENTARY | TRR STAFF

The South Pacific’s young and energetic Delegate rocketed to the highest echelons of power in the region when she was elected in the November 2013 elections. Escade campaigned on a platform of cooperation and friendship and sailed to victory. Her success in organizing and running the 2013 NS World Fair played no small part in her winning, though a general anti-incumbent sentiment certainly helped a lot of candidates.

However, once in power, cooperation and friendship seemed to be a hopeless pipe dream. Her Cabinet was almost immediately on the verge of collapse when the Chair of the Assembly, Sandaoguo, published a small quote from the Cabinet’s most private quarters and was met with a recall by some who viewed the leak as an egregious violation of Cabinet solidarity. Ultimately, the Chair resigned, which would come to be a pattern during the early days of Escade’s administration.

Before her problems keeping together the executive branch, The South Pacific’s secretive and ominously named security organization – the Committee on State Security – investigated Escade, then the Delegate-elect. Belschaft, the out-going Delegate, issued a State of Emergency that prevented Escade from ascending to Delegate seat, based on claims that she was an imposter, a facade for Minineenee, known throughout NationStates as a leader of the Empire during its 2008 coup d’etat of The East Pacific.

Members of The South Pacific’s Assembly immediately disputed the declaration’s legality. Escade herself denied the claims, and Cormac refuted the claims by showing that Escade and Minineenee were both in the World Assembly at the time of the Empire’s coup d’etat in Osiris. Some in the region questioned the appropriateness of Belschaft’s declaration, given that he was the out-going Delegate preventing the incoming Delegate from taking her seat, and the lack of clear evidence warranting those drastic measures. Cormac’s refutation of the Committee’s justification lead to a swift closing of the investigation and Escade took her seat as Delegate on December 27th, 2013.

Although the issue was swept under the rug and the Assembly’s attention turned elsewhere, those events impacted Escade deeply. She never forgot the accusations and, as it turned out, never forgave Belschaft for what she saw as a personal attack. Tensions escalated from time to time, until they reached their peak during another crisis surrounding Sandaoguo’s tenure as Chair of the Assembly. Belschaft accused Sandaoguo of illegally altering the Charter and the Code of Laws. By this time, Escade and her Vice-Delegate Kringalia had switched places in the last election, and Escade now sat as The South Pacific’s Vice-Delegate.

Escade criticized Belschaft for making mountains out of molehills, and accused him of being Axelnod and Argon2. Axelnod was the account that originally suggested Escade was Minineenee, and was later revealed to have been blackmailing her all along. Argon2 had been sending telegrams warning of an internal coup d’etat being planned in the region, attempting to sow fear and paranoia among the Cabinet and the Committee on State Security.

Many found those accusations to unfounded, though others agree in private that Belschaft has been problematic for the past few administrations. Some suspected that his legal targeting of Sandaoguo was driven by personal issues between the two, who had routinely found themselves on opposite sides of issues before the Assembly.

Escade resigned as Vice-Delegate shortly after lodging her accusations against Belschaft. In her resignation announcement, she blamed Belschaft’s behavior for her growing dislike of NationStates. “As long as people like Belschaft keep getting elected, hold power and keep trying to bully, legally and otherwise, people who have new or different ideas then the region will be stagnant and encourage inactivity and concentration of power in the same few hands.”

Just as her election marked a new era in The South Pacific of new leaders, her resignation may mark an era of discontent and mistrust in The South Pacific’s old guard. Her tenure as Delegate was characterized by tension between the old and the new. Cooperation and friendship could not out gun entrenched influence and the cynicism it bred. “The South Pacific faces a struggle. Does it grow into something more viable, true to the spirit of democracy? Or does it loiter in the shadows of toxicity?” Escade wrote in her farewell address.

However her resignation goes down in history, Escade made her mark on The South Pacific’s Cabinet. The last few elections have been the new face’s to lose. While some may call the likes of Sandaoguo, Kringalia, and now formerly Escade, the New Old Guard, the current Cabinet is remarkable in its absence of the familiar faces that led The South Pacific for a long time. The fresh-faced Cabinet has overseen significant changes to the way the region is run, and is surely slated to change the face of The South Pacific in the future.

The Cabinet announced Arbiter (aka The Sanghelios Legion) as Escade’s replacement on May 17th, 2014. A special election was not held, following a High Court ruling that no valid Vice-Delegate nominees were possible under the region’s rules that the Delegate and Vice-Delegate must be elected on a single slate.

---

Swastikas in Flags
Legal or Not?
OPINION | THE CHURCH OF SATAN

The swastika has long stood as a symbol of racial hatred and brings to mind atrocities committed on a biblical level. While its origins predate the "Ankh" once used in ancient Egypt over 3,000 years ago, it is more commonly known as the Nazis symbol of hate, violence, antisemitism, death and murder.

Taking a look at the swastika under the banner of the Nazi Empire, 6 million people of Jewish descent were brutally murdered. The Nazi Empire intentionally misinterpreted it's true meaning to justify their unforgivable acts of genocide and murder, among other things. Then again, maybe they didn't know its true meaning. However I prefer to dismiss that as wishful thinking. They interpreted it as referring to the German people whom they considered "pure." I like to think, at the very least that is simple arrogance, if not egotistical.

However the source of the Nazi symbolism is not tied to the swastika alone. For decades before the Nazi Party rose to power, it had been used all over Germany because it was recognized as a symbol of power. That is probably because the word "swastika" literally translates to "good to be [insert suffix here]." Literally it could be used for anything. You could correctly use it to express pride in being a hippie, chef or whatever else your mind can think of. So The Nazi Party decided it would be most appropriate to use as part of their emblem. Thus it came to pass that the emblem we all know as the Nazi Flag, a red background with a white circle containing the swastika in the center. Each part of that flag however, held a significant meaning to the whole emblem. The red background represented the social idea of the movement, the white circle represented the nationalistic idea and the swastika represented the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man. While the idea of a "master race" is preposterous and offensive at the same time, all 3 parts of the flag were required to create this globally recognized symbol of hate.

While the swastika's meaning does indeed make reference to the "Aryan" race, it is the key word in the paragraph above. The word "Aryan" does not refer to the people of Germany exclusively. It refers to European and Western Asian peoples and has no origins to any form of "master race." While The Nazi Party considered the peoples of western Asia to be a lesser race, they were both symbolically and morally wrong. It derives from an Indo-European linguistic classification of the larger Caucasian race. Although it is no longer used in that way, likely due to the possible implication of Nazism caused by of course The Nazi Party.

The swastika was once a symbol of life and good luck as well. However due to the Nazis it is so associated with hate and death that few know it's original meaning. Can it have 2 meanings that are so conflicting? For Buddhists and Hindus the swastika has a very religious meaning. Of course the red and white background is not used in this manner. In ancient times the swastika's direction was interchangeable and therefore had a different meaning depending on the direction it was displayed in. Clockwise it was the swastika, a symbol of health and life. Counterclockwise it was called the sauvastika, a mystical symbol of bad luck or misfortune.

In Hinduism it represents 3 gods. It represents the sun god Surya. The right-faced swastika represents Vishnu. The symbol imitates, in the rotation of its arms, the course taken daily by the sun, which appears in the Northern Hemisphere to pass from east, then south, to west. The left-hand swastika (called a sauvastika) usually represents the terrifying Hindu goddess Kali. It's also used very commonly in Hindu art and decorations, from cakes, buildings, cars, floors, architecture and even in wedding ceremonies.

In Buddhism the swastika is the first of 65 symbols on the footprints of Buddha. My Buddha, what big feet you have! Buddhists believe the swastika represents Buddha's Heart and is said to contain the whole mind of Buddha. In China and Japan, the Buddhist swastika was seen as a symbol of plurality, eternity, abundance, prosperity and long life.

So is it legal to use the swastika in our flags? Does the direction matter? It is my humble opinion that without the red and white background associated with The Nazi movement, it can be accepted. I'd be more than willing to incorporate a swastika into one of my nation's flags if it could illustrate my point. Largely it is western society that perpetuates the belief of the Nazi symbolism, but I believe it's time we moved forward and let that dark part of human history die, as it should have many years ago.

---

You Are Not A “Moderate”
Part Four of a Four Part Series, “Rethinking Power in NationStates”.
EDITORIAL | UNIBOT



In the recent election in The North Pacific, I was accused, by the new Minister of Communications there, Crushing Our Enemies, of quite a bold claim: "Unibot doesn't see this party as centrist because he does not believe there is a center". This came as a defense of his political party, Tyr's Hand, a supposedly “centrist” political party in The North Pacific which is curiously founded and ran by invaders.

Thing is: Crushing our Enemies is correct. I do not believe there is such thing as a “moderate” or a “centrist”.

Let’s think about this particularly large claim further by looking at moderation in real life politics. A “moderate” and a “centrist” as terms have arrived in our contemporary political climates as buzzwords that mean “pragmatic” and “less ideological”, but the views of the people who hold so-called ‘moderate’ and ‘centrist’ beliefs are often just as rooted in an ideology as anyone else. There are three sorts of ways to think of political moderation and none of them are valid.

Centrism as the Common

Some people like to see political moderation as merely whatever ideas are popular – this idea is plainly false. It is very possible for the public to be largely supportive of an extreme set of ideas.

And “extreme” ideas are not necessarily wrong either…

Centrism as the Median

The problems with thinking of political moderation as the “middle ground” of belief are numerous, but two common objections include (1) the Fallacy of Moderation and (2) the fallacious assumption that a “moderate” position is an intersection and not a unique, independent position with its own faults and strengths.

First, let’s discuss the Fallacy of Moderation. It’s an informal logical fallacy. The Fallacy of Moderation assumes that the moderate position between two extremes is always the right one. This is a fallacious argument, but it underlies many of our assumptions of the automatic legitimacy granted to centrism. The common example of the Fallacy of Moderation is between a Climate Change Activist position and a Climate Change Denier position – the middle ground, which assumes that those who deny climate change altogether may have got much of the picture correct, is not necessarily a reasonable position simply because of its occupation of the middle ground between two extremes. Sometimes, one extreme is just simply put: true.

Second, oftentimes those who argue for moderation believe that their beliefs are an intersection between two different extremes, but in fact they’re not really occupying any kind of a middle ground, but instead, they are simply pursuing an entirely independent position with independent views. In “The Centrist Manifesto”, for example, Charles Wheelan tries to outline a ‘centrist’ position in the American context for abortion and argues that abortions should be rare but legal – “rare but legal” is a phrase oft promoted by American politicians like President Obama and echoed elsewhere too. Whether or not this position is a good one is irrelevant, it is not a “median” between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice camps, since it interjects new ideas into the discourse: the notion that abortions should be rare, suggests that abortions are a bad thing in excess, but defending its legality simultaneously promotes the undisclosed premise that getting an abortion is suberogatory behavior which neither extremist camp believes (Pro-Lifers believe that abortion is morally prohibited and Pro-Choicers believe it is morally-neutral).

We see this misidentification of arguments in NationStates too as median positions. For example, one popular interpretation of the neutral position in military gameplay suffers from a fallacy of suppressed correlative. On one hand, the defender may believe defending is good and invading is wrong, while on the other hand, the invader believes invading is permissible and should be encouraged. Many centrists define their position in such a manner that it shares all of the premises of invaders, while excluding all of the premises held by defenders and interjecting entirely new concepts of “regional interests”, their centrality in governance and boilerplate assumptions regarding the interests of regions. Instead of reviewing this position for its own merits as a unique position, many readers judge it as a “moderate” position – a compromise in linear space between defenderism and invaderism. This blind acclaim for anything that even resembles the middle ground misses the argument’s new premises and assumes it shares any ideas at all with defenderism.



Given the popularity and influence of Tyr’s Hand, this particular message is more important than ever. Tyr’s Hand is a political party founded and ran by invaders to frame their position as “moderate” – occupying a false center that claims to better capture the median of the philosophical spectrum.

Centrism as the Pragmatic

Centrism gives candidates, a legitimacy over others. It’s a trick of the public imagination to surround a leader and assume that they are different, that they are special… that this leader is unbound from the beliefs that limit other leaders and that this freedom will allow them to run the government more efficiently. Not only does this assumption greatly misunderstand the role of a leader, but it also makes the mistake of presuming that our lives and wellbeing can be supremely bettered by the state without addressing the difficult ethical questions that we have fought to answer for centuries.

A good leader is not an android overseeing the machinery of the government but a human being meant to represent us, bring us together and inspire us to do better. At the root of our centrism is not pragmatism, an escape from an ideology, but an injection of a new set or borrow set of ideas which are presented as pragmatic and “practical” – the simplest of plans for the best of outcomes.

But there are no easy decisions in governance and there are no difficult questions which can ever be fully avoided through pragmatism alone. We must, sometimes, face the philosophical and worse, the pragmatist often blindly assumes the philosophical without even understanding its own starting premises on the matter.

Conclusion

Since none of these concepts of political moderation hold any validity, one should conclude that “moderation” is a popular fiction popularized by electoral campaigns – a magic way of thinking, a thought-terminating cliché about human thought and belief that gravely simplifies the nature of the political mind.

Moderation is a political brand that you slap onto a candidate to improve his or her image and broaden their appeal. But, ultimately, you cannot remove the identification of centrism from the context of this identification. What is “moderate” or “centrist” is always relative to the world around them and cannot be used as an absolute delineation. Personally, for example, I am Canadian and I do follow American politics (we often do).

Jon Huntsman was a popular nominee for President, but while he was branded as “moderate” in American politics, he would never be considered ‘moderate’ in Canadian politics, from his support for the privatization of Medicare, abandonment of public healthcare, pro-life views, flipping flopping on a cap-and-trade system (although begrudgingly admitting some human involvement in climate change), his extreme pro-business views, his favour of “civil unions” over extending marriage to gays and lesbians, plus his support for quite a number of barking mad debt-reduction schemes from Boehner and Ryan. Sure, he may occupy a centre in a limited spectrum of belief in the American political context, but placing Huntsman in the wider, absolute scheme of things requires an abandonment of the useless “moderate” language, which makes it meaningless to compare candidates between communities with different overton windows (i.e., window of a range of ideas that the public will accept).

Players in NationStates have simply taken that political language and charm and uploaded it to their own rigorous political discipline, from the whitened hair to the chiseled features. Here, the “moderate” poses a popular opinion as a necessarily true opinion, poses a comprising opinion as a necessarily reasonable opinion and worst of all, posing a different opinion as a necessarily nuanced position. There are no moderates; there are only radicals and opportunists. There are radicals who identify as defenderists, invaderists, neutralists, centralists, bi-gameplayers, mercenaries… you name it. Likewise, there are opportunists who identify as anything under the sun (and willing to change that identification for a price).

Opportunists are quick to compromise their values and tag along with popular movements for influence (i.e., suivisme), they might also appeal to populism, stay silent when they gain nothing from speaking out and be prone to inconsistency, calculated risk management and a liberal acceptance of bribes and cronyism. Opportunists are NationStates’s political consumers: they have low commitment and high consumption of public goods. For example, if you bribe an opportunist with, say, a position as forum administrator somewhere prestigious, they might simply start acting out of order a few months later to challenge the hand that feeds them for a bigger bribe (perhaps a fluffy interview or a new cabinet appointment somewhere). They’re committed to improving their own standing, not their region’s standing or their cause’s standing. Radicals are the exact opposite: they wear their beliefs on their sleeve and remain consistent in their defense of these beliefs.

Opportunists tend to succeed more in democratic politics; while radicals might be better promoted in meritocracies and paramilitaries due to the latter’s rigid beliefs and loyalty. As established in Part II, most democratic elections in NationStates’s high profile elections are decided by an interconnected, integrated aristocratic class – they prefer people in positions of power who can be bought and controlled, as opposed to stubborn idealists who may actually be committed to their region and what they believe is right. It’s easier for elites to persuade an opportunist than a radical; although a radical makes for a more committed and loyal follower after much persuasion, an opportunist is easy to buy though hard to please. Lucky for them: elections are a perfect screening method to determine who is a radical and who is an opportunist. All you need to ask is a politically sensitive question, one very politically sensitive question that a true answer would be met with near certain political suicide. The cost for the radical in terms of reputation is too high for him to stay silent with his true beliefs, while the cost of the opportunist in terms of political survival is too high for him to speak out.

Thus, elections in NationStates, not only are elite-run, but a glorified interview process to find their next business partner.

As we’ve discussed through Part I through IV, elites stratify the major regions as more important to protect their political property from invasions. They manage their elections, vie for control and label each other as patriots and outsiders, moderates and extremists. They label others solely on a rational basis to screen the partners that they want to include in their circles of power: those who have the most value with the fewest drawbacks for the aristocrats who decide who is “in” and who is “out”.

Power in NationStates is complex and personal. It takes on the ugly habit of rewriting our hypocrisies, our ideals, our love, our pride, our expectations and our baser judgement in whether an idea is worth considering or not.

---

Puppet Flooding
OPINION | THE CHURCH OF SATAN

Puppet flooding has remained a controversial topic in regards to NS rules. In that regard, this is the current rule on the matter:
 

Puppet Flooding: Any player or group of players creating large numbers of puppets for the purpose of spamming, harassing, or annoying a region, be they invaders, defenders, or natives, may find all such puppets ... and their main nations ... deleted without warning as Regional Happenings spammers.

Puppet flooding is thought by some as a valid tactic in R/D, particularly in liberations and occupations. What shouldn't it be used for? Harassing and spamming? Well, harassment and spamming are categories of their own with their own punishments. So where does that leave puppet flooding? The rule itself uses the outdated reference "natives" which moderation no longer defines. So logically that means the rule itself is so flawed it should not be used. The penalty for it is also harsher than most others. Deletion of all puppets and possibly your main nation.

The interpretation of what constitutes puppet flooding is vague among both players and moderators. If even the moderators cannot get a clear cut interpretation of the rule, then why enforce it in its current state? The rule is in desperate need of revisions and discussion continues as to how it should be interpreted.

In my opinion, puppet flooding should be defined as:
 

The creation of multiple nations for the purpose of increasing regional population, interfering with R/D operations and flooding a region's regional happenings so as to interrupt the reading of it.

That's just what I've thought up off the top of my head after giving the forum discussion a once over. Naturally my opinion will change as the discussion goes on, in some way. For now though, these are my thoughts on the matter. I do hope that the rule is revised to better suit the updated society we now have.

---

Milograd Elected As Arch Chancellor
COMMENTARY | KOGVURON

There's a new boss in the FRA, but not everybody is happy about. Milograd of Lazarus took office as FRA Arch Chancellor last week following an unopposed 11-1 victory (with one voting going to abstain). Milograd, the former Chairman of the People's Republic of Lazarus, has held command positions in numerous defender organizations, including the UDL and the LLA. However, some critics believe that electing a former couper to the head of a prominent defender alliance is wrong.

Prominent pundit Cormac Stark responded to the news sarcastically, saying "Archchancellor Milograd is better known for his coup than for any liberations, so apparently they're attempting to return to the Sedge era." Venico added "[T]he FRA is appointing a non-apologetic couper and has a track record of not always condemning them." However, members of the organization have responded more positively to the election. Horse said, "I think Milo will do excellent in his role as AC. Being someone who regularly does missions with him, he's a fun guy to be around, and knows how to get the job done."

In his first update From the Office of the Arch Chancellor, Milograd set goals to increase the organization's productivity and activity through structural reforms. We wish Arch Chancellor Milograd the best of luck in his upcoming term and look forward to this as the start of a new era of activity for one of NationStates' most prolific defender organizations.

---

One Year After Warhammer: The Scandal Never Told
OPINION | UNIBOT

It’s been one year since Warhammer 40000 was invaded by The Black Hawks – the mission itself became a media sensation in 2013 when Lieutenant Ravania of The United Defenders League was found to have shared a pdf version of the North Pacific Army’s thread with other defenders. The thread had ordered Ravania, among other soldiers, to endorse The Black Hawks in Warhammer 40000. Ravania had revolted against the order and vented to his fellow defenders which became an international media storm when Eluvatar stumbled upon the IRC Logs in the private defender channel as a part of his duties in the North Pacific Army Intelligence unit. The story emerged as a public indictment of the lack of patriotism of defenders, putting their values above their regions – choosing to defend the innocent regions that their homes were aggressing against.

The consequences were enormous and continue echo on to this very day. Weeks later, after the story broke, I left The United Defenders League as the Chief of the Band, facing stress that had built up from the incident. My departure launched an extensive conclave session and a major power vacuum in Sherwood Forest. Meanwhile, The North Pacific continued to shift towards invaderism, condemning defenders as unpatriotic and untrustworthy. Today, it seems not much has changed. The United Defenders League is rumored to be involved in an open conclave session where Ravania (now “Captain”) could be considered for leadership, which is interesting since he was rejected by conclavists last election with Warhammer 40000 still strongly looming in the background for voters. Meanwhile, The North Pacific has elected r3naissanc3r, an imperialist, in an election dominated with discussion on The North Pacific Army and its conduct abroad.

One tragedy of the event however is that a real scandal occurred with Warhammer 40000 and no one bothered to capture it in print – too distracted with the drama involving Ravania, journalists and columnists overlooked a bona fide disgrace that had been starring them in the eyes, even making statements and falsely smiling. For this was his proudest moment: the day that he used The North Pacific and got away with it. Although, I don’t have a time machine, fortunately, I do have a column space in a newspaper on a relatively slow news week. Injustices can be brought to light, even upon reflection. This year is not the first anniversary of some “defender” scandal, it’s the first anniversary of one man’s failure to treat The North Pacific’s public administration with respect and that man is not Ravania.

On March 18 2013, soldiers in The North Pacific Army were given a surprising countermand from their new leader, Blue Wolf. That’s right: for days, The North Pacific Army had been in Warhammer 40000 supporting defender troops and upon becoming delegate, Blue Wolf snapped his fingers and ordered troops to switch from supporting the liberating forces to endorse The Black Hawks’s delegate. This move in itself, in one swoop, killed any chance of liberating Warhammer 40000. It was a masterstroke of invader political strategy to use Blue Wolf’s rise to power as a way to cut into the attempt at liberating Warhammer 40000.

Today, invader politicians like to suggest that the reason why The North Pacific Army does not defend as much as it used to is that it is no longer invited to defences and liberations – shifting the blame to defender organizations.

In all reality, public trust in The North Pacific Army was crushed with Blue Wolf’s cutthroat politics last year. Would you trust an ally who would switch sides without warning mid-liberation or mid-invasion? That kind of behavior is unprecedented. It may have been good for Blue Wolf and his invader pals, but it took The North Pacific Army’s good reputation and tore it in half with defender forces who, instead of seeing The North Pacific Army as a neutral army that could be trusted, see The North Pacific Army as a double-edged sword, prone to unreliability and inconsistency and worse, backstabbing. That kind of switch, which totally came unexpected and undermined its allies, was a move that should have received international condemnation, internally and externally. This was before, however, the dog and pony show arrived with Blue Wolf and his lead man, Gaspo, going after Ravania and more importantly, the leading defender organization at the time with the hopes of striking blood.

Ask yourself, if a supposed ally switched sides mid-mission, would you ever trust them again? I know they wouldn’t be high on my “trust list” and I think rightfully so. That kind of executive behavior would normally go punished, but instead, The North Pacific appears to have gone out of its way to reward bad behavior by later appointing Blue Wolf as Minister of Defense, granting him a position on the Security Council and applauding his efforts as the founder of a new political party, Tyr’s Hand, which encapsulates the Post-Warhammer North Pacific in its icy opinion of defenders and its patronizing self-opinion. The true story of Warhammer 40000 is a story of political corruption, exploitation and the use of public office to further the aims of military gameplay. Ravania, in the heat of the moment, posted a thread after-the-fact that released banal information already known to others. Blue Wolf, calculatedly, used his position as Delegate of The North Pacific to unilaterally destroy The North Pacific’s reputation as consistent and trustworthy, without so much as a care in the world, so long as he could ensure that The North Pacific Army backed The Black Hawks, not the liberation forces.

Ravania was trialed and court marshaled.

Blue Wolf was praised and celebrated.

It appears that history only remembers the victor’s side of events.

If you were wondering, Warhammer 40000 today sits idle in peace, undisturbed by invading forces. Its founder has since returned to NationStates, providing it with better security than ever before. I guess you could say that there’s a positive to be found with any story if you look hard enough...

---

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Hmm, while the values of p are generally well above the 95% confidence level normally employed for statistical tests, I'm not convinced.  Correlation does not equal causation.

 

I'd be more impressed if a chi-squared analysis had been used.

And it wasn't a monkey. It was an orang-utan. Jeez, get your species correct.

[Joe Bobs]

It's nice to know a photo I chose is the biggest news of the week! I had been looking for a gif of a monkey throwing poop, but in all the gifs I found it was too difficult to see that it was poop. And I stumbled across that! I recall it being very late and thinking 'that'll do'. Whoda thunkit?

[Westwind]

I just figured it was something anyone might see if they bothered to visit a zoo.

[Joe Bobs]

My thoughts too Westwind. I always find animals doing silly things funny. But then again I find fart jokes funny.

 

Heeheehee.

 

My first thought when I saw the first edit was that people thought someone had forced the orangutan into that position, which of course would be horrible. I was really surprised to find it was peeing that offended them.

[Westwind]

I also recalled the meme of the gif chimp touching his butt and smelling his fingers...and falling over backwards that was going around in the mid-90's.  Animals will be animals. The exploding whale started around that time too.

[Joe Bobs]

Haha, I remember that gif!

 

Monkeys are fantastic.

[Unibot]

BBD, I brought up your criticism to Starrie:

I'm not sure if there's more context to this, but I couldn't use a chi-squared test because there weren't really any proportions to test... Not sure what test he is proposing.

Also he points out that correlation does not equal causation but I wasn't trying to establish causation at all. I was just looking at correlation.