Issue XVIII, April 14, 2014 >>> OPINION
Community and Strength: Kringalia Speaks!
"Regardless of whatever happened in the last few weeks, that's not what defines the region," says the New Delegate.
INTERVIEW | UNIBOT
"Kris Kringle is Coming to Town!"
Unibot sits down with Kringalia shortly after being elected Delegate of The South Pacific...
So it was a close race in many ways - it had me biting my nails the whole way through. Are you relieved? How does it feel to have won?
It was indeed! I'll be relieved when Todd certifies the results, but I think it's fair to say I've earned the right to stop checking the vote count every five minutes.
It's great to have won, and I have lots of ideas about things to do for the region. It's going to be a very active term, that I can promise.
The decision to switch roles with Escade - what was the reasoning behind that? Whose idea was it and when did you decide to do that?
Well, ever since December we had constantly joked about switching positions in the future, but it was all joking. Up until a few days before nominations opened Escade was going for Delegate, but then she told me that we wanted to take it easy this term and focus more on some cultural stuff. She asked if I was interested in running as Delegate, and since we already know how to work together, I just asked the she be there as Vice Delegate.
Interesting! What's your general priorities for this term? The main issues. What do you plan on doing as delegate in the coming weeks?
I guess the first thing I plan to do is coup Escade.
Well, it is April! That time of the year for TSP!
[laughter]
But seriously, I'd like to meet with the Cabinet to agree on a common agenda for the next four months, and also to promote some cultural events. We have some regional games still pending, so that's my main priority for now. Beyond that, I guess that would depend on what I talk with each Minister.
Of course, The South Pacific has had its share of trouble in recent weeks with the forum changeover. What's one thing that you think The South Pacific learned from this event?
I think the main lesson was that engaging in so much drama is just not worth it.
If someone messes up, then we should talk things out. If someone doesn't follow the rules, then we don't sink to that level, instead we should keep things in topic and be civil. Right now we are having some interesting discussions in the Assembly, and so far people might disagree but overall we are doing alright. That's because we are making an effort to respond to arguments with more arguments, instead of with attacks.
That's the key here: knowing how to disagree.
You're not the only one who was elected this week, of course. I'm curious which minister you're excited to see at work. There's a lot of talent in this new cabinet I think. What do you think they will each bring to the table, so to speak?
They are all great, but I'm particularly excited to see Geo and Tsu in the Cabinet. They were there at the very beginning, when the Coalition was first established. It's really amazing to have them in the Cabinet once more.
We also have Glen, who has been reelected. He was great as MoFA and I look forward to see him go on with his reforms at the Ministry. And Farengeto is new to the Cabinet, but he has some exciting ideas and brings a fresh new outlook into the Cabinet.
What do you believe will be your big challenge as you move forward?
I think keeping the region active and engaged will be the challenge. So far we've done great, but I don't want that to stop. I want to talk with MoRA and MoA so people will have incentives and opportunities to do anything in the region.
Escade, Awe and Arbiter did great things with MoRA and that should go on. Southern Bellz did fantastic with the NSA, and Geo has some great ideas too. We should work on that and build on that success.
What makes TSP different than the other feeders? What defines it?
The thing that I've heard over and over again from many people is that the South Pacific welcomes everyone, and that in this region anyone can find their place.
We are very welcoming, have lots of things to do, and in the end try to be very relaxed and have fun. Regardless of whatever happened in the last few weeks, that's not what defines the region. Rather, we are the exact opposite.
There's a lot I could say, but I thing in the end we need only say that we are very open, and the fact that people like Escade, Farengeto, Arbiter, me are being elected is enough proof.
You said in your platform that you were looking for more missions with The New Inquisition. What did you have in mind? And do you think you could run the risk of associating The South Pacific with imperialism and interregional aggression?
Well. There are two things to be said about this. First, the specifics about missions with TNI are something that I'd like to discuss with Glen and Geomania, but the overall idea is that we can't be allies with someone without developing an actual relationship with them.
Second, I've made no secret of the fact that I consider military gameplay a way to execute our foreign policy just as much as a way to promote participation in the region. So, I'm not that concerned about TSP being associated with imperialism because we already have the alliance. The only thing I'd be doing is actually working on conditions that already exist.
That said...
The South Pacific is an independent region, so we are not in the business of only raiding or only defending. We will keep doing either whenever it helps our allies and suits our interests. Working with a defender region is as valid as working with a raider or imperialist region, as long as it doesn't affect our allies or negatively impacts us.
Not to beat a dead horse here, but do you believe that conducting what could be considered imperialist operations, may negatively impact The South Pacific?You've said how The South Pacific is a welcoming place and that's part of its identity. Is that not contradicted by wanton aggression and "interests" and such?
That's an interesting question. (And you wouldn't be Unibot if you didn't ask it.
)No, I really wouldn't, sorry.
[laughter]
Here's the deal. I don't see us engaging purely in raiding or in defending. We could raid as much as we defend, if it will help one of our allies or it it's good for the NSA. So we could be associated with imperialism as much as we could be associated with helping natives get back their region.
What I'm trying to say is that, while ethical considerations are important, they won't be paramount when we determine who to raid or who to defend.
Our benefit in terms of alliances and citizen activity and participation will be the main things to consider here.
Thanks for clarifying.
[nods]
On a wider scope, where do you think the Game-Created Regions are heading in the next few months - we've seen us almost on the brink of war before, then we saw a series of revolutions. Where are we heading on a global scale and what role do you think The South Pacific will plan in that?
I'll keep this short. I honestly hope we will see more stability in GCRs. Last year we had revolutions (successful or not) in TSP, Osiris and Lazarus, and also some changes in alignment. I think we'll see the consolidation of all this. What role will TSP play in this? I see us being more active and proactive, and making good on the treaties we have with several GCRs. There is a lot of potential that we shouldn't waste.
Do you see The South Pacific as a leading power that sets the tone among the other GCRs, or more of a diplomatic middle power like The East Pacific? Or something else? Isolationist?
I don't see TSP as being a leading power at all times, simply because at some points we might have different priorities. I do see us at being active in the world stage, and leading when we see a need for us to lead, which won't be at all times, but rather at the right time.
Finally, on the eve of your first day as a feeder delegate: if you could say one thing to your newbie NS self, what would it be?
Wow. Here was I thinking questions couldn't get tougher.
I like to challenge people!
I would tell myself: "Congratulate Escade on her appointment as Minister of Regional Affairs". If I hadn't congratulated her she wouldn't have offered me my first government job, and I wouldn't be here. I have so much to thank her for, really.
Awww. She's great. Though I know what I'd say to myself: stop being such an f**king idiot.
Thank you so much for the interview, Kringalia. Good luck on your term - I hope it is absolutely wonderful. If you'd like to say anything to our readers, you have the floor.
Thanks Uni. I do hope four months from now the South Pacific will be much better than it already is, and since I have this fantastic Cabinet I'm sure that will happen. Thanks to the Times for hearing me out, and best of luck with the next edition.
Cheers mate.
Of some of the People, For some of the People, By some of the People
Part Two of a Four Part Series, “Rethinking Power in NationStates”.
EDITORIAL | UNIBOT
The notion that democracy in NationStates, especially Game-Created Regions, isn’t “all that it’s cracked up to be” is by no means a new idea. This common criticism has been the bread and butter of coupers and cultural feederites for years as a way to justify instability and oligarchical power structures – as a newer player, I often found members of The Empire (who were very influential at that time) often tried to press these sentiments upon me. My hope is that this editorial is not placed with those that sympathize with the status quo, but instead, those that see a potential new opportunity for us to step into the real and very scary democratic process for the sake of fun and inclusion.
Now if we’re going to ask the question, “are regions democratic in NationStates?” we first need to know what “democracy” is. Back, oh, five years ago now, I was a naïve, slightly thinner and better manicured freshman under the weight of a novemberish melancholy. Having made an appointment to see a professor for a meeting, I had intended to ask for his thoughts on my paper, “What is Democracy?”. This was my first Political Science course and I was keen to make a good academic introduction. An hour had gone by while I waited outside for the professor (who was also the head of the department) to finish his “conversation” with an angry and (possibly) dismissed employee. When I finally was allowed to enter his office, I found myself in a laboratory of ideas: stacks and stacks of books just lining the floor with absolutely no organization, rhyme or reason. The professor was sitting at the desk smiling – he was wearing his trademark mustard stained white suit with a pink shirt which he apparently wore at work without interruption for about thirty years.
I had asked him what he thought of my paper and he proceeded to essentially explain what democracy really was… with (probably) a complete rehearsed lecture.
“Do you like Monty Python?” he asked.
“I haven’t watched much of them. No,” I said -- which I would later correct.
He painted the scene in my mind from Monty Python and the Holy Grail – “He must be a king. He hasn't got shit all over him,” remarked the Dead Collector, himself caked in mud and filth. The scene goes on to question the legitimacy of King Arthur, musing about the authority of “some watery tart” and her “farcical aquatic ceremony”. Bearing this little anecdote in mind: democracy, in the contemporary Western world is fundamentally a product of the Reformation and the Enlightenment era, based on three central ideas: (i) Equality – the idea that all are “equal”, (ii) Authority over equals must have legitimate grounds, (iii) The Rule of Law applies to all equally, including leaders. The latter two ideas follow thematically from the first. Note: this is a controversial argument, but I would argue that equality is the central idea of democracy and its principles of legitimacy, liberty, justice and the Rule of Law follow from this basic premise that all peoples are equal.
What we see in NationStates is not democracy in any particularly concrete sense. Game-Created democracies purport to deciding leaders based on the opinions of less than thirty to forty people in regions that span hundreds of people. Between July to November 2012, The North Pacific tried an experiment: it elected its cabinet based on a preferential voting system that was open to all residents in The North Pacific – via a link to a website that required no sign up and was easy for voters to use. Lo and behold, people participated. Between the three elections that used this method, the elections attracted a hundred voters avg. and usually a lot of potential candidates who were curious about how this method worked would apply to run as a candidate (12 candidates avg.). This exciting system was later replaced in favor of an older, tried appointment system where the cabinet was composed of those who the delegate appointed. The South Pacific also had a challenge system where delegates were elected by “endorsement races” between the incumbent and their challenger – this challenge system proved to be more difficult to organize fairly and was eventually replaced with a traditional forum-based voting system where delegates are elected by the citizenry via the forums. However, these alternative voting systems stand as rare occurrences where democratic governments attempted a different model than the traditional forum-based voting system.
One of the major problems with these forum-based voting systems is that their turnout is relatively low and vastly lower than the actual body of residents in any given Game-Created Regions. Between 2011 and 2013, delegate elections in Game-Created Regions had an average of 22.31 voters – how this number compares against the actual population of the region is debateable since some would use the total number of residents, others would use the total number of WA Members. What we do know from past experience is that if these Game-Created Regions adopted an offsite mechanism for voting that was easily distributed to residents of the region that average would near quintuple.
Fig. 1. Voter Turnout in GCRs for Delegate Elections. Thanks to Kringalia, NES and Milograd!
Most of the Game-Created Regions, as we can see in Fig. 1 are maturing democracies whose voter turnouts are on the decline. There are many factors which may increase or decrease voter turnout, like competition, stability, cosmopolitanism, regionalism and activity. But any improvement in voter turnout is bound to be marginal at best with the forum-based model because of the filtration that occurs when you expect citizens to join the forums and become regular members. A cynic would ask: how can these Game-Created Regions be “democracies” if little over twenty members of their region are represented in their elections? The reality is that they are not democracies. What are they then, you might ask? This is where things get complicated. The traditional answer is to say that Game-Created Regions are “oligarchies”, rule by the few. However, this approach is difficult to theorize because the power relations are not easily analysed in regions and regions themselves are more porous then one would initially think. Game-Created Regions are interconnected by cross-membership to an extent that “oligarchies” is a misnomer because oligarchies require centralization and political independence. Game-Created Regions are in all actuality, interconnected, networked and interdependent with one another – their governments are all run by familiar faces.
Fig. 2. Shared membership in the Legislative-Executive-Judicial branches of GCRs.
Game-Created Regions are best thought of as “integrated aristocracies”. Their governments are largely run by the same, aristocratic class throughout each region. You can use the term, “elites” or “aristocrats” or what have you, but the basic idea is that the actual population in Game-Created Regions suffer from low participation and low representation in their own governments. Forum-based “democracies” serve first and foremost, this higher pan-GCR class of players, who revel in the drama and the openness of these governments -- they do not necessarily serve their own regions. Moving away from forum-based voting to a model that eliminates the need to join a forum would be detrimental to this higher class of players, because their voting power would immediately drop and their meager twenty votes would soon be outvoted by the larger collective voice of the wider regional population (i.e., "the masses"). Thus, this proposal is incredibly scary to the aristocrats because it poses a direct threat to their influence and voting power.
I'm sure you have hesitations to adopt my argument and I would like to address some common myths surrounding democracies in Game-Created Regions....
Myth 1: “Citizens who join the forums are loyal and committed. Those who don’t? Not so much!”
Most of our forums are dominated not but citizens, but aristocrats – members of an interconnected network, a class, between all of the Game-Created Regions. The forum registration process is more of a filtration process. Few citizens join the forum and fewer participate on it.
This amounts to one either of two scenarios: (i) the centre of power gets overrun and dominated by aristocrats and entryists, (ii) or the very small selection of genuine loyalists put forth regionalist measures to tide the influence and entry of aristocrats, which in doing, only centralizes power even more into their hands.
But these are just two traditional regionalist and cosmopolitan scenarios. In neither case does political participation grow to encompass more than a very thin selection of the actual region itself. These regions are dominated by so many members of this elite class that spans across all of the Game-Created Regions, because the forum registration process does not produce the "cream of the crop" (as some claim it does), it produces a whole lot of foreign produce and very little of your own actual crop.
Myth 2: “We shouldn’t cater or accommodate residents who don’t bother joining our forums”
This myth is based on anti-democratic sentiments if you think about it. To treat non-forum members as "non-committed citizens" or "non-informed citizens" who presumably should not have a say in the leadership of their region, quintessentially misunderstands democracy and its core ideals of egalitarianism.
Those residents are residents too - and the forum registration process is a barrier that radically drops their involvement in their own region. Characterizing them as lazy, apathetic and misinformed misses the point of democracy -- the "masses" can be engaged and a democracy makes a pro-active attempt to get them involved, even if it means sending them their voting information in the mail and making it convenient for them to vote.
Myth 3: “More open voting would mean more outside manipulation”
With forum-based voting you already have as much outside manipulation as you can possibly get -- forum-based voting is basically a legitimization of outside manipulation. On a more open voting system, these outsiders' votes are a much smaller share of the total votes and IP checks and voting requirements can be used to tide outside manipulation.
Some may read this article and immediately assume that the answer to reducing the power, influence and pervasiveness of aristocracy is to implement more regionalist measures. That would be misguided however: regionalist measures reduce the number of voting members, which raises each member's individual voting power and makes entryism that much more profitable and enticing for potential opportunists. Instead, I would like to make the case for wider, more public voting among the entire regional population -- there are a number of ways that one can do this: limiting non-WA members, low influence members etc., but the core idea is that voting should not simply be done on a forum between the forum participants. I believe that this system would, (i) eliminate the "circle jerk" of pan-GCR electoral politics, (ii) be more fun for almost everyone.
Personally, I find the idea of region-wide voting to be really exciting and much more fun. Those who say "but voters don't know anything and will get it wrong" are missing the point: it's a democracy, if you want to make sure voters get it "right", you need to campaign passionately and spread the word. I believe sheer rational greed alone has prevented us from moving towards a more inclusive, democratic structure. This new system would foster a continuum of competitive elections, healthy debate, intrigue and lots of heartfelt campaigning. We've always had the offsite technology to do it and we now also have a polling system too. The time is right for democracy: let's make it happen!
Next week, Unibot discusses Regionalism and Cosmopolitanism and their fickled relationship with Power....
Review of April Fools Day
OPINION | THE CHURCH OF SATAN
Every year Max Barry has unleashed something wholly unbelievable or horrible upon the denizens of NationStates. Everyone was expecting something of the same nature as last year's zombie apocalypse, but this year a different kind of evil was unveiled: capitalism.
With a spoof of BitCoins called "ByteCoins", every nation in NationStates became large printing presses, dishing out ByteCoins from thin air to anyone that mined them from them. You could mine ByteCoins and exchange them for your nation's currency. The value of the ByteCoin relative to your own currency fluctuated constantly from devestating highs to dream shattering lows (depending on whether you were buying or selling at the time). The secret to success however was quickly spread; buy low and sell high. Delegates everywhere mass telegrammed this to their respective regions and some went so far as to establish regional exchanges.
Soon our greed took over! We scrambled to gather as much of this imaginary currency of our already imaginary currency and it was fun! I myself was too busy to do much, however I saw many whom had amassed vast fortunes of ByteCoins off the simple concept that we all followed.
To be honest though I'm a bit disappointed. I expected and would have preferred something along the lines of the zombie apocalypse, because it was so much more addictive and interactive. All in all, if I were to rate this year's April Fools day, I'd give it a generous 3 out of 5 stars.
Review: ★★★
