Unibot for the Council of Five

UNIBOT FOR THE COUNCIL OF FIVE​

Innovation, Organization and Pragmatism​

My time in The North Pacific has been a lovely experience ever since I became a regional member during NK’s term, back a few years ago. Out of the feeders, I find The North Pacific offers to people a more developed and complex political and legal environment as well as a rich political history.

Social and political change is obviously on the horizon as this past election we have seen the candidacy of three amazing candidates run for delegacy on the mantra of "change" in the region. I think Eluvatar was the most prepared candidate for this solemn appointment; he is organized and logical, traits that can turn words into actions when we look to our government for change.

As an executive, I would have a good understanding of how the region should establish public job distribution; bureaucracy shall be organized and balanced between bloatedness and exclusivity. To make sure all can contribute to our region actively, we need to also ensure our army is strong and other civil jobs such as, perhaps, election staff is developed (with the system of voting I've suggested, even election pollster jobs could be a possibility), as well as sponsoring a robust “private” sector: I’d look to “private” newspapers and columns run by members of Europeia, for example to demonstrate how media can keep interest alive and develop a political system (I was thinking a publicly run media service that is "opt-out" for news delivery could compete with private, "opt-in" media services), as well as how less political things, like a hypothetical, TNP Rum Sales industry and other private industries can be something that interests players in the same manner that 10ki’s semi-roleplayed economy has been booming for years especially among newer players.

During the past month as Lieutenant-Colonel of the NPA, I have found that Mcmasterdonia’s patience and enthusiasm has been outstanding and a formula for success as we develop the NPA. The main issues that face the NPA is (1) ideology in UCR missions and what exactly our NPA will *do*, (2) recruitment. For the first, I have no grand answer -- these decisions require time and consultation, in addition to a "test of the waters", so to speak, but I agree with Eluvatar in the second debate when he said “I want to see the name of the North Pacific Army respected as a force for good. If we can also build on these relationships, to benefit TNP though some interregional activities, so much the better.” For the second issue, I know how to recruit and grow a military; I’ve done it before and can do it again if need be.

Lastly, I am a believer in The North Pacific leading the charge in experimental, democratic reform that blows the socks, so to speak, off other feederites in NationStates as we lead the way, to be the first to really include our region into our political process, not just as unenthused bystanders or tart fodder, but voters playing an important part in our democracy. I have suggested a palatable experiment to do such a thing and I’d look forward to getting to work with running that experiment and am comfortable with doing more experiments and considering various ideas for democratic reform (however “wacky” these ideas seem although they should be beneficial).

If I were in short to explain why I am an accountable choice as an executive in The North Pacific, it would be because I will work hard, for I want to see Eluvatar’s vision for the region that he pledged to us to come to be realized as much as we all do and because I am both someone willing to experiment and approach the region with fresh, new ways to operate, but also pragmatically organize these ideas and help see us through the process from A to B, which is basically what we’re doing this term. We’ve had months of discussing change, now we’re at A; it’s going to be Eluvatar’s term that brings us to B – a region with sustainable activity and a more inclusive and democratic region with substantially more opportunities for players to get involved with the region and less litigation to confuse or alienate them.

The keyword for my platform is Innovation; we need innovation in all areas to develop our region.

Unibot,
Lieutenant-Colonel of the NPA and Fellow Regional Assembly Member.
Independent.

An interesting read.

Are you or have you ever been a member of the Empire?

unibot:

During the past month as Lieutenant-Colonel of the NPA, I have found that Mcmasterdonia’s patience and enthusiasm has been outstanding and a formula for success as we develop the NPA. The main issues that face the NPA is (1) ideology in UCR missions and what exactly our NPA will *do*

Click to expand...

Interesting, and what, exactly, is it that you want to see NPA doing? You seem to shy away from giving a personal response.

Eluvatar:

An interesting read.

Are you or have you ever been a member of the Empire?

Click to expand...

Nope and nope.

@Blue Wolf, I believe at this time we should probably be recruiting and until then doing more neutral missions -- supporting allies, warzones etc. Once we have a base of people who we can pick the brains of, we can find out whether they'd like to defend or raid, etc. I think if we try to do both, we're going to find it's going to fall apart with a split army or eventually do one or the other whether or not the administration wants it to do both or not. Additionally, we have to keep in mind that as a smaller army right now, it's important to have allied armies across NationStates and it is difficult to get allies when we're trying to play both fields -- since regions and organizations will simply not trust us. So, I do eventually think the NPA will have to pick a side -- just not sure what soldiers will be interested in doing; historically our region has been defender, we have a large contingent of defenders and it's much easier to keep the outside reputation of the region favorable if we're not involved with regional destruction; thus I'm preferential to the NPA going defender, but I could see it going raider if there is a large body of people interested in raiding.

So you think a joint raider/defender military is impossible and want us to pick sides?

Would it ever be appropriate for NPA to intervene in a civil war in a feeder?

If so, when?

Blue Wolf II:

So you think a joint raider/defender military is impossible and want us to pick sides?

Click to expand...

Not impossible, but especially in such a youthful state of an army, an army that both raids and defends will (1) scare away important allies, (2) not be invited to important missions run by other groups, (3) not be something that a large contingent of our defender members can't ethically commit to fully if it raids. Bearing this in mind, I think any attempt to run the NPA as both raiding and defending would just fall apart eventually, because few could ideologically commit to it and it wouldn't be trusted by other organizations; or it would naturally develop into a raiding or defending organization like, say, the Europeian Army which hasn't "defended" since 2009 (Feudal Japan), mostly because it was hurting their foreign affairs and the commitment of members to try to play both sides.

It might however be possible to run the NPA as having a defending and raiding department, brigade etc. The fear is however that the divide would hurt the NPA as a whole when it needs to defend TNP.

Would it ever be appropriate for NPA to intervene in a civil war in a feeder?

If so, when?

Click to expand...

It might be strategically "neutral" to abstain from intervening in a civil war, as opposed to supporting the former and legitimized regime in a feeder which could very well be strategically "beneficial". My thought on the matter is that with most feeders, we want better diplomatic relations with and overall, supporting a regime in its time of need is a good opportunity for building said relations; bearing this in mind and the fact that influence has really dampened the ability to coup a feeder or sinker and hold onto that regime -- we're likely sitting on a solid gamble if we accept a call for intervention (as of late, major attempted coups I've witnessed; Balder, Osiris, TNP, TSP, TRR have all failed). Unless in very dire circumstances that I don't foresee happening, we should probably never provide active military support for a coup against a former and legitimized regime.

Ideally however, we would avoid intervening in situations where most of the region actually does want to overthrow the former and legitimized regime; since these coups will be the most likely to succeed to the fullest extent and be sustainable -- we wouldn't want to, (1) in an ideal sense, deny the region its democracy, (2) in a practical sense, start relations off with the new regime by trying to intervene against it. I don't think we've really seen this kind of coup in years, notwithstanding excellent propaganda which is always a concern too.

unibot:

Not impossible, but especially in such a youthful state of an army, an army that both raids and defends will (1) scare away important allies, (2) not be invited to important missions run by other groups

Click to expand...

What important allies? What important missions? What groups?

Unibot:

(3) not be something that a large contingent of our defender members can't ethically commit to fully if it raids.

Click to expand...

So you're saying because the few extremest defenders within NPA would object, NPA shouldn't raid? Are you suggesting that raiding has no place in the NPA and should be barred?

Unibot:

The fear is however that the divide would hurt the NPA as a whole when it needs to defend TNP.

Click to expand...

How would a duel military hurt the NPA? Are you implying that a Raider Brigade wouldn't protect its homeland or that a Defender Front would abandon its ward?

What important allies? What important missions? What groups?

Click to expand...

Depends on what side we pick.

If we go defender, main allies we'd want would, at least, be The United Defenders League, The Founderless Regions Alliance, The Rejected Realms, 10000 Islands and Texas.

If we go raider, main allies we'd want would, at least, be The New Inquisition, Europeia, The Black Hawks, DEN and The Black Riders. EDIT: And Lone Wolves United, of course, Evil Wolf! Sorry.

If we try to play both sides, neither allies or groups will really be interested in contacting us and working with us on important missions. By important missions, I mean, missions that organizations are going to want to be rather secretive about, because the end result is too valued and competition is too high to invite groups to help that you don't fully trust.

So you're saying because the few extremest defenders within NPA would object, NPA shouldn't raid? Are you suggesting that raiding has no place in the NPA and should be barred?

Click to expand...

Well I haven't see any real push to do raider missions from any of the NPA's soldiers; so I don't see why, when doing both "sides" isn't advantageous and soldiers aren't overly enthused about raiding (not just "extremest defenders"), we should be trying to push for an army that raids and defends? It's bad administrative errors like that leave armies as paper tigers because its executives were avoiding making that difficult political decision of choosing a side.

Am I suggesting that raiding has no place in the NPA? I think we should be testing the waters, recruiting and trying to find out what members *want* to do. I do think eventually we need to pick a side, probably, because we want allies and we want to be invited to missions.

How would a duel military hurt the NPA? Are you implying that a Raider Brigade wouldn't protect its homeland or that a Defender Front would abandon its ward?

Click to expand...

I think it still needs to be discussed, the duel military was actually my proposal, but it received major criticism; I believe the main argument is that it would incite so much competition between the Raider and the Defender brigade that they wouldn't work together well when it came time to supporting The North Pacific.

If some sort of duel military proposal can't be adopted, I don't think "playing both sides" will work out for our army considering the current interregional political landscape.

Are you aware that The West Pacific had both a Defender (West Pacific Liberation Front) and a Raider (Black Sheep Squadron) military and that both militarizes not only did joint operations with their respective peers, but later came together to liberate the region after an internal coup by Wickedly Evil People all but crippled the government?

It seems presumptuous to assume such a set up could not work when we have an example of it working from a sister feeder.

Blue Wolf II:

Are you aware that The West Pacific had both a Defender (West Pacific Liberation Front) and a Raider (Black Sheep Squadron) military and that both militarizes not only did joint operations with their respective peers, but later came together to liberate the region after an internal coup by Wickedly Evil People all but crippled the government?

Click to expand...

That's why I proposed the system...

My worry is though, if people aren't going to accept a split-army, they're going to want an army that tries to do both under one name -- what I am saying is the latter will not work for various reasons that I have explained -- it'll devolve into a paper tiger, the former is up in the air and is always a possibility. I wouldn't dismiss the former out-of-hand; but there are a lot of concerns from others about the former that would need to be resolved before the system was implemented.