Announcement from the Delegate

IMHO, the system IS Delegate-centric. Regardless of the Constitution, there's nothing to stop a Delegate from proclaiming that it's nothing but a "goddamn piece of paper", and going rogue.

Also, stability is a double-edged sword. Too much "stability" can easily lead to stagnation, which can be deadly in a game.

I don't condone Dalimbar's actions, especially given said lack of leadership, but I think simply returning to the status quo would be a big mistake.
 
Apt quote there, WV. :)

Still, I think the distinguishing mark of the successful regional government is that it perpetuates itself even though the technology of the game does not support it. It may just be a piece of paper (or in our case, a forum topic on IF), but it is something that a community believes in. Much like paper money.

As has been proven time and again, there are enough threats to regional stability, within and without, that we don't need to fabricate one to ward off stagnation.

I agree with your conclusion in part, or at least for a different value of "status quo":

- We need a Constitution.

- I do not believe we need a new Constitution. It has been lovingly, carefully and above all painfully drafted in a process that tore this community into more forums than InvisionFree has servers. It works. If necessary, amend it. Don't throw it away, because (much like paper money) the very act of devaluing it weakens any trust the community will have into the next one.

- I concede we may need a General Election.

- I am of the opinion Dalimbar should neither oversee nor be allowed to stand for office in it.
 
The constitution is not to blame, we are.

I've seen no end of good ideas fail, not because to constitution stopped them, not because the "ruling clique" prevented them, but because collectively, we couldn't be bothered to see them through.

Our presence on the RMB is shameful, our discussions ineffectual. A countless number of Ministers who did nothing during their first term are happily re-elected, while our reputation abroad is laughable. Our isolationist stance has been perfected to a point at which we no long interact with ourselves.

There is no change, because there is no desire to change. And no constitution, or regime change will alter that.
 
The reality is that ingame NS gives the ultimate power to the people through their ability to give endorsements. That is the vote of the people. And that ultimate power is then given to the successful delegate.

Without the blessings of the ingame elected delegate, an offsite forum or government has no real chance. The constitution must recognize the ingame realities or failure will eventually come, as it has.

NS mechanics already provides the democracy of UN endorsements. An offsite government attempts to control that process. But if, in the process of that attempt, it ignores the realities of gameplay mechanics, it will fail.

The delegate is the default Executive of the region by game mechanics. And all Dali is looking for is a means to make the region work and fight off it's inactivity. In other words, he's doing his job as our delegate, in trying to look out for the best interests of the region......not the best interests of the government. His priorities are in the right place. The government should have the same priorities. I've faced that situation before, and it required drastic action. And it succeeded beyond anyone's expectations.

The best constitution in the world is worthless if it fails to serve the needs of the people. Or in this case, the needs of the region.

It is the duty of the Constitution and government officials to serve the region. The Constitution, or individual members of the government should not be our priority. The well being of the region should be. If we can accomplish that priority though existing Constitutional means, great. But if there is no activity within the government to follow up on that priority, then it's time for a change.

We have to make something happen. We can't sit back and wait for someone to take care of things for us. That's partially why we're stagnant now. I"ll do my part to work for reform and change through the Constitution. I think we have an obligation to try. But there must be true progress in short order. We can't keep dragging along.

Change can be very good for a region, bring new ideas and activity. Don't stifle that opportunity, or we'll just be helping continue the long slow decline of NS.

We need action. Be it by our delegate and PM through their discussions, by changes brought through the RA, or more radical approaches. If we fail on the first two, there will be no recourse but to face growing anarchy and a rudderless region just waiting for a strong leader to take command of it. And that leader may be someone we'd not want.

There is a window of opportunity for us to take advantage of, and I'm afraid I don't see very many people realizing what could be slipping through their fingers.
 
There is a window of opportunity for us to take advantage of, and I'm afraid I don't see very many people realizing what could be slipping through their fingers.
Click to expand...

It may be an easy road to success, but until I am convinced that it is the only road, I will maintain that it is the most dangerous. Where you see an opportunity, I see a pitfall.

Dictators throughout history - fictional and non-fictional - have gained power not through personal appeal but in the name of "getting it done".

"That leader may be someone we'd not want"? Define what qualities a leader can have - other than not respecting democracy - that make them someone we don't want. "Better vote for a lizard because otherwise the wrong lizard might get in"?
 
Ermarian:
There is a window of opportunity for us to take advantage of, and I'm afraid I don't see very many people realizing what could be slipping through their fingers.
Click to expand...

It may be an easy road to success, but until I am convinced that it is the only road, I will maintain that it is the most dangerous. Where you see an opportunity, I see a pitfall.
Click to expand...
But we should not adamantly reject change. Sure, stick with what works, but when little cracks start to show, it is our responsibility to fix it so that the overall structure is stronger and better serves the region's needs. I hardly think that anyone besides a few are for a non-democratic dictatorship. No one wants to be the NPO. We have always been and will always continue to be the antithesis of the NPO. Although our foreign influence waxes and wanes, we will always be known as a bastion for open and encompassing democracy, for better or worse.

It is true that our current Constitution, if carried out in the way it is supposed to, would probably be pretty effectual. However, people are imperfect. Our elected officers are imperfect. And as a result, our institutions are imperfect. In a way, we simply have too much stuff. It is intimidating to new people, and our legalese and institutional rules makes it difficult for new players to join in a constructive, meaningful way. Their ideas may not get sidelined, but they get lost in general apathy. And when people don't feel their ideas are being realized, they lose interest and never come back. This is, IMO, the biggest challenge facing our current government right now.

We need to make our government more dynamic and more flexible, with great potential for contribution and upward advancement for new people. And in my opinion, this requires a more centralized executive. I am actually wholly ambivalent towards the idea of the Delegate as the head-of-state, but if it would get us out of our current crisis and make us more stable in the future, I am more than willing to make that concession. Looking at foreign examples like TWP shows that such a structure is tenable.

So long as the Delegate can be effective and is allowed a certain degree of job satisfaction, democratic processes that allow for the regular election of a Delegate would give us a rapid, centralized executive and power by the people. The best of both worlds. But as we currently see, when the Delegate gets dissatisfied, there is little our forum-democracy can do. To stave off any future civil wars, we should aim to strike a balance between Delegate power and rule by direct democracy. And I agree that the Delegate must be elected on the forums by election.

As I have to meet someone for dinner, I'll cut this a bit short, but I'll end on this note:

We all share responsibility for this current crisis. We, as members of the Regional Assembly, should have seen some of the failings of the current system. Few people may have expected that it would be so critical that it would result in yet another coup, but we should have caught it. Instead, apathy roamed free. And lest we forget, we elected Dalimbar. Twice. We validated his power. Of course, he is wholly unjust in taking advantage of our trust like this, but still. We have enabled him partially, and as such, we cannot push away the problems and foist blame fully upon Dali. I believe that we need reform. People may not agree with me as to the degree of reform that we require, but the beauty of our democracy is that you are allowed to present opposing viewpoints and forward your own suggestions. Go into the RA forums and brainstorm. Lift us out of our apathy and turmoil.
 
We all share responsibility for this current crisis. We, as members of the Regional Assembly, should have seen some of the failings of the current system. Few people may have expected that it would be so critical that it would result in yet another coup, but we should have caught it. Instead, apathy roamed free. And lest we forget, we elected Dalimbar. Twice. We validated his power. Of course, he is wholly unjust in taking advantage of our trust like this, but still. We have enabled him partially, and as such, we cannot push away the problems and foist blame fully upon Dali. I believe that we need reform. People may not agree with me as to the degree of reform that we require, but the beauty of our democracy is that you are allowed to present opposing viewpoints and forward your own suggestions. Go into the RA forums and brainstorm. Lift us out of our apathy and turmoil.
Click to expand...

Amen, amen.
 
The most annoying part is that I've been saying the blasted thing doesnt work right for years and no-one joins in until now...*sighs like a woman from a 1940's romantic film scene*

I've been away for 2 weeks and has anything really changed despite a promise to chat?
 
OK, I'm back to save the universe. I was called out of town for a while.

At any rate....


I've been quickly perusing the board for stuff that I have missed and I have gleaned...


That there is a major state of lethargy and that the whole thing is Delegate Centric.

Being one of the old farts who has seen this game pretty much since the beginning in one incarnation or another, I think there might be a solution to this.

As it is now, in all sense of practicality, we have a system that is not dissimilar to a constitutional monarchy in which the Delegate is the monarch, entrusted to never use royal prorogative.

My solution to the problem?

We change our constitution to be more like a Republic in which the Delegate is not only head of state but also head of government and lenghten the term to something like four months so that it gives the delegate/head of government at least three months to endotart into position and have an effective administration. Unfortunately, given the mechanics of the whole scheme of things, checks and balances cannot do much in the way of preventing, or even effectively combating rogue delegates. However, requiring the Delegate to be a bit more than a figurehead with potentially devastating authority might encourage sitting delegates to not go rogue.

Essentially, what I am suggesting, is that we explore the idea of reshaping us into a Republic with the Delegate being the Head of Government/President/Prime Minister and giving the delegate enough responsibilities and duties that after one term no one would be crazy enough to continue as Delegate.

Any thoughts?






Romanoffia is back, lethargy is dead.
 
It's...It's....It's...


CALIGULOFFIA!

300px-Caesar_Caligula.jpg


:worship:
 
Romanoffia:
... However, requiring the Delegate to be a bit more than a figurehead with potentially devastating authority might encourage sitting delegates to not go rogue.

Essentially, what I am suggesting, is that we explore the idea of reshaping us into a Republic with the Delegate being the Head of Government/President/Prime Minister and giving the delegate enough responsibilities and duties that after one term no one would be crazy enough to continue as Delegate. (emphasis added) 
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this construction seems likely to quickly dispatch (or even deter) anyone sane from the job.

In other words, you're likely to very soon find someone, however unlikely, who IS crazy enough to want to keep the job.

So you will pretty much guarantee putting a headcase into the role in fairly short order, and then have him or her latch onto the position with great fervor.

Which might be counterproductive.
 
The system works when our Delegates don't betray the region and has done since Pixiedance.

Dalimbar was elected Delegate knowing the limitations of his office like every other person before him.

What people don't seem to be considering is that making the Delegate head of the government as well just makes it easier to go rogue. It means that they can appoint their own ministers to their government who will be more likely to support them. It means they will be Delegate for longer, so have greater influence, so be much harder to unseat.
 
Emperor Matthuis:
The system works when our Delegates don't betray the region and has done since Pixiedance.

Dalimbar was elected Delegate knowing the limitations of his office like every other person before him.

What people don't seem to be considering is that making the Delegate head of the government as well just makes it easier to go rogue. It means that they can appoint their own ministers to their government who will be more likely to support them. It means they will be Delegate for longer, so have greater influence, so be much harder to unseat.
Click to expand...
nuff said
 
Emperor Matthuis:
What people don't seem to be considering is that making the Delegate head of the government as well just makes it easier to go rogue. It means that they can appoint their own ministers to their government who will be more likely to support them. It means they will be Delegate for longer, so have greater influence, so be much harder to unseat.
Click to expand...
...

Why would you set up the government to allow the Cabinet to decide whether or not the Delegate stays or goes? Checks and balances must still be preserved. In any governmental structure worth its salt, a legislative or judicial body will have the power to remove a Delegate and Cabinet overstepping its bounds. Anything else is just silly.
 
And that's the age old conundrum. Ultimately, a delegate has ultimate authority regardless of any restrictions placed on the delegate by a government. Ultimately, you have to have faith that a delegate isn't going to go rogue and faith and a $2 will get you on any subway.

And ultimately, the only recourse you have against a rogue delegate is to either acquiesce and hope the delegate eventually gives in or use the mechanics of the situation to widdle down a delegate's ability to maintain the position. Of course, as we all know, that means deliberately inducing mass ejections especially of the more powerful nations in the region. A very unpleasant prognosis.
 
Emperor Matthuis:
Yes, but when a Delegate goes rogue they will tend to ignore those things.
Click to expand...
So in that case, every form of government, regardless of whatever degree of power given to the Delegate, has the same risk of the Delegate going rogue?

So if there is no way to prevent it, the only method of avoiding it is to grant the Delegate enough power so as to keep him satisfied?
 
Well, job satisfaction is so subjective. As Delegate, I spent a lot of time endorsing and TGing nations, answering a lot of questions from new players, keeping up with UN resolutions and proposals, and negotiating with endotarters. That was the job and I was glad to accomplish it. For me, the satisfaction came from knowing I was keeping us safe from those who would abuse the power vested in the seat. Someone else may find it mundane.
 
Unfortunately, and maybe I'm being too cynical but this is how I feel, most players are at least somewhat power-hungry. These players should be kept OUT of the delegacy. Unfortunately it's hard to do that with term limits, since there's only a VERY limited number of players that should be entrusted with the delegacy. When I was in the cabinet during the Lexicon "crisis" I privately wanted to repeal term limits for the delegate (and for the delegate only), but I didn't publicly push for it. Obviously I regret that now. But I think the ideal system would be a "paper delegate" without term limits.

Also, towards the beginning of the WPT crisis I remember Monte Ozarka posting an idea to mechanically restrain the delegate by giving two players access to the delegate nation or something like that. I can't remember the details but I really liked the idea at the time - uses the tyrants' beloved game mechanics to strip the delegate of his unilateral power in order to bind him to the offsite government. I think it involved the other person controlling the delegate UN multi-ing to get the delegate nation deleted if it goes rogue. Can't remember the details though, so it might or might not be as good as it sounds to me.
 
Unfortunately, and maybe I'm being too cynical but this is how I feel, most players are at least somewhat power-hungry. These players should be kept OUT of the delegacy. Unfortunately it's hard to do that with term limits, since there's only a VERY limited number of players that should be entrusted with the delegacy. When I was in the cabinet during the Lexicon "crisis" I privately wanted to repeal term limits for the delegate (and for the delegate only), but I didn't publicly push for it. Obviously I regret that now. But I think the ideal system would be a "paper delegate" without term limits.
Click to expand...

I too have proposed changes through the RA to reduce term limits and give the Delegate a vote in Cabinet, however both of these proposals were either voted down and the other unfortunately was overshadowed by these recent events.

I agree that if we find a trusted member of the region, perhaps we should extend Delegate terms but we shouldn't allow them to go on too long or else they might build up more influence, so if they ever did go rogue it would be harder to stop them.

Also, towards the beginning of the WPT crisis I remember Monte Ozarka posting an idea to mechanically restrain the delegate by giving two players access to the delegate nation or something like that. I can't remember the details but I really liked the idea at the time - uses the tyrants' beloved game mechanics to strip the delegate of his unilateral power in order to bind him to the offsite government. I think it involved the other person controlling the delegate UN multi-ing to get the delegate nation deleted if it goes rogue. Can't remember the details though, so it might or might not be as good as it sounds to me.
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit dodgy to me, but the person going rogue could just change the password and I believe I'm right in saying that the Moderators don't act in cases where you take control of a nation like that, only if you have managed to hack it through NationStates.
 
GBM, what I'm saying is that there is no way (well, sorta) to keep the Delegate from going rogue. Therefore, we have to aim to induce the Delegate from not going rogue. Job satisfaction is definitely subjective, but let's not kid ourselves and think that any form of government can keep anyone from going rogue.

JAL:
Also, towards the beginning of the WPT crisis I remember Monte Ozarka posting an idea to mechanically restrain the delegate by giving two players access to the delegate nation or something like that. I can't remember the details but I really liked the idea at the time - uses the tyrants' beloved game mechanics to strip the delegate of his unilateral power in order to bind him to the offsite government. I think it involved the other person controlling the delegate UN multi-ing to get the delegate nation deleted if it goes rogue. Can't remember the details though, so it might or might not be as good as it sounds to me.
Click to expand...

Ah, that. Yes, I did brainstorm a proposal for that. It involved two nations having joint control of the Delegate nation. If one went rogue, the other could UN-multi to try to get the Delegate nation ejected. It is assumed that upon the beginning of the coup, the rogue Del would immediately change the password and email address. However, both people's IP addresses are recorded on the Delegate nation's log. Theoretically, therefore, it would still be UN-multiing. (Think of it as a bad attempt at hiding the fact that you're UN multiing by using two different IP addresses, while forgetting that you have accessed one UN nation via both.)

Of course, there are several uncertainties in this plan. First and foremost would be whether or not moderators would see through this, and (in the likely event that they do) do they care? How would they react? Can someone who is forcibly locked out of a nation by their partner claim ownership over that nation? I don't really find precedent for this in NS, so I think any attempt at this plan would be exploring new territory, rule-wise.
 
I hate to say it, the only way to rectify the situation is to use mechanics to remove the rogue delegate.

I hate to say it (because Dali is a friend) but Dali is taking a page right out of Ivan the Moldy's play book and that is unforgiveable given the trust we placed in him to be elected delegate.

I hate wars for regional control, and frankly, after helping to go after everyone since UPSRail, I hate the dirty tricks needed to set things right.
 
that after one term no one would be crazy enough to continue as Delegate.
Click to expand...

A political rationale that relies on "nobody would be crazy enough to do that" is like a hazard safety policy that relies on "nobody would be stupid enough to do this".

"Outlaw stupidity, and only idiots will be outlaws?" :P

most players are at least somewhat power-hungry. These players should be kept OUT of the delegacy.
Click to expand...

Apparently, the only person you can trust with power is one who absolutely does not want it. Seeing as how the process of gaining power in NS (tarting) is such a gruelling, annoying work that even most who do want the power aren't fanatic enough to waste so many hours on it, that poses a problem.
 
WTF @ Roman

firstly Dali hasnt actually done anything romtly like UPS Rail/The Minister yet, asides declaring himself rogue.

Secondly, dirty tricks? Its part of the game.
 
Fulhead Land:
WTF @ Roman

firstly Dali hasnt actually done anything romtly like UPS Rail/The Minister yet, asides declaring himself rogue.

Secondly, dirty tricks? Its part of the game.
Click to expand...
WTF right back @ you.

Dali is threatening to eject everyone over 150 endos if he doesn't get his way. Sounds like holding the entire region hostage to me.

I don't like the idea of being dictated to especially when it appears that the dictator has no idea of what he really wants other than to have some fun by stirring things up a bit.

My attitude this time around is that this is just another entertaining episode that no matter what I'm not going to get too upset about. we all know how it is going to turn out in the end. We've been here before. It's nothing different than anything else that has come before - only this might actually prove to be a very civil conflict.

Let's look at it as a challenge. I don't personally tend to get highly upset about it because I already know the outcome. Everyone else should be able to figure it out too.



R
 
What people dont realise is the civil war is needed. It rids us of despot dali but it pumps blood through the veins of TNP again!
 
Exactly! The question most people don't want to hear is 'do we cooperate with a delegate who went rogue or do we just tough it out and resist?" I would rather tough it out even if it means war. I don't like the idea of being forced into anything, regardless.


R
 
I'm very much in favor of the "tough it out" option, ICly because I'm a freedom loving nation willing to fight for my freedom, and OOCly because it's fun!
 
Romanoffia:
Exactly! The question most people don't want to hear is 'do we cooperate with a delegate who went rogue or do we just tough it out and resist?" I would rather tough it out even if it means war. I don't like the idea of being forced into anything, regardless.


R
Click to expand...

You know that feeling that people haven't read your election campaign? :unsure:
 
Monte Ozarka:
Emperor Matthuis:
Yes, but when a Delegate goes rogue they will tend to ignore those things.
Click to expand...
So in that case, every form of government, regardless of whatever degree of power given to the Delegate, has the same risk of the Delegate going rogue?

So if there is no way to prevent it, the only method of avoiding it is to grant the Delegate enough power so as to keep him satisfied?
Click to expand...
In a couple brief sentences you cut to the heart of this.


[size=-1]Put on goggles to protect eyes from sappy rhetoric.[/size]
We do not elect a delegate to be delegate. Our constitution was not written with the things other regions had in mind. We elect a delegate to not usurp the constitution. That's it. We elect it separately from other positions because it is wholly its own, with voting here seemingly only to monitor the proceedings from fraud and to tie this government to the region. We do not want to give it a position in government because we would then give the delegate an interest in the affairs of government and its outcomes. We do not give it a policy-making role because we do not want the position to become divisive among the people. We do not give it a role in forum administration.We do all this because it allows us to elect our UN delegate on only one single criteria: trust.

We do not trust merely anyone to be delegate, but someone has to be. We do not want to be naked before a foreign attack, however soft (Lexicon), nor do we want to be homeless after a constitutional crisis gone poorly (ahem). We choose our delegates to protect us from those evils. For that there is no greater value -nothing more important- than trust. It becomes misguided (and potentially dangerous) to introduce other reasons for selection, to test with agendas, to frustrate and irritate, and forget why we wrote the Constitution the way we did. The delegate has the power to do a lot of things in-game, but we decided that most of those affect the community in a bad way. So we wrote laws to regulate those powers and laws we agreed to live under, and elected people who agreed to uphold those laws for the sake of the community and safeguarding our liberties.
 
Fellow Citizens, Esteemed Minister, and Members of Cabinet:

I come before you today with but one word to sum up my feelings: confusion.

I would start by saying that my country is but a humble member of the North Pacific that occasionally makes its views on U.N. resolutions known. It has taken little part in the politics and powerplay of the system, but I have been satisfied in the region; the Delegate has always responded to my comments and questions and in the few times I've come upon the forums, help has always been here. At the same time, however, I've never really been interested in the government and actions thereof.

Times, however, change, and some messages can not be ignored.

Reading through this topic and a few others, it appears that Chodean Kal has 'gone rogue' and declared that the government no longer listens to the will of the people and therefore should be deposed, as it does not do its intended job. I have never believed in jumping ship rather before attempting to bail it out, but I am new, and perhaps he has already tried bailing to no avail.

I have seen messages that say to unendorse him, I have (briefly) visited the 'new' TNP forums. What it comes down to, for me, is a general sense of befuddlement.

What were the actions that caused him to declare rebellion? What powers does he have that can and do affect us? What can the government do in such a circumstance, and if the answer is none, then is this not all just a farce? And finally, what can regular residents of the North Pacific do?

I have not yet taken sides in this, because I know too little. But from what I have seen, even if he is a megalomaniac that has been biding time to hold the North Pacific hostage, he may have relevant issues he believes are un-addressed about the governance of the region. I would, at the very least, like to know what those issues are, even if they are just a cloak for his hunger for power. And if they are real issues, then perhaps they should be addressed and reconciliation so attained.

And if there are no such explanations forthcoming, then it would be good to know what options you (as the government) and we (as the residents) have of effecting change with a 'rogue' delegate. From the messages I have read, it seems we have none, and that he is free to eject nations at will. If this is the case, what is the use of a government, where the Prime Minister, and all others, are held captive by the Delegate?

Finally, I would add that I find it interesting that there are still endorsements between Chodean Kal and the government. When many seem to be clamoring to remove him, he is still endorsed by Great Bights Mum and he still endorses Haor Chall and others.

Advisory Talon of The Hegemony of Asiatic States
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top