Security Council Week and the WA Development Program

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
del-seal.png
Security Council week and the WA development program​
Greetings everyone!

On May 31st 2014, two weeks after I was elected Delegate, NationStates had a World Census Report for Most World Assembly Endorsements. At the time, the world top-10 consisted of nine nations from The North Pacific, with seven of them being in the Security Council.

endorsements.png

While satisfying, this result was not perfect. Seeing that, I issued a challenge to Security Council: If, in a following World Census Report on number of endorsements, all of the world's top-10 nations are members of both The North Pacific and the Security Council (with the possible exception of the Delegate of course), I would hold a regional celebration in honor of the Security Council.

Yesterday, NationStates once more had a World Census Report for Most World Assembly Endorsements. The results are shown below.

census.png

census2.png

Even though Abacathea is not in the Security Council, given the special circumstances surrounding his removal and the fact that nation #11 is also in The North Pacific and Security Council, I decided to ignore that (convenient, I know). Therefore, it is time for a celebration!

From December 8th to December 18th, we will be holding the Security Council week (it is technically longer than a week, but let's also ignore that). Each day, one of the Security Councillors will select HMS Unicorn's flag, pre-title, and national motto, as well as set the World Factbook Entry for the day. I will be publishing a list of screenshots for each day's custom WFE and national settings. In the meantime, you can check out the regional page for the first custom decorations in the series, as today we celebrate the Former English Colony day.

In addition to giving us a good excuse for a party, the World Census result is a reminder of how uniquely and remarkably strong The North Pacific is in the World Assembly. We have a lot more WA nations than any other region in the game. Our delegates have endorsement counts that are more than twice as large as those of other feeder delegates, and there are 30 more TNP nations that have endorsement counts larger than any other feeder delegate.

These remarkable statistics are not an accident. They are the result of systematic efforts by consecutive governments of The North Pacific to promote WA membership in the region and to make The North Pacific the best region for WA nations to be in. We do this by using varied and frequent promotion telegrams, and by providing incentives such as the power of WA nations to determine our regional vote. Moreover, for years now, we have been implementing, uniquely among Game-Create Regions, an endorsement policy which, not only does not prohibit nations from rising beyond some minute endorsement cap, but instead encourages nations to actively collect endorsements ("endotart"). In addition to contributing tremendously towards making us the strongest region in the World Assembly, this liberal endorsement environment has been a fundamental security objective of the region and has made us the most secure Game-Created Region in the game.

tnp_wa_development.png
The World Census Report result provides an excellent opportunity for us to reaffirm and reinforce the above policies. For this reason, the Security Council and I as Delegate are announcing The North Pacific WA Development Program. This is a comprehensive effort to further increase promotion of WA membership and endotarting activity, with a diverse and systematic advertisement campaign making use of dispatches, WFE, RMB, and telegrams. Through the program, we provide every single WA nation in the region with state-of-the-art software tools to assist them in gathering large numbers of endorsement counts. Moreover, we will be rewarding nations that take the initiative to join the WA and actively endotart, hoping that they will set an example for more nations to follow.

I encourage you all to take a look at the The North Pacific WA Development Program and take part. If you do not have a WA nation, become a WA member with your TNP nation. If your WA nation is in a different region, move it in TNP. And once you have a WA nation here, take some time to exchange endorsements. By doing so, you make a direct and important contribution to making our region stronger and safer. Finally, you can help promote this campaign by including the following in your forum signature:
Code: 
[url=http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=338370][img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16293499/tnp_wa_development.png[/img][/url]
Before I close, as always there is the obligatory dispatch upvote plug: Please approve of ("upvote") the Security Council week and WA development program dispatches.

Sincerely,
~r3naissanc3r
Delegate of The North Pacific
 
I have to admit this seems counter-intuitive to me. Is encouraging everyone to tart to within 50 endorsements of the VD a good idea? http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8927841 I'm not against collecting endorsements, but this could end up being a security concern. TNP has a liberal policy on endo-tarting, but this kind of activity would cause alarm in other regions (hence endorsement caps). I hope I'm wrong, but I had to voice my concern about this.
 
We will still be carrying out the usual SC policy on dealing with endo tarters. This is usually quite effective at bringing the "security threat" to the forum and to government. So I think we will be able to stay on top of any real concerns if they arise.

I also think it is unlikely that we will have too many nations within that close a range to the Vice Delegate. But this program is aimed at increasing influence, it is vital for our long term security that we have as many nations as possible with high influence. If we can get a significant majority of nations above even 200 endorsements - that would be a massive improvement in where we are now. Even a little bit of influence can make a difference in the event of a coup or rogue delegate.
 
I made an important omission in the OP. A lot of inspiration, feedback, and technical support for the WA Development Program comes from Eluvatar, whom we should all thank for his continued and critical contributions to the security of TNP.
 
falapatorius:
I have to admit this seems counter-intuitive to me. Is encouraging everyone to tart to within 50 endorsements of the VD a good idea? http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8927841 I'm not against collecting endorsements, but this could end up being a security concern. TNP has a liberal policy on endo-tarting, but this kind of activity would cause alarm in other regions (hence endorsement caps). I hope I'm wrong, but I had to voice my concern about this.
Click to expand...
Note that a large part of my response is informed by my experience in Osiris, some of which I served as Vice Delegate and some as Delegate (though most as neither).

TNP's large size, large WA population, and freakishly large Delegate endo count give it the freedom of flexibility. Where in other GCRs 300, 200, or even 100 endorsements would put someone within striking distance of the delegate, in TNP even 300 is barely more than half of r3n's endo count. Even at 400, you need another 170 (as of when I typed this) to take the delegacy.

400 is... a lot of endorsements. Most of the Security Council doesn't even have that and they tart actively, send out TGs, are promoted in dispatches and on the WFE... It would be really damn hard for someone to sneakily become a problem, not to mention the various spotting tools that we have (ily elupants) that make watching people even easier. It's basically impossible for an outsider to take the delegacy in this way, and any individual who tries can be easily removed by the delegate. Sure, a high influence on the would-be invader might make that hurt, but ultimately no big deal.

The biggest threat that GCRs face, and have for years now, is an internal coup - someone gains access to the delegacy through legitimate means, and then goes rogue. Sure, there are some things that can alleviate the risk of this, like careful security screening, investigating hunches about sketchy behavior, not electing people who haven't demonstrated loyalty, and such, but there's ultimately no guarantee. And it's this particular threat that a highly endorsed, highly influential population acts to counter. TNPers have historically been very loyal to the lawful government, and the more of them who are high-cost, the increasingly impossible it is for the rogue delegate to maintain a grip on the region.

There are some risks from a coordinated effort, say eight people who all tart as high as possible, sit there for six months, and then try for the delegacy. If they timed it right, they could be coming at a delegate who had only just taken the seat and was therefore relatively low on influence and endorsements. But that's what the SC is there for - in that case, someone from that body would presumably take the seat to perform whatever banjections were needed, and if there were still some left, they'd switch down the line until it was handled. Even if one of these eight broke through and got the seat, though, they wouldn't be influential enough to remove the SC. In a durk-like situation, they'd then opt to start banning the low-influence nations, going for number over quality until their eventual removal. A high influence spread across the population makes even that harder to do.
 
Silly String:
There are some risks from a coordinated effort, say eight people who all tart as high as possible, sit there for six months, and then try for the delegacy. If they timed it right, they could be coming at a delegate who had only just taken the seat and was therefore relatively low on influence and endorsements. But that's what the SC is there for - in that case, someone from that body would presumably take the seat to perform whatever banjections were needed, and if there were still some left, they'd switch down the line until it was handled. Even if one of these eight broke through and got the seat, though, they wouldn't be influential enough to remove the SC. In a durk-like situation, they'd then opt to start banning the low-influence nations, going for number over quality until their eventual removal. A high influence spread across the population makes even that harder to do.
Click to expand...
Heh. I didn't want to get into specifics publicly, but you are pretty close to what I was thinking. I was also thinking that the first of the eight could get rid of as many SC members as possible, then tag off to the second, and so on. I do agree it's an internal coup that's the biggest threat. It would take patience, organization, and cunning. But if I can think of it (a complete and utter noob with regard to r/d), then the pros definitely can.

Combined with liberalizing requirements to stand in elections (if the Citizenship Bill passes), I think you can see why my spidey-sense tingles a bit. But hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. :shrug:
 
There are dozens of ways to keep someone from becoming delegate. I'm confident that so long as TNP remains fairly active, no one will become Delegate contrary to the regional will.

There is only one way to hope to remove a Delegate (invader, couper, or otherwise) in a large region.

That one way requires there to be plenty of nations they cannot (or will not) eject that will unendorse them and endorse the opposition.

TSP had enough such nations in 2013 to end Milograd's coup after about ten days. Osiris found this more problematic.
 
Eluvatar:
Osiris found this more problematic.
Click to expand...
For a number of reasons - one of which actually being the war plan we had worked out! A touch of irony there. :P

Falapatorius, the difficulty there still lies in gaining the delegacy. IF the delegate were inactive AND the SC were either not paying attention or couldn't get the delegacy in time AND nobody thought to contact our numerous allies and other friends for support (I think the UIAF would come to help r3n, for example, which is another 50-100 endos depending on the breaks), one of them might be able to do so. Maybe. But the way influence works out, they'd have a really tough time removing the whole SC. Maybe one of them could remove the delegate, which would eat up most if not all of their influence (excluding a very very low influence delegate). Switch to another, remove maybe two SC members. Switch again, repeat. It'd take several such switches to remove the entire thing, not allowing for any other banning or ejections, and each time you switch you're reducing overall endo count on your point and increasing the likelihood that someone will pass you.

But yeah, there's some risk, and some damage will be done if it ever comes true. Far, far less though than if we get a rogue delegate (or attack of rogues!) and haven't encouraged people to cross-endo in advance. It's not a guarantee against a coup, but rather a casualty mitigator.
 
Silly String:
Falapatorius, the difficulty there still lies in gaining the delegacy.
Click to expand...
I freely admit the scenario is highly unlikely, but I'm a 'prepare for the worst' type person. Mind you, what if the person was elected Delegate by duping the lot of us ( :w00t: )? I think at this point r3n (just as an example r3n, not insinuating anything) would be difficult to supplant. Oh, and what if members of the SC were in on it? Yeah, I know.. farfetched. But still.
 
falapatorius:
Silly String:
Falapatorius, the difficulty there still lies in gaining the delegacy.
Click to expand...
I freely admit the scenario is highly unlikely, but I'm a 'prepare for the worst' type person. Mind you, what if the person was elected Delegate by duping the lot of us ( :w00t: )? I think at this point r3n (just as an example r3n, not insinuating anything) would be difficult to supplant. Oh, and what if members of the SC were in on it? Yeah, I know.. farfetched. But still.
Click to expand...

If the Delegate and half of the Security Council were to form a junta, it would be difficult to overthrow. It would be impossible without this program.
 
Ah, I posted a thread in the private RA chambers because I missed this.

So, a few questions:

1. Are we seeking to dilute the Influence pool and decrease the power of the Security Council to maintain the safety of the region?

2. Are we seeking to destabilize the region and potentially make it easier for a rogue Delegate to take over and maintain control?

3. Are we seeking to reduce the Influence of a specific member of the Security Council by drawing Influence away from said nation?

Any one of these is a likely outcome of this policy if it is widely accepted.

So, why?
 
1. Are we seeking to dilute the Influence pool and decrease the power of the Security Council to maintain the safety of the region?
Click to expand...
This is not a result of this policy. Any issues the SC might have maintaining the region's safety are independent of this policy, given that TNP has no standing endorsement cap except a large portion of the delegate's count.

2. Are we seeking to destabilize the region and potentially make it easier for a rogue Delegate to take over and maintain control?
Click to expand...
This change does exactly the opposite. It will be no easier for a rogue to take control, and significantly harder to maintain control, if the majority of the native population is highly influential.

3. Are we seeking to reduce the Influence of a specific member of the Security Council by drawing Influence away from said nation?
Click to expand...
This is not sensical. Influence gain is calculated independent of the endorsement or influence activity in any other nation in the region; encouraging people to endorse more freely will not affect any member of the SC other than, perhaps, to boost their own endorsement count and therefore their influence.
 
The 2006 era notion of influence "dilution" comes from the Influence Ranks reflecting a nation's share of total regional influence. As other nations' influence rises, one's share of the total shrinks.

It is actually a goal to reduce, over time, the influence shares and therefore the influence ranks of the most-endorsed nations particularly the Delegate's nation as, logically, the higher the influence rank the greater the nation's influence is compared to the sum of everyone else's.

As a free and democratic region, we neither need nor want our Delegate to have as much influence as possible relative to everyone else in the region. We want them to have a good absolute amount, capable of expelling invaders.

The actual raw influence a nation has, now known to be reflected non-linearly in the "Soft Power Disbursement Rating", is unaffected by the endorsement level of any other nation. By increasing the raw influence of all TNP WA nations, particularly the active ones, we will reduce the wide disparity in influence between ordinary TNP WA nations and the Delegate (and other highly endorsed WA nations such as the Security Council). This will make ordinary TNP WA nations harder to eject by highly endorsed WA nations such as the Delegate.

The end result, and goal, is that a 'rogue' Delegate would find it harder going to eject the endorsers of our Security Council members, which would actually make those Security Council members better able to challenge the rogue Delegate.

This may be made more necessary by the influence changes removing the previous safety valve we had that the Security Council members were literally unejectable by the Delegate. Today, they are only unejectable as a body, not any of them individually, and this will remain the case unless we mandate short Delegate terms. (Which I don't think there is any interest in doing).
 
This is a revolutionary tactic in securing the region, and one that is uniquely suited to our status as a very large, very WA-heavy region. It may only be a matter of time before other feeders catch up to our strategy. If not, their loss.
 
Perhaps my understanding of Influence is different than current reality. Not having dealt with it for some time personally, it is possible that my knowledge is now out of date. My apologies if this is the case. I thought Influence was a conglomerate within a region that was distributed to the nations within based upon their endorsement relation to all other nations. If this is no longer the case and Influence is now completely independent of other nations then I will need to reassess my conclusions.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Perhaps my understanding of Influence is different than current reality. Not having dealt with it for some time personally, it is possible that my knowledge is now out of date. My apologies if this is the case. I thought Influence was a conglomerate within a region that was distributed to the nations within based upon their endorsement relation to all other nations. If this is no longer the case and Influence is now completely independent of other nations then I will need to reassess my conclusions.
Click to expand...

Influence Ranks are definitely affected by other nations. In nearly any other region, HMS Unicorn's influence score of 462 would result in a higher rank than Handshaker. For example, in The Pacific where The Seeker of Power has an influence score of 247 and an influence rank of Auxiliary (5 ranks higher than Handshaker), HMS Unicorn would hypothetically have an influence rank of Powerbroker (7 ranks higher than Auxiliary)[note]That is, if their TNP influence were to somehow become The Pacific influence, without changing the total amount of raw influence in that region. If instead their TNP influence became The Pacific influence and increased that total, they would be an Eminence Grise, one rank lower than Powerbroker, and The Seeker of Power's influence rank would be reduced to Ambassador.[/note]. As TNP has so many nations with so much influence, however, HMS Unicorn is a Handshaker here.

Influence ranks reflect the share of total regional influence a nation has, no more, and no less.

In other words, influence ranks are a conglomerate within a region, distributed in relation to their relative endorsement levels over time. However, ranks are not consumed when influence is used: raw influence is.

Previously, only the influence rank was visible. Today, however, we can also see an influence score which is not relative to other nations. With this new visibility, we are able to think far more precisely and accurately about the raw influence. We've also found with full certainty that to eject and ban a nation costs half of that nation's raw influence, and to eject but not ban costs one third. The raw influence increases at each update as a function of the number of endorsements a nation has, and nothing else.
 
Eluvatar:
Gracius Maximus:
Perhaps my understanding of Influence is different than current reality. Not having dealt with it for some time personally, it is possible that my knowledge is now out of date. My apologies if this is the case. I thought Influence was a conglomerate within a region that was distributed to the nations within based upon their endorsement relation to all other nations. If this is no longer the case and Influence is now completely independent of other nations then I will need to reassess my conclusions.
Click to expand...

Influence Ranks are definitely affected by other nations. In nearly any other region, HMS Unicorn's influence score of 462 would result in a higher rank than Handshaker. For example, in The Pacific where The Seeker of Power has an influence score of 247 and an influence rank of Auxiliary (5 ranks higher than Handshaker), HMS Unicorn would hypothetically have an influence rank of Powerbroker (7 ranks higher than Auxiliary)[note]That is, if their TNP influence were to somehow become The Pacific influence, without changing the total amount of raw influence in that region. If instead their TNP influence became The Pacific influence and increased that total, they would be an Eminence Grise, one rank lower than Powerbroker, and The Seeker of Power's influence rank would be reduced to Ambassador.[/note]. As TNP has so many nations with so much influence, however, HMS Unicorn is a Handshaker here.

Influence ranks reflect the share of total regional influence a nation has, no more, and no less.

In other words, influence ranks are a conglomerate within a region, distributed in relation to their relative endorsement levels over time. However, ranks are not consumed when influence is used: raw influence is.

Previously, only the influence rank was visible. Today, however, we can also see an influence score which is not relative to other nations. With this new visibility, we are able to think far more precisely and accurately about the raw influence. We've also found with full certainty that to eject and ban a nation costs half of that nation's raw influence, and to eject but not ban costs one third. The raw influence increases at each update as a function of the number of endorsements a nation has, and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Okay.

So, if you have 20-30 nations swapping to within even 50% of the Delegate's endorsements then it is conceivable over time that their relative raw Influence score will grow as well, correct? If 10 of those nations decide to continue to swap to within 50 endorsements of the Delegate then their raw influence could amass to a level that is sizable enough to discourage control from the SC, right? Meaning, that if 5 of those 10 nations decided to set up a new government within TNP then potentially the Delegate would not have enough raw Influence to eject and ban more than 2, or eject just 3, leaving 2 that are beyond the Delegate's control. If those nations were also part of the SC then that would further diminish the overall effectiveness of the Council outright, but even if they are not, it is conceivable that one of the two nations will gain the Delegacy and have sufficient raw Influence to eject and/or ban at least one or two prominent members of the SC. Thus leaving the other to then take the Delegacy and maintain control.

So, while not likely, and necessary to be planned over several weeks/months, it seems that this policy could conceivably limit the effectiveness of the SC to secure the region, which is my original point. (And some people plan for longer than two weeks ahead, assuming I am not the only person to have ever played this game with an operational outline that spans years.)

Or am I missing something?
 
Gracius Maximus:
So, if you have 20-30 nations swapping to within even 50% of the Delegate's endorsements then it is conceivable over time that their relative raw Influence score will grow as well, correct? If 10 of those nations decide to continue to swap to within 50 endorsements of the Delegate then their raw influence could amass to a level that is sizable enough to discourage control from the SC, right? Meaning, that if 5 of those 10 nations decided to set up a new government within TNP then potentially the Delegate would not have enough raw Influence to eject and ban more than 2, or eject just 3, leaving 2 that are beyond the Delegate's control. If those nations were also part of the SC then that would further diminish the overall effectiveness of the Council outright, but even if they are not, it is conceivable that one of the two nations will gain the Delegacy and have sufficient raw Influence to eject and/or ban at least one or two prominent members of the SC. Thus leaving the other to then take the Delegacy and maintain control.
Click to expand...
Over time (six months), raw influence will indeed come to be roughly proportional to endorsement count (assuming a stable endorsement count).

This program does not (and cannot) repeal the law against "reckless endorsement gathering" contained in Chapter 5, Section 4. That law effectively prohibits willfully getting within 50 endorsements of the Vice Delegate, or exceeding the Vice Delegate's endorsement count. Your scenario would involve 10 nations which somehow slip through and are not addressed by that process... over the course of six months. Such a hypothetical failure would have nothing to do with a program such as this and everything to do with gross incompetence.

Gracius Maximus:
So, while not likely, and necessary to be planned over several weeks/months, it seems that this policy could conceivably limit the effectiveness of the SC to secure the region, which is my original point. (And some people plan for longer than two weeks ahead, assuming I am not the only person to have ever played this game with an operational outline that spans years.)
Click to expand...

This program would reduce how many nations any particular nation in TNP could be expected to be able to boot. In that sense, yes, it would limit the ability of the Delegate or SC to exert absolute control.

Gracius Maximus:
Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

What you're missing, I think, is that the SC's ability to secure the region from a rogue delegate actually depends on two factors: whether they themselves can be removed as threats, and whether enough of their endorsers can be removed so as to let the rogue delegate keep the delegacy. The former is slightly improved by this program, as it encourages TNP nations to endorse the SC first off, the latter may be greatly improved.
 
Eluvatar:
Gracius Maximus:
So, if you have 20-30 nations swapping to within even 50% of the Delegate's endorsements then it is conceivable over time that their relative raw Influence score will grow as well, correct? If 10 of those nations decide to continue to swap to within 50 endorsements of the Delegate then their raw influence could amass to a level that is sizable enough to discourage control from the SC, right? Meaning, that if 5 of those 10 nations decided to set up a new government within TNP then potentially the Delegate would not have enough raw Influence to eject and ban more than 2, or eject just 3, leaving 2 that are beyond the Delegate's control. If those nations were also part of the SC then that would further diminish the overall effectiveness of the Council outright, but even if they are not, it is conceivable that one of the two nations will gain the Delegacy and have sufficient raw Influence to eject and/or ban at least one or two prominent members of the SC. Thus leaving the other to then take the Delegacy and maintain control.
Click to expand...
Over time (six months), raw influence will indeed come to be roughly proportional to endorsement count (assuming a stable endorsement count).

This program does not (and cannot) repeal the law against "reckless endorsement gathering" contained in Chapter 5, Section 4. That law effectively prohibits willfully getting within 50 endorsements of the Vice Delegate, or exceeding the Vice Delegate's endorsement count. Your scenario would involve 10 nations which somehow slip through and are not addressed by that process... over the course of six months. Such a hypothetical failure would have nothing to do with a program such as this and everything to do with gross incompetence.

Gracius Maximus:
So, while not likely, and necessary to be planned over several weeks/months, it seems that this policy could conceivably limit the effectiveness of the SC to secure the region, which is my original point. (And some people plan for longer than two weeks ahead, assuming I am not the only person to have ever played this game with an operational outline that spans years.)
Click to expand...

This program would reduce how many nations any particular nation in TNP could be expected to be able to boot. In that sense, yes, it would limit the ability of the Delegate or SC to exert absolute control.

Gracius Maximus:
Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

What you're missing, I think, is that the SC's ability to secure the region from a rogue delegate actually depends on two factors: whether they themselves can be removed as threats, and whether enough of their endorsers can be removed so as to let the rogue delegate keep the delegacy. The former is slightly improved by this program, as it encourages TNP nations to endorse the SC first off, the latter may be greatly improved.
Click to expand...
I believe I have discovered the (my) disconnect. It would appear that I misread the Telegram. I thought it stated any nation could swap with 50 endorsements of the Delegate, not the Vice Delegate. My mistake.

However, taking that into account, the same scenario as outlined above could conceivably work and compromise the integrity of the system. 10 'rogue' nations (and finding 10 nations that want to take part in disrupting life in a feeder isn't difficult really) swapping to ~350 endorsements (or more considering that COE will likely continue to swap, would substantially limit the Delegate (and SC) in policing the region if they collectively decided to push beyond the limit, or had invader forces move in en masse to bolster them.
 
In your revised scenario, these nations would have 100 fewer endorsements than the Delegate, a somewhat difficult range to try to breach swiftly.

We generally strive for the Security Council to mostly exceed the endorsement levels of everyone else: Currently, of the top 12 nations in The North Pacific by endorsements, only Abacathea and General COE aren't permanent members of the Security Council, and their endorsement levels are high by reason of holding or having recently held the office of Vice Delegate.

I would expect this to continue.

Therefore the hypothetical 10 hostile nations, would have rather less influence than the Security Council in total. Should they try to swiftly go for the delegacy, the Delegate would be quite able to eject any invader nations brought in to endorse them, the government could ask TNP nations to unendorse these nations, and in extremis the region could put one or more SC members into the seat to expel these nations.

Given how long such a plot would take, and how much coordination, and how many tools the government would have to stop it, I'm skeptical that we need to worry about it more than about the possibility of electing someone willing to betray us.
 
Eluvatar:
Given how long such a plot would take, and how much coordination, and how many tools the government would have to stop it, I'm skeptical that we need to worry about it more than about the possibility of electing someone willing to betray us.
Click to expand...
Aye. The biggest threat for all GCRs is, and has been for some time, the internal coup.

Of course, as has been said before... yes, if the Delegate and all of the SC were to collectively decide to coup together, they would be immensely difficult to displace. Even in that situation, though, this new initiative will make restoring the rightful government easier[note]But not easy[/note] to accomplish.
 
I will concede the point. That said, I worry that the feeders have become too complacent in the face of the low quality of rogue Delegates that have existed in NS over the last few years. It only takes one person with a good plan and a few committed followers.
 
Gracius Maximus:
I will concede the point. That said, I worry that the feeders have become too complacent in the face of the low quality of rogue Delegates that have existed in NS over the last few years. It only takes one person with a good plan and a few committed followers.
Click to expand...

I sometimes worry about the same.

That said, the political infrastructure is much better now than it was in, say, 2005. TNP in January 2005 was 'ripe for the plucking' in many ways: the constitutional government was deeply dysfunctional and completely unable to reconcile its differences in a constitutional manner, so it was far easier to persuade people to abandon that system. There were no established bodies or organizations devoted to enforcing the constitutional regime either (besides the Delegacy itself, I suppose). I'm sure I've forgotten some more reasons.

I think there may be a reason why Milograd did not even try to persuade any active tSPers to join him in his coup. JAL too has noted that he chose his courses of action as Durkadurkiranistan II reconciled to holding the delegacy for any significant period being impossible for him.

The Osiris Fraternal Order, on the other hand, was frankly an outright successful coup, and again I believe it was successful mostly because the former system had in fact already been abandoned. Thankfully for Osiris, the coupers involved in OFO believed it to be in their interests to make the new regime a pretty democratic one.

There is also the argument that if we can't persuade a majority of TNP WA nations to unendorse a rogue delegate and endorse the legal acting Delegate, we don't deserve to call ourselves the legitimate democratic government. :unsure:
 
Eluvatar:
The Osiris Fraternal Order, on the other hand, was frankly an outright successful coup, and again I believe it was successful mostly because the former system had in fact already been abandoned. Thankfully for Osiris, the coupers involved in OFO believed it to be in their interests to make the new regime a pretty democratic one.
Click to expand...
I believe there were a combination of factors which improved its ability to succeed.

First, as you mentioned, the former legal government was abandoned under my oversight. Whether or not you choose to call this a coup, the collective citizenry, including all of the members of all of the governmental bodies excluding a single person who was not online at the time, decided that we were fed up with our current system and considered it dissolved. This preexisting sentiment was exacerbated by a mostly failed constitutional convention, which had garnered verbal support but very little active participation.

Things only fell apart after that, when it became clear that there were multiple competing visions for what this dissolution meant, visions that were fundamentally irreconcilable. Some wanted a more blatantly top-down dictatorship under my firm control, while others had planned on me proposing a new draft constitution (or getting someone else to do so) and putting it to a vote. I, on the other hand, wanted to govern without government - get people interacting with each other in a friendly way, doing things they enjoyed doing, without a focus on titles and power and strict structure (an approach derogatively referred to as a sandbox, a term I continue to object to).

What this meant is that when I handed the delegacy to Venico, who was my second in command, the region was deeply, deeply divided, and angry, and eager to unite behind something. The OFO structure gave them that something, which meant that the coup had widespread native support - if we can even still call it a coup at this point, given that fact. That alone meant it was practically guaranteed success, though it couldn't necessarily have been predicted beforehand.

Another factor was the influence situation. Osiris has always been a relatively low-endorsement sinker; I believe the highest I ever got in endos was 120-ish. It also had a very low endo cap of 20, and only three individuals on its security council. Additionally, influence decay had just been implemented at the end of that summer, which meant old, high-influence nations were weakening. During the coup (to continue with the term for now), this meant that the delegate, Venico, had been sitting with a bunch of endos for a while, and his own second in command, Koth, had my nation, the former delegate, which also had a lot of influence stored up - I gave it away when I resigned to keep me from coming back or doing something I would regret. The third participant in founding the OFO, Cormac, was the legal delegate immediately preceding me, but his influence had waned since he was banned from the reigon by Douria/Durk. Of the individuals they removed during their takeover, only three or so were high-influence, and they traded the delegacy between themselves in order to do so. But this was only possible because Osiris' overall influence was so small - if the SC had been larger, or the endocap larger, the cumulative influence required to remove unwanted nations would also be larger and it would have been harder for them to succeed without another conspirator or two. In TNP, on the other hand, we have like ten people on the SC, plus another pile who are highly endorsed and influential and who would definitively support the rightful government (and thus need removed during a coup). Our sheer size means that the size of the conspiracy to overthrow us must be larger, and a larger conspiracy means a harder-kept secret.
 
The Security Council "Week" has now concluded. It turned out to be closer to two weeks than one due to my recent absence, but I hope people enjoyed it nonetheless.

You can find screenshots of all the custom WFEs and nation decorations in this dispatch, which you should also approve of ("upvote").

Furthermore, Volume 1 of the WA Development Program Awards has been released! The WADP program has already considerably boosted our WA statistics, in terms of both several new WA nations and an extraordinary increase of regional saturation from 6.8% to more than 7.7%.

You can take a look at the awards, and approve of ("upvote") the dispatch to increase the visibility of the program. You can also join the WA and give out endorsements yourself, in order to win your own awards in the next volume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top