- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
First draft. Waiting to hear from Stujenske (as the new Delegate of Lazarus) and might move some of these quotes around. Sit tight for a bit.
“On Regional Sovereignty”
Recently, Eluvatar, former Delegate of the North Pacific, former Delegate of Taijitu, and the incumbent Minister of Defence of the North Pacific presented a document “On Regional Sovereignty” to the gameplay community. The document was co-authored by Funkadelia, Myroria and Eluvatar, all in their capacity as members of the Free Region of Taijitu.
Former Chairman of the Peoples Republic of Lazarus, Funkadelia, said that the document was a result of many months of work following the regional sovereignty conference. From a first glance, the document appears to be nothing particularly new. It is not all that uncommon for old ideas to be repackaged as new ones - give them an alluring title and cloak them in romanticised rhetoric and you have it sorted. Delegate Unibot of the Rejected Realms said that “the articles fails to distinguish its ideas from defenderism. It presents defenderism in a strawman form - a 'morally righteous' ideology that requires its ideologues to militarize. In all actuality, defenderism is a system of ideas that present the simple notion that defending innocent regions is a good thing to do - a normative dimension that sovereigntism shares.”
The article may have been inspired by the events of the regional sovereignty conference, but it was presented and signed by three individuals - not by the present members of the conference. Unlike the Independence Conference, the Conference on Regional Sovereignty was not successful enough to present a unified rationale of principles. One can clearly see why Conference attendees would have stalled, if this was similar to the presented product at the conference.
Firstly, it would appear that the document suggests that all regions have a community, and that this community requires protection. I believe that this would have a very poor application in practice. Are regional puppet dumps the home to a community? The level of community in a region is entirely up for questioning and debate. There is no clear cut approach to determining whether a region has a community or not.
This view is shared by other prominent NationStates gameplayers:
“I don't recognize that region and community are one and the same, as the article claims. The vast majority of regions in NS do not have anything resembling a community. It is an arbitrary assertion.” ~ HMS Unicorn/R3naissanc3r
““The level of community can be greatly questioned in regions which are founderless and in particular have only a handful of members if that. So instead what I see here by Funk, Elu and Myr is more of a one size fits all policy that ignores how nearly all regions are founded. It strikes me more as a sort of prejudice and stereotype in the way it portrays regions.” - Rachel Anumia, Queen of Balder
The document attempts to apply arbitrary assumptions to remask moralist defender rhetoric into a “new” approach to military gameplay. The result, has had some surprising consequences, where in a rare turn of events, the article united both Onderkelkia and Unibot in their criticism of the piece
“Unibot is quite right that this is a one-sided take on regional sovereignty. A sovereign region has the prerogative to act for itself. This seems to view sovereignty as the right to be protected by people who have nothing to do with your affairs who wish to interfere in disputes between sovereign regions. Sovereign regions don't accept external ideological constraints on their capacity to pursue foreign policy options.” - Onderkelia, Emperor of the Land of Kings and Emperors.
The document leaves a lot unanswered - specifically, it fails to specify how one should determine which communities are deserving of the protection of sovereigntists. One of the chief authors, Eluvatar said it would be determined by “individuals determined to do right”, which is of course, subjective, and in no means helpful to interpreting the practical application of the “sovereigntist” ideology. While it may well be “the height of hubris to think that a brief manifesto of this nature can answer all questions unambiguously”, it would be nice if the manifesto or it’s authors would answer some of the questions.
Are we likely to see this new brand of ‘sovereigntism’ take off across nationstates? I highly doubt it. We are more likely to see a second convention on regional sovereignty, but whether or not that conference will result in an agreement to these sort of ideals, only time will tell.
“On Regional Sovereignty”
Recently, Eluvatar, former Delegate of the North Pacific, former Delegate of Taijitu, and the incumbent Minister of Defence of the North Pacific presented a document “On Regional Sovereignty” to the gameplay community. The document was co-authored by Funkadelia, Myroria and Eluvatar, all in their capacity as members of the Free Region of Taijitu.
Former Chairman of the Peoples Republic of Lazarus, Funkadelia, said that the document was a result of many months of work following the regional sovereignty conference. From a first glance, the document appears to be nothing particularly new. It is not all that uncommon for old ideas to be repackaged as new ones - give them an alluring title and cloak them in romanticised rhetoric and you have it sorted. Delegate Unibot of the Rejected Realms said that “the articles fails to distinguish its ideas from defenderism. It presents defenderism in a strawman form - a 'morally righteous' ideology that requires its ideologues to militarize. In all actuality, defenderism is a system of ideas that present the simple notion that defending innocent regions is a good thing to do - a normative dimension that sovereigntism shares.”
The article may have been inspired by the events of the regional sovereignty conference, but it was presented and signed by three individuals - not by the present members of the conference. Unlike the Independence Conference, the Conference on Regional Sovereignty was not successful enough to present a unified rationale of principles. One can clearly see why Conference attendees would have stalled, if this was similar to the presented product at the conference.
Firstly, it would appear that the document suggests that all regions have a community, and that this community requires protection. I believe that this would have a very poor application in practice. Are regional puppet dumps the home to a community? The level of community in a region is entirely up for questioning and debate. There is no clear cut approach to determining whether a region has a community or not.
This view is shared by other prominent NationStates gameplayers:
“I don't recognize that region and community are one and the same, as the article claims. The vast majority of regions in NS do not have anything resembling a community. It is an arbitrary assertion.” ~ HMS Unicorn/R3naissanc3r
““The level of community can be greatly questioned in regions which are founderless and in particular have only a handful of members if that. So instead what I see here by Funk, Elu and Myr is more of a one size fits all policy that ignores how nearly all regions are founded. It strikes me more as a sort of prejudice and stereotype in the way it portrays regions.” - Rachel Anumia, Queen of Balder
The document attempts to apply arbitrary assumptions to remask moralist defender rhetoric into a “new” approach to military gameplay. The result, has had some surprising consequences, where in a rare turn of events, the article united both Onderkelkia and Unibot in their criticism of the piece
“Unibot is quite right that this is a one-sided take on regional sovereignty. A sovereign region has the prerogative to act for itself. This seems to view sovereignty as the right to be protected by people who have nothing to do with your affairs who wish to interfere in disputes between sovereign regions. Sovereign regions don't accept external ideological constraints on their capacity to pursue foreign policy options.” - Onderkelia, Emperor of the Land of Kings and Emperors.
The document leaves a lot unanswered - specifically, it fails to specify how one should determine which communities are deserving of the protection of sovereigntists. One of the chief authors, Eluvatar said it would be determined by “individuals determined to do right”, which is of course, subjective, and in no means helpful to interpreting the practical application of the “sovereigntist” ideology. While it may well be “the height of hubris to think that a brief manifesto of this nature can answer all questions unambiguously”, it would be nice if the manifesto or it’s authors would answer some of the questions.
Are we likely to see this new brand of ‘sovereigntism’ take off across nationstates? I highly doubt it. We are more likely to see a second convention on regional sovereignty, but whether or not that conference will result in an agreement to these sort of ideals, only time will tell.
