Delegate Intimidators

How am I off the mark if you assume I'm "aggressively gathering endorsements"? That is a default assumption you have made which when tested proved to be wrong.

Here's a radical idea for you, have you considered that there is a big area between trust and distrust which is called "don't know yet".

"And yes, the message boiled down to stand down or face booting. It's similar to the threat of violence in police requests." Sorry mate but you are just showing how correct my assessment is. As I've previously stated I work in the legal profession and whilst the threat of violence is issues, it is always as a penultimute action and only after reasonable efforts have been made to resolve the situation before this becomes necessary. You jumped straight from seeing someone dropping litter to stop or I shoot and missed out all the middle bit.
 
Vaticania Prime:
How am I off the mark if you assume I'm "aggressively gathering endorsements"? That is a default assumption you have made which when tested proved to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Seeking endorsements from 300 people is aggressively gathering endorsements. It vastly exceeds any number of people you could conceivably be trying to develop close relations or whatever with. You can argue about semantics, but it's up to the Delegate to determine what is a threat, thus the varying caps in different regions.

Here's a radical idea for you, have you considered that there is a big area between trust and distrust which is called  "don't know yet".
Click to expand...

When you do something of which nearly every other person who has done it has turned out to be some sort of radical deconstructionist revolutionary, that's enough to reasonably inspire mistrust. You may not have been there to see it happen, and you may swear up and down that that's not your intent, but actions conflict with words here.

"And yes, the message boiled down to stand down or face booting. It's similar to the threat of violence in police requests." Sorry mate but you are just showing how correct my assessment is. As I've previously stated I work  in the legal profession and whilst the threat of violence is issues, it is always as a penultimute action and only after reasonable efforts have been made to resolve the situation before this becomes necessary. You jumped straight from seeing someone dropping litter to stop or I shoot and missed out all the middle bit.
Click to expand...

This is not a real-life legal situation, it's a complex model of a vastly different system. Exactly what constitutes a threat here is different. You may feel that Elu's "threat of violence" is unsubstantiated, but in NS, what you did is every bit as much a "threat of violence" as what he did.
 
Thanks Kandarin but I still disagree with you. You can't call it a complex model and then agree with simplistic actions, that is just fanciful nonsense.

I agree this is not reality but the general principles remain the same so I stick to my guns and argue that pre-emptive strikes and threats are counterproductive, devicive and ultimately destablise the very thing you proclaim to be defending.

As it is the matter has now been resolved through negotiation and debate rather than threat and rhetoric so I think you have to agree that must be a positive.
 
Vaticania Prime:
Thanks Kandarin but I still disagree with you. You can't call it a complex model and then agree with simplistic actions, that is just fanciful nonsense.

I agree this is not reality but the general principles remain the same so I stick to my guns and argue that pre-emptive strikes and threats are counterproductive, devicive and ultimately destablise the very thing you proclaim to be defending.

As it is the matter has now been resolved through negotiation and debate rather than threat and rhetoric so I think you have to agree that must be a positive.
Click to expand...
What pre-emptive strikes? :headbang:
 
Vaticania Prime:
How am I off the mark if you assume I'm "aggressively gathering endorsements"? That is a default assumption you have made which when tested proved to be wrong.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't.

The situation has been explained to you sufficiently. If you continue to endo-swap at this point, then the only reasonable assumption we can make is that you are a threat, and that you need to be removed before you are able to do any damage. It isn't a matter of debate. There is only one logical reason for you to continue endo-swapping at this point, and there is only one logical course of action to deal with that, if you do continue.
 
Vaticania Prime:
Thanks Kandarin but I still disagree with you. You can't call it a complex model and then agree with simplistic actions, that is just fanciful nonsense.

I agree this is not reality but the general principles remain the same so I stick to my guns and argue that pre-emptive strikes and threats are counterproductive, devicive and ultimately destablise the very thing you proclaim to be defending.
Click to expand...
It would be a bit late once the unknown had taken the delegacy, eh?

We do it like this because it works and because it preserves the elected government. Every region does it like this.
 
Sydia:
Vaticania Prime:
Thanks Kandarin but I still disagree with you. You can't call it a complex model and then agree with simplistic actions, that is just fanciful nonsense.

I agree this is not reality but the general principles remain the same so I stick to my guns and argue that pre-emptive strikes and threats are counterproductive, devicive and ultimately destablise the very thing you proclaim to  be defending.
Click to expand...
It would be a bit late once the unknown had taken the delegacy, eh?

We do it like this because it works and because it preserves the elected government. Every region does it like this.
Click to expand...
Not quite, some just ban you if you exceed their limit, which in the case of the Pacific is 30 endorsements. Yes. Thirty.
 
Eluvatar:
Sydia:
Vaticania Prime:
Thanks Kandarin but I still disagree with you. You can't call it a complex model and then agree with simplistic actions, that is just fanciful nonsense.

I agree this is not reality but the general principles remain the same so I stick to my guns and argue that pre-emptive strikes and threats are counterproductive, devicive and ultimately destablise the very thing you proclaim to  be defending.
Click to expand...
It would be a bit late once the unknown had taken the delegacy, eh?

We do it like this because it works and because it preserves the elected government. Every region does it like this.
Click to expand...
Not quite, some just ban you if you exceed their limit, which in the case of the Pacific is 30 endorsements. Yes. Thirty.
Click to expand...
Well, to varying degrees. I agree 150 endos should be enough for anyone.
 
Vaticania Prime:
Thanks Kandarin but I still disagree with you. You can't call it a complex model and then agree with simplistic actions, that is just fanciful nonsense.
Click to expand...
Just because the model may be complex doesn't mean the most effective actions have to be. In fact, generally speaking the most effective actions are simple.

I agree this is not reality but the general principles remain the same so I stick to my guns and argue that pre-emptive strikes and threats are counterproductive, devicive and ultimately destablise the very thing you proclaim to  be defending.

As it is the matter has now  been resolved through negotiation and debate rather than threat and rhetoric so  I think  you have to agree that must be a positive.
Click to expand...
The only thing that could possibly be argued was a mistake was Eluvatar's original tone in the first message he sent you, but even that I don't particularly care about. Also, as Sydia alluded to, pre-emption is the only realistic option in this sort of scenario, because once someone has taken the delegacy over, your options are severely limited, at best.
 
Hello Heft glad you could join us at this late stage but the matter, as I said, has beed sorted. But to clarify my position:

"The situation has been explained to you sufficiently. If you continue to endo-swap at this point, then the only reasonable assumption we can make is that you are a threat, and that you need to be removed before you are able to do any damage."

The situation was only explained to me after the event ie after I had received a threat of expulsion.

"It isn't a matter of debate."

It has been a matter of debate and through debate has been successfully reolved.

"There is only one logical reason for you to continue endo-swapping at this point, and there is only one logical course of action to deal with that, if you do continue."

Incorrect, there are several logical reasons for seeking endorsements. Mine was out of ignorance because it was how I incorrectly perceived the game should be played. Byakhee appears to have set himself a personal target, others may have more mercenary reasons but please do not assume there is ever only one logical reason for a course of action.

Well I have to say that the debate has been very enjoyable and most enlightening. I'm glad I stuck with it and thanks to everyone who has giben me guidance and a lot of understanding. Hope to chat about less contentious matters in the future though.

Night all.

VP
 
Well I'm glad we finally agreed our roles in this performance.

By the way Kandarin, have you ever considered that someone may actually raise their voice in dissent and actually have something of value to say without wanting to become a despot?
 
Hello Vaticania, I am Al Homa. I'm glad you've come on the forums and given us your side of things. I must say, I agree with you that the issue could have been handled much better and the current letter does little to accommodate new players to the game who are just playing as the NationStates site would suggest. Nationstates has developed beyond that with the use of external sites and extensive regional governments. Some players who have been round for a long time (we're talking years here) overlook the possibility of individuals joining the game and simply misunderstanding the wider politics of it.

I think your case is something many of the older players can learn from. I am in agreement with you on the matter of trust, that there is a broad area in between that should be explored politely and carefully before coming to conclusions. Cases have been stated where this has been done (Atrigea, for example), but complacency can, as it seemingly has, slip in.

You see, in the history of the North Pacific, we have had several delegates 'go rogue' and several others seize the delegacy by 'force'. What I mean by force in this context is that enemy forces have moved World Assembly nations into the region and endorsed someone with high levels of endorsements so that they ascend to the delegacy. The Delegacy gives and individual (almost) complete power over the region. Many of those here and witnessed a number of rogue delegacies, myself included and have developed an eye for nations that may be trying to take the delegacy from the elected delegate. Naturally, sometimes innocent nations like yourself follow similar patterns and can be caught up.

I'm sorry to hear of your treatment and we should look into better ways of achieving the outcome that is best for the region. But we also need to be wary of being soft on potential aggressors who may have grown to see the North Pacific as an easy target already, considering its history.

Oh and just so you know, Kandarin is delegate in another 'feeder' region, "The Rejected Realms" and has seen numerous attempts, failed and successful, of people attempting to take over the delegacy there and so is going to be sceptical of any intentions to gather endorsements.
 
Kandarin:
Indeed, it's really more of a probability than a possibility - NS history has shown that aggressive endorsement-swappers pretty much always want to be Delegate. Sometimes they say it outright, sometimes they conceal it for a while, but actions speak louder than words, and there's really only one reason for anyone to gather massive amounts of endorsements.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, influence has become an alternative reason. However, the point remains - gathering power makes you a potential threat to the incumbent government.

I concur that we may be too harsh with newcomers. The present situation (ie. a state of war) warrants a tight security, but you have to recall that the biggest threat to our region has never been a hostile power or rogue despot taking the delegacy. The biggest threat is to turn the People of TNP themselves against the government of Z13.

The People of TNP are not a constant. Antagonize enough of the newcomers, and there will be a generation of TNPers who come to resent us.

---

150 endos should be enough for anyone.
Click to expand...

Heh. In ten-twenty years, they'll be laughing at this and talking about 150 Gigaendos. :)

---

In summary: I move for a ceasefire. Are any of us enemies here? I didn't think so.
 
I guess it places one at a cross-roads. On the one hand, the government is already in place, is under a threat, and should not take anything lightly in terms of something like tarting, especially from someone who hasn't revealed who they are (I sort of don't believe he / she is a new person, lol). But on the other hand, why doesn't the delegate simply increase his lead? Placing sanctions on people simply because they are reaching your high throne tells you two things, either they are getting outside help or just simply tarting, or the people are interested in a change. It's the decision of the delegate to ease this problem in and fix it with wisdom and compromises, or boot him in the face and kick him off your throne.

While the latter part makes sense considering the situation, I must apply caution: disregard for the people will lead to a loss of credibility. And remember, it would be a stretch to say there are forty people active in the government here. There are over five hundred endorse-able nations in TNP. And while one can keep booting these unknown tarters, it will hack away at influence, a little at a time. Not to mention credibility.
 
Ask them nicely to stop and explain why, if they don't, something's up; show 'em the door.

We lose nothing except bad 'uns who would have ignored a Stern Warning(tm) anyway.
 
Sydia:
Ask them nicely to stop and explain why, if they don't, something's up; show 'em the door.

We lose nothing except bad 'uns who would have ignored a Stern Warning(tm) anyway.
Click to expand...
Very true. People should understand if there is a lawbreaker, especially if it is without regards of civil disobedience. I don't see how that would apply in this case, so yeah. Just interested to see how this works.
 
Todd McCloud:
Sydia:
Ask them nicely to stop and explain why, if they don't, something's up; show 'em the door.

We lose nothing except bad 'uns who would have ignored a Stern Warning(tm) anyway.
Click to expand...
Very true. People should understand if there is a lawbreaker, especially if it is without regards of civil disobedience. I don't see how that would apply in this case, so yeah. Just interested to see how this works.
Click to expand...
People should also be aware of the law. In real life ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this isn't real life.

Then once the ignorance has been taken away the only alternative for continuing to endotart that remains is nefarious intent, so they can take a trip to the scenic Rejected Realms.
 
I fully agree ignorance is no defence, and that's coming from someone who was very ignorant.

I do agree as a new member and suspected uber-tarter that communication could have been better. To put it bluntly I was well P@@@ed off. But now the situation has been explained I can understand why my actions would have caused concern. Just glad we could sort it out amicably in the end.
 
Vaticania Prime:
I fully agree ignorance is no defence, and that's coming from someone who was very ignorant.

I do agree as a new member and suspected uber-tarter that communication could have been better. To put it bluntly I was well P@@@ed off. But now the situation has been explained I can understand why my actions would have caused concern. Just glad we could sort it out amicably in the end.
Click to expand...
Excellent! A crisis is averted!
 
To answer one of your questions, I'm not gathering more endorsements right now because there's this whole election handover thing going down :D
 
Well, to be fair, influence has become an alternative reason. However, the point remains - gathering power makes you a potential threat to the incumbent government.

I concur that we may be too harsh with newcomers. The present situation (ie. a state of war) warrants a tight security, but you have to recall that the biggest threat to our region has never been a hostile power or rogue despot taking the delegacy. The biggest threat is to turn the People of TNP themselves against the government of Z13.

The People of TNP are not a constant. Antagonize enough of the newcomers, and there will be a generation of TNPers who come to resent us.

[/QUOTE]
I have been thinking about this a bit further and the tone of the warning that was received by vaticania as a first offence so to speak. I have come up with the following suggestion of a new text for consideration as follows:-

The high level of endorsements you have received / have made has come to my attention and I would prefer it if you either advised me of your intention on the forum at z13…. or stop seeking further endorsements by not endorsing other nations. The reasons for this request can be found on the forum at z13… and relates to the stability of our region. If you want advice / guidance regarding how your influence within the region can be increased without affecting the stability of our region you can find it at z13…. Please be aware that if you continue with your current approach to collecting endorsement I might have to consider taking action against you for the stability of the region. The options available to me can be found at z13… I hope to either talk to you on the forum or receive a telegram from you so that we can get to know each other better.

I think this text put the message across without an overt threatening tone and if you have a permanent page on the forum explaining the things covered in the recent conversations it allows new nations to get an understanding of the reasons for your action, how they can co-operate and the consequences if they ignore you.
 
I think too much protest is coming on over this telegram.

In other Pacifics you would find yourself in The Rejected Realms with an automessage and that would be your only notification.

I would consider it to the good that the Delegate took the time to contact you at all.
 
Not protest, genuine concern. I don't really give a monkey's leathery hoop about what other regions may or may not do, I'm in North Pacific and plan to stay so I think it only reasonable that I voice my concern. As it is, they have been resolved through reasoned debate and not blindly ignoring the matter.

Stifling or ignoring genuine concerns does not make them go away, it only fuels them. Surely you must see that!
 
Byakhee: What you present is a good idea, and I intend to use something similar on nations that are rising quickly while they are still in the 50-140 region of endorsements, roughly speaking.
 
Vaticania Prime:
Not protest, genuine concern. I don't really give a monkey's leathery hoop about what other regions may or may not do, I'm in North Pacific and plan to stay so I think it only reasonable that I voice my concern. As it is, they have been resolved through reasoned debate and not blindly ignoring the matter.

Stifling or ignoring genuine concerns does not make them go away, it only fuels them. Surely you must see that!
Click to expand...
Actually, I have found great success in stifling dissent on occasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top