Edited version of TD's submission for this week (submitted via PM).
Recently, we sat down with recently appointed NationStates moderators Mall and Mousebumples, to talk about their experience as moderators and their thoughts on the various happenings in the World Assembly.
Treize_Dreizehn (TD): Hey everybody, this is Treize Dreizehn for the Northern Lights. I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine, NationStates moderator Mousebumples. Mall, also a NationStates moderator, will be joining us shortly.
I think we're all busy folks so we'll dive right into the questions. What was the process that lead to your becoming a moderator?
Mousebumples (Mouse): In the spring, there was some talk on the NS forums that more GA mods might be helpful - in part because of absences that some GA mods had coming up for the summer, in part because of the inactivity of a previous mod who tended to cover the GA (Flib), and in part because of the need for new voices after the GA#2 repeal controversy.
The mods/admins put out a call - specifically looking for players to suggest GA mods - and both Mall and I were nominated. I'm sure others were nominated too, but when the final decision was made, Mall and I were both invited to join the mod team.
TD: So. After becoming moderators, you encountered some... resentment towards your selection, can you go into a little detail about that?
Mouse: Moderating the site/GA isn't necessarily an easy position as you can't be everyone's friend all the time. There will always inevitably be players that disagree with rulings and decisions that are made, so I don't know that any of the discord that we've experienced has been overly unexpected, I don't think.
TD: Though, it appears intense, from an outside observer's perspective. Is it different from yours?
Mouse: It's all relative. As I've been playing NS for almost 11 years, I saw plenty of disagreements and challenges to moderator rulings of all sorts prior to being modded. It's unreasonable to expect players to always calmly accept all rulings that don't go their way, I think.
TD: Which ruling or rulings of yours have brought the most controversy?
Mouse: I'd probably defer to the general public that's more impacted by such rulings. GA rulings are made collaboratively, so we don't really have any mod controversy about the rulings that we've made since being modded and that's more my frame of reference now.
** At this point Mall joined our chat, claiming to still be hungover after celebrating a raucous minor update.
Mall: Wooooo.
TD: Haha! Just in time man, we're going to shift gears a bit to GA proposals.
What has been your favorite proposal to make it to vote so far? Not counting ones you authored.
Mall: Hmmmm that's tough. I'd have to say that the Clean Prostitute Act will always hold a special place in my heart because of how bafflingly simple it was and how easily it was passed.
Mouse: I'll vote for one of yours - Repeal "Dignified End of Life Choices" because that was one I wanted to see repealed for awhile. I don't love the replacement, but ... that's a project for a later date.
TD: And what's your favorites proposals to make it to vote since you became mods?
Mall: Eh since modship I don't have any favorites. Nothing has really jumped out at me as being particularly outrageous or inspiring competition.
Mouse: Since modship, I'll vote for Sanctaria's "Child Welfare in Adoption" - Adoption is a topic that I've wanted to see added to the annals of WA law for awhile, but I never felt strong enough in that area to want to cover it myself. So, I'm glad to Sanctaria do so - and to avoid doing so in a micromanagey way, too!
TD: Haha. That actually brings me to a common topic for all of us. In a recent TRT article, Gruenberg opined that that "Natsov is dead". Do you agree with that sentiment?
Mall: As long as there are nations there will be a NatSov movement. From an IC perspective obviously I disagree, from an OOC perspective I'd say that it's an incredibly bold claim that I don't think is backed by any hard evidence.
Mouse: I agree that that's Gruenberg's opinion. I don't agree with the statement since I have plenty of players that oppose intensive WA intervention into member states.
So long as the GA exists, NatSov will always be chipped away at with new legislation; however, I think that there are still plenty of players that are opposed to excessive GA intervention and are not afraid to vote down legislation that they feel is overly invasive on those grounds.
TD: Does it seem that there is more of a trend of repeals recently?
Mouse: it goes in cycles
Mall: I'd agree. We're not at where we were a few weeks or months ago when we were passing six repeals in a row.
Mouse: I don't know that there are currently any repeals at quorum, but, there obviously have been a bunch recently. I think some voters (and authors) get tired of drafting and submitting repeals endlessly - some being the keyword, as I know you like to repeal lots of things ... Although even you have submitted New Legislation now.
TD: Shocking I know.
Last question then I'll let you guys get back to work. If you had a chance right now to repeal a resolution and be sure it'd pass, which one would you choose, and why?
Mouse: I'd love to repeal all the WA legislation and start over - in part because it's getting difficult to legislate on a lot of things because of all the legislation that's already been passed. But ... one thing to repeal, hrm.
Mall: Personally I'd like to take out NAPA just so that Flib would be woken from his slumber and whack us with his longstanding threat to pass a replacement.
TD: Haha. Mouse, I'm holding you to a specific answer here.
Mouse: Convention on Execution. Because if the GA is going to have a resolution on the death penalty it should be more NatSov'y than that resolution is.
TD: Fair enough!
It was great talking to you two, and good luck with the unwashed masses of diplomats and bureaucrats.
Mall: It has been our pleasure I'm sure
Mouse: What Mall said. Thanks for the interview.
** Post interview, we decided to do a small chat with Mall on his recent "Liberate Haven" proposal.
TD: Thanks for sticking around. Can you walk us through the events of the Liberate Haven proposal?
Mall: Sure! I knew that I was going to attempt to utilize the SC in that manner for awhile, the question was which region to target. I was torn between The Proletariat Coalition and Haven. Both regions had ties to past events which might make them open to criticism, and I basically flipped a coin and it came up Haven.
TD: And which manner is that?
Mall: An outright attempt to open up a region for invasion. Traditionally of course the SC has been used to open up regions so that defenders can save it. After that I threw the draft together, posted it, and managed the thread as best I could for the dozens of pages it went on.
TD: It didn't go quite as you expected though?
Mall: Nothing in gameplay really ever goes according to plan, especially not when you get the SC involved. Obviously there was significant opposition which negated any chance of getting the proposal to pass so that was abandoned after the proposal failed to reach quorum.
TD: Do you believe that the RPers of NS deserve a right to Opt Out of R/D?
Mall: I think the more important question is whether or not an "opt out" from "r/d" is ever really possible... as long as there is a player with power in a region or system then there is the potential for them to use it nefariously. I really haven't seen a proposal so far that can't be worked around. But they are more than welcome to keep coming up with suggestions.
TD: And what do you say to some of your allies(former or otherwise) who believe this proposal has resulted in a political environment that is more hostile to raiding and imperialists?
Mall: I don't think there has been any political shift. Raiders keep raiding, the Imperialists keep pursuing their interests, we generally get along well, and the world keeps on spinning.
TD: Alright. Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. I'm sure there's plenty of folks that'll be interested in your responses on this issue.
Mall: Oh there always are.
