- Pronouns
- he/him
- TNP Nation
- El_Fiji_Grande
- Discord
- El Fiji Grande (#3446)
Editor's Note
by El Fiji Grande, Minister of Communications
Issue XXVII of The Northern Lights builds on the progress made in the last Issue to become a world-class NS newspaper. Featured within this Issue are several articles that discuss TNP's expanding horizons on the world stage. Notably, this will be the first paper with an article written by a foreign author - Sopo. We hope to encourage more authors from abroad to feature as guest authors in future issues of TNL. As always, no views expressed in this or future Issues of TNL represent the official TNP government stance unless otherwise stated.
~El Fiji Grande
TNP Minister of Communications
by Sopo, former President of Europeia
The NationStates Gameplay forum and its offshoot Discord server are in many ways the nucleus of the gameplay world; they are the places where players of diverse backgrounds come together, build relationships both personal and professional, and trade gossip about our small world’s goings-on. Players and regions are able to generate publicity for themselves, both good and bad, through regular updates in a standing NSGP Embassy. Young regions use these threads as a recruitment tool, but they also receive feedback from the community on how to improve. The easiest way for an up-and-coming region to make a name for itself in the world is through a well-crafted NSGP post to generate buzz.Despite the occasional good that comes from our communal watering hole, NS Gameplay is known for its divisiveness. While each region can choose who can and cannot be a member, NSGP is wide open to all players in good standing in-game. Malcontents can conceal the source of their criticism with anonymous puppets which, while frowned upon, remain an effective method to lob bombs while protecting one’s reputation. Even the most mundane of regional announcements on the forum can become subject to nit-picking. Certain regions even become the perpetual targets of specific players, disincentivizing their participation on any level.
For established regions, including large User-Created Regions and the Game-Created Regions, free publicity is less important than it is for younger regions. Nonetheless, in a political simulator like NationStates, the power players still like to throw their weight around occasionally to accomplish something specific or simply to demonstrate relevance. This is an easier feat for regions that are ideologically cohesive where internal constituencies are likely to stand behind any public statement. And it is easier still for regions in which governing power is highly concentrated in one player and thus such statements do not need to be screened by many others for approval. Leaders of such regions have much more leeway to engage in NSGP without fearing backlash from other regional stakeholders, and can generally do so freely. Yet, for those large regions with ideologically diverse constituencies, the benefits of NSGP engagement are nebulous at best.
The North Pacific - the largest region in NationStates and one of the game’s most robust political systems - has maintained a policy of limited engagement with NSGP for quite some time. During Siwale’s most recent two-term stint as Delegate of The North Pacific, the TNP NSGP Embassy remained relatively quiet, with a few editions of The Northern Lights and a statement on St Abbaddon being the only prominent government releases. Siwale had this to say on his NSGP posting philosophy:
"My philosophy was centered around speaking up when my region had something meaningful to say. There is always a lot of noise in NSGP, which is easy to get consumed by. A strong leader on the foreign affairs front is one who is able to sort through the plethora of NSGP chatter and only involve themselves in issues which impact their region or allied regions directly, threaten their region's ideologies, or inflict harm on the greater NS community. Before engaging, leaders should ask themselves: "How does my involvement benefit my region, my allies, and/or the greater NS community?" If they are unable to properly address this question, it is often best not to engage."
Siwale’s philosophy is encompassed in his statement on the pile-off in St Abbaddon. Measured and limited in scope, the statement outlines clear reasons for The North Pacific’s involvement without committing it to any long-term engagement with the New Pacific Order, which occupied St Abbaddon at that time. This statement stands alone as the only official release from Siwale as delegate, demonstrating his commitment to Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick”-style philosophy. The North Pacific arguably wields more foreign affairs clout than any other region in the game today, so there’s something to be said for using it wisely rather than squandering it on the wrong opportunity.
But is TNP missing opportunities by remaining tight-lipped? As the world’s largest region, no one can compete with TNP in stature or prestige. Shouldn’t TNP use its power to shape world events and promote its own ideology and vision for NationStates? One could certainly argue that TNP could have been more proactive on many occasions but instead chose to stay silent. Recently elected TNP Delegate, Pallaith (aka Ghost), explained his own philosophy on utilizing NSGP, and seems to prefer a more proactive approach:
"I ran for Delegate again with an eye toward greater engagement with gameplay. Last time I was Delegate I was more deliberate and tended to stay neutral on the big events of the day since they didn’t touch on TNP directly. But even then I wanted TNP to be a leader and innovate and that just isn’t possible when you keep to yourself and don’t interact with the rest of the game. We have a large footprint in this game but we walk around on tiptoes. Like any other region we have causes and convictions we believe in, and an opinion.
Gameplay can be rough. But it’s something that cannot be ignored. We can have meaningful discussions and participation in gameplay without being dragged into black holes of negativity or getting lost in the weeds of dramatics. That’s the kind of involvement I want to have. If we have something constructive or useful to say, if we can lend our support to worthy causes, if we can speak to our values and vision of a better game and community, then we ought to speak. And we shouldn’t shy away from just socializing and being part of the community that we’re in as NS players."
Though Pallaith’s new government has yet to make a splash in the NSGP forum, he is a familiar figure for most Gameplayers and participates in the NSGP server regularly. A more robust TNP presence would certainly be welcomed by admirers such as myself, but it would not be without its drawbacks. TNP remaining above the fray also means it has generally been free from ridicule. Though the admin team took some heat for the 2017 NS World Fair debacle, the in-character government has generally remained above reproach in the minds of most players, even those who otherwise disagree with TNP’s ideological position in-game. Actively meddling in events not directly related to TNP could bring about significant public backlash beyond that which TNP has known in recent years. NSGP is a famed double-edged sword: reap its benefits, but be mindful of the pitfalls.
The North Pacific continues to thrive without speaking out in NationStates Gameplay, but an ambitious leader could find new opportunities to shape world events beyond TNP’s backyard by taking some risks. With influence unparalleled in the game today, TNP has a powerful voice when wielded wisely. Speak too softly and no one hears, but speak too often and no one listens. Delegates current and future must work hard to find the right balance between restraint and oversaturation. The world is watching.
by BMWSurfer, Minister of Home Affairs
Disclaimer: All data used for this article is based on past proposals found in the WA Archives section of the forum, meaning they all went to vote at some point. It does not include any proposals that failed to reach quorum. A link to a google sheet has been provided at the end of this article, which contains all the data I used for this article. I invite you to read through my data and look for other sources of data to create an informed opinion. Offensive Liberations have been hotly debated from the moment they were introduced. The first of these proposals to make it to quorum, “Liberate Nazi Europe,” by Cormac Stark, would shake the WA SC to its core, and while it ultimately failed, set a precedent that continues to be relevant more than six years later.
“I don't think the Security Council is likely to liberate regions for the purpose of opening them for invasion arbitrarily or lightly -- in fact, I'm not sure it will even do so in this case. But I do think in rare circumstances in which a region is a menace to the interregional community, as NAZI EUROPE and its allies certainly have been, the Security Council should take action to allow other regions to respond with the use of force. It would be difficult for NAZI EUROPE and allies to invade and grief other regions if they're having to constantly worry about defending NAZI EUROPE.”
~Cormac Stark, 2012
While offensive liberations are seen as a major issue in the WA, very few of them are actually put into effect. Only about 30% of all liberations that make it to quorum are offensive in nature, and of those, only 40% pass. Overall, that means that just over 10% of offensive liberations pass, compared to 68% of all liberations.
In looking at offensive liberations over time, we discover that this was even more true in the years before 2018, during which only two offensive liberations passed out of the ten that made it to vote. In 2018 alone, there were five offensive liberations that reached the voting floor and four of those passed. This fact is shown in the graph below.
The cause of this trend becomes clear once we look at which liberations were passed before and after 2018. All five offensive liberations proposed in 2018 targeted fascist or authoritarian regions. Arguments against fascism are much harder to challenge than arguments about gameplay styles. Any argument against an offensive liberation that targets a fascist region must conclude that the offensive liberation will make things worse, not better. Three of the most prevalent arguments are:
(i) Liberations were never intended to be used in this way
(ii) Founders will be more careful to stay active
(iii) These Liberations increase activity in the target regions, defeating the original purpose
of offensive liberations.
Opponents of this variety of liberation will argue that liberations were never intended to be used in this way. This may be true, but when first introduced, liberations were described as being proposals that “...allow the World Assembly to further its aims of bringing freedom and justice to the world.” An open interpretation of this clause could easily include offensive liberations, even if this style of liberation only arose later as an unforeseen consequence.
There is simply not enough data to confirm the first argument, as only one target region has had their founder cease to exist (CTE) so far. This founder CTE’d approximately 500 days after the liberation was passed and if that becomes the trend, we can’t expect to see another CTE until late this year. For this reason, this argument is best left alone until we can collect more data.
For the third argument, that offensive liberations increase activity in target regions, there is data to be analyzed. Three examples from successfully passed offensive liberations have been selected: Nazi Europe, Kaiserreich, and Nazi Europa.
Nazi Europe
Nazi Europe was condemned in July 2009, though this was repealed in December 2010. Nazi Europe also had three main liberation attempts that made quorum: one in October 2012, one in November 2012, and one in March 2013, the last of which passed. We see that the condemnation in 2009 caused the regional population to surge, more than doubling. Following the repeal of the condemnation, the Nazi Europe’s population settled back to about the same level it had had prior to the start of this process. Later, the regional population plummeted during the first two liberations attempts, but resurged during the final effort, which succeeded. In the days following the liberation, a joint military liberation was held, and nations flooded the region. This effort led to the ultimate decline of the region, with a refounding conducted to preserve this piece of NS history.
Kaiserreich was liberated in March of 2018 and we see that at that time there is a little population bump before sinking down again in approximately August. Clearly there is a population jump, but looking at the raw data it is only by 5-10 people. For a region like Kaiserreich, this is background noise and could be attributed to a number of other factors. In the year following the liberation, the regional population has slowly declined, but only time will tell if this will have a lasting effect on the region.
Nazi Europa was liberated in late March of 2018 and while there is a decent bump in the population at that time, that gain was quickly erased and the population has been in decline ever since.
Cormac echoed his 2012 statement in response to a request for comment, stating: “I don't think offensive liberations are inherently either positive or negative, it just depends on what one does with them. I do think we've seen offensive liberations used in positive ways in the past -- against NAZI EUROPE, to be sure, as well as some other regions. So I don't regret being one of the people who pioneered that tactic. It does seem they're being overused now by certain authors, but on the other hand those authors haven't had much success passing unwarranted offensive liberations. At the end of the day, I think WA voters can be trusted to responsibly decide when an offensive liberation is warranted and when it isn't, and I think offensive liberation remains an important tool. It would be as much of a mistake to take a kneejerk stance against all offensive liberations as it would be to pass offensive liberations that are unwarranted. We should take a middle ground approach and use them only when warranted.”
It seems that condemnations have a much more magnified effect on increasing a region’s visibility by vastly increasing the regional population. However, while this is evidenced by the results in Nazi Europe, further evidence does not exist to match this profile. This brings validity to arguments that condemnations only serve to reward regions for their poor behavior. Not only do they become a badge of honor such regions, the notoriety the publicity brings can actually provide a large boost to a region’s population. Offensive liberations, on the other hand, have a far less-significant impact on regional populations, and after a small short-term increase tend over the long term to result in the decline of a region’s population. As such, offensive liberations are more effective when combating other regions on NS.
Data found at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WAhS23wPS_0truC-cCVY95GEbU07SCoV3avrwwFCrXQ/edit?usp=sharing
by Wonderess, Former Speaker of the Regional Assembly
What is it that makes any region great? Is it the history of dedicated delegates or the respectable endorsement count? Is it the various governments that provide activity and services to the region? Or is it the activity and orderliness of the people? The answer is undoubtedly all of these things, but they all share a common thread that unites them and furthermore the region as a whole. This is the vibrant communal nature of NationStates regions which act as fertile soil for all these things to become a reality. With the community acting as such an integral part of the success of the region, it becomes necessary to evaluate the state of that foundation and explore how it functions. This article will discuss the state of regional communities through the examination of two central perspectives taken in communal interactions.
To begin, let us examine two distinct styles of gameplay and how they intermingle to produce community. These will be titled NS Realism and NS Virtualism. NS Realism is a style of playing the game as if its events and conflicts were occurring in real life. Players that adhere to NS Realism act and play the game in a way that reflects their actual character and understandings of the world. NS Virtualism - being the natural contrary - is approaching the game as a fictional space by which a certain personality or playing style can be developed independent of one’s own person. Players usually have a preference for one or the other, but it is also possible that one be an NS Realist at one point in the day and then behave like an NS Virtualist later on. The real interest comes into play when these two types of players interact with one another. It is rather a subconscious reality rather than an explicit understanding between residents and citizens of the region. This means that differences between the two are not at first evident so much as they employ indirect viewpoints of the game and others one interacts with. This is to say that the perspectives are never brought up in discussion but rather are demonstrated by the speaking style and demeanor of each player.
This “chemistry” between the NS Realist and the NS Virtualist takes on an interesting form in regional gameplay, in that the difference is not immediately apparent. In venues such as TNP's Regional Assembly or World Assembly threads on the forum, a unified understanding of the game is developed, because no one questions or considers the out of character reality when players of nations take actions in-game. This is because the ability to freely discuss and casually deliberate is absent in gameplay except for the Regional Message Board (RMB) and forums where there are a mix of in-character and out-of-character interactions. There does not seem to be a solid dividing line between the in-character play and the out-of-character discussion in some places. This is not something that should necessarily be frowned upon, but it makes it more difficult for the player to discern where that line is.
The World Assembly threads of the NationStates forums is an example in which technical suggestions and critiques of proposal policy mix together. There seems to be an innate ability of the player to discern where IC and OOC interaction is acceptable. In a way it is an intuitive skill because it is not well defined. The Realist-Virtualist tension occurs in OOC spaces as this is where value judgments of the game can be made.
How does this distinction reflect the health and state of a region’s communal nature? This foundation requires a certain level of understanding others regardless of how one perceives their region or the game. How can community be strong without the consideration of others’ motives, talents, aspirations, and above all, value? The regional community is as strong as its individuals’ ability to discern others’ value, comprehend their place in the region, and understand how they as individuals perceive their own actions. The mixture of fantastical narrative with real world skills and subject matter can be confusing. To understand who is who and why they matter takes time and effort on each of our parts, but it is worth the effort. Any great region has not gotten to where it is because someone decided on their own what that region is. It is a history of collaboration and mutual understanding that has lead to the regions of today. The Realist-Virtualist distinction is not a divide but rather a talking point to better understand others as people and as players of NationStates. Talking about these things and working through them can only help the region, if only we are patient and caring.
How is it then that the relationships between the Realists and Virtualists can be improved to make a region better? The short answer is time and patience which are absolutely necessary to bring about mutual understanding. This is further accomplished by interpersonal evaluation. The term that has been used to describe those who interact and socialize on NationStates is “the player.” However, never can we forget that these are in fact people. This is to say that we then have to treat others as people with their own thoughts, opinions, dreams, and ideas. The Virtualist has the task of engaging others and seeing that it may not be all about the game to the Realist, because the Realist sees themselves as a person while on NationStates and not just a player. The Realist has to understand in return that the Virtualist is not always around to talk about real life issues and is often nonchalant or casual. The pinnacle of this mutual compromise is talking about it directly instead of allowing the two viewpoints to remain centers of conflict. Talking about how one sees the game itself is beneficial because it builds a sense of understanding even where there is disagreement. A worthy analogy is the Chinese Finger Trap. As long as the two pull away from each other, the trap tightens around the finger making it more difficult to escape, but as soon as the two move towards each other, the trap loosens enough to allow the fingers to escape. Giving an inch can go a long way.
There are effects that come from this building of understanding on the regional level. Building a dialogue and understanding of others in a region can help build the big picture from its small components. A minister of defense can do their job well even if raiding and defending is all they know about in their region. However, meeting and talking with the minister of foreign affairs can build an appreciation for the diplomatic wing of the region and help the minister of defense to see his or her job in the context of the ministry of foreign affairs and diplomacy. There is a better understanding of the whole and one’s place in that whole. It is easy to get into the habit of seeing one’s action as the primary experience of regional dynamics, but by considering the actions and efforts of others there is less chance of misunderstanding, interpersonal tension, and even corruption as the effort is put forth. The North Pacific can always improve in this regard and be the better for it, just as every region in NationStates big and small can. It is simply a matter of championing a communal atmosphere of authenticity, care, and an appreciation of everyone regardless of their position and point of view so long as they wish their region to succeed and to do so by their efforts as well as others.
The Northern Lights: Beauty in Truth
Publisher: Pallaith (Ghost) :: Executive Editor: El Fiji Grande
The Northern Lights is produced by the Ministry of Communications on behalf of the Government of The North Pacific and distributed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Except where otherwise indicated, all content represents the views of the Government of The North Pacific.
Publisher: Pallaith (Ghost) :: Executive Editor: El Fiji Grande
The Northern Lights is produced by the Ministry of Communications on behalf of the Government of The North Pacific and distributed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Except where otherwise indicated, all content represents the views of the Government of The North Pacific.
]
Last edited:
