A well-established User-Created Region (UCR) makes a thread in the Gameplay (GP) forum on NationStates (NS) for advertising their regions, their accomplishments and their events. In reply to the thread are congratulations, noting the thread has been a long time coming. These statements are made as if something was missing prior, as if the region has been incomplete—or at least from a foreign affairs perspective.
By applauding regions for “joining” GP, it makes it—making a thread in GP—seem like an accomplishment. Making a thread is not an accomplishment. It is quite easy. Yet somehow this makes it seem as though a region has “made” it and prior, real accomplishments like building a military or your Delegate’s endorsement count do not matter. Indeed, I have seen one of the largest regions with one of the largest endocounts and military be accused of irrelevancy when practically, they are most definitely not.
In contrast, the reaction is remarkably different when a new UCR “joins” GP by making a thread in that typically, there is no reaction barring exceptions when a new UCR has an unique theme. There is no need to congratulate these regions since they are doing what is expected of them and “joining” GP.
These behaviours result as a weird conflation that joining gameplay is entering interregional affairs and that to enter foreign affairs one should join GP. This is most assuredly not the case and while the difference may seem pedantic, it does matter. GP is a subset of Foreign Affairs and the activity of individuals and region’s participation in it can fluctuate similar to partaking in R/D or the WA. Advocating for more participation in interregional affairs can include more participation in GP but it can also mean more participation in other areas of Foreign Affairs. As I am opposed to increased participation in GP (which will soon be discussed) but not to increased participation in Foreign Affairs, this distinction is important. Conflating where a region should direct, and how their Foreign Affairs is important as their resources are limited and they must prioritize.
For myself, I believe working on getting more involved in Gameplay is counterintuitive; it can distract from real interregional priorities, holds little effectiveness and only increases animosity towards our region. Given recent discourse in the region (and outside the region) on our relationship with Gameplay with certain individuals advocating for an increased presence, I felt compelled to outline the issues with Gameplay and inform residents of the North Pacific (or of other regions) of the risks involved.
Make no mistake, this is a direct retort to those seeking to influence the North Pacific (NP) as a region whether from internally or externally to get the NP to participate more in GP under the pretext of getting more involved in interregional affairs.
Ultimately, this text is meant to be informative for those who are unaware of the differences between Foreign Affairs and Gameplay and help them understand why the NP should not be seeking to further their involvement in Gameplay. Lastly, it offers several alternatives for constructive ways in which the NP can further our involvement in Foreign Affairs.
Prior to discussing why foreign affairs is not GP, I would first like to define the terms for those unaware. The definition of foreign affairs is easy. Foreign Affairs is dealing with any member of regions or organizations that is not the NP or dealing with those regions and organizations. Defining Gameplay is tricky it is not just defined by the forum. It is a subset of Foreign Affairs (as it deals with other regions and organizations), not comprising exclusively certain regions and excluding others, not comprising exclusively of certain individuals excluding others, and is not limited to just the forum and not everything in the GP forum counts as being part of the broader and more popular use of GP.
It is difficult to get a good definition of GP. While I will put froward my own definition of GP based upon my discussions with many individuals involved in Foreign Affairs; doubtlessly there will be individuals who disagree with my definition.
Nevertheless,, I will put forward a definition to better explain why the NP should not further their involvement in GP. Gameplay is playing the “game” for power for the sole purpose of increasing one own’s power or playing for the entertainment arising from the interplay of individuals and regions jockeying for power.
Gameplay features what I refer to as negative diplomacy. Negative diplomacy tends to focus not be diplomacy at all, it focuses more on criticisms of regions or individuals, frequently, when there is no relevancy between the entity doing the criticism and the entity being criticized. Such criticism does not come from a place of being constructive nor of good faith but of trying to “one-up” their opponent. Negative diplomacy does jot focus on building people or regions up but rather on tearing them down.
For comparison, I view positive diplomacy as constructively working with other regions in order to achieve mutual benefits (although not necessarily proportionate). These benefits may arise through cooperation in R/D, working in the WA together, sharing intelligence, hosting festivals together, or working together on region building.
This is not to say negative diplomacy should be completely eschewed in favour of positive diplomacy. There are times in which criticisms of other individuals or regions will be necessary and withdrawing collaboration with a region or enacting a form of condemnation (in the WA or otherwise) will be necessary. However, even negative diplomacy can be done in a manner which is professional, polite and respectful representing our region properly. If conducting negative diplomacy, it should be done only when it is relevant to a region and their interests rather than participating on whatever matter/scandal is popular at the moment. Additionally, positive diplomacy should be conducted whenever necessary while negative diplomacy should only be done whenever there is a pressing need for it.
The best way to illustrate why a region or individual should not involve ourselves in GP is to demonstrate activities typical of them: desire for entertainment at the expense of communities, desire for technical change for entertainment at the expense of communities, hypocrisy, focus on unimportant matters, propaganda popularity, does not ofer solutions and is not professional, taking action to mess with other communities, and the involvement of OOC shunned individuals.
As the 2018 year ended and 2019 year began I observed multiple GPers begin to comment on what they were hoping for in the new year: a GCR coup. And not a coup of a specific region for a specific reason—which is an understandable desire regardless of whether one agrees with the target and justification—but rather just any coup. The reasoning expressed for a desire of a coup, while not always stated would typically be entertainment. Let me be clear and repeat for emphasis, there are individuals who would be fine with, and encourage a coup of the North for the purposes of their entertainment. They would not care about harm to our community and how it would set our region back.
Similarly, it is frequently expressed interest in creating technical changes to the game. GPers frequently propose a multitude of technical changes to the game whether these changes are discussed on Discord, proposed in the technical forum on NS or even given consideration and input by site staff. I would have no problem with suggesting improvements to the game designed to make the gamer better. However, the improvements they suggest are more along the lines of making the game more interesting. And improvements which are interesting does not equate good changes. Suggestions have ranged from randomly ejecting a GCR Delegate on a periodic basis to creating more GCRs just to “see what happens” (left unsaid in the case of the latter suggestion is the opportunity for actors to seize power).
These suggestions stem from a point of concern of not wanting GP to stagnate and believing that GP is currently stagnating. Which, is this really such a bad thing? GP revolves around power dynamics changing and the interplay which as the side effect of hurting nations which participate in other communities in NS whether roleplay, R/D, WA authorship or just chatting casually on their region’s RMB.
Such complaints are additionally hypocritical coming from individuals who have worked to remove individuals, regions or organizations which are seen to be harming the security of other regions. This is definitely understandable and would be a position I would take to define my region. There is no harm in working to secure your region or allied regions from security threats. However, combining removing these actors from the game and complaining on Gameplay’s stagnation, is hypocritical. These very same actors were the ones who were spurring the activity which Gameplay was living off of.
There is a focus on criticizing unimportant matters, say the title of a thread not being edited. Focusing on criticizing “problems” lie these are petty and once again continue to detract from more major issues at hand. Similarly, Gameplay will ounce on trivial matters on a whim and beat on the matter repeatedly until another event arises which they are able to criticize uselessly.
Gameplay is a place for propaganda where actors attempt to persuade others of their view (making themselves look good or others look bad). Despite the unprofessionalism, actors attempt to put their best foot forward in polished, edited statements carefully crated and designed to advance a certain narrative. Actors in GP are content to argue for days and for pages about whether a certain event is a “victory” in a war against a region or which they can claim credit for or whether it is not an event which can be attributed to their own actions in their war or not. All this time and resources are wasted in pointlessly arguing in circles in an attempt they will be able to claim they were right and their opponents were wrong. As of yet, there has been no demonstration of tangible benefit to nations or regions by participating in these endless arguments.
Typically, in elections, candidates put forward ideas on where they believe the position they are running for should take their portfolio. If they see a problem, they note it, and they come up with a reasonable solution for they can implement in their time. In Gameplay, problems are definitely noted and brought up critically. Feasible solutions are not put forward, solutions that are proposed, are whimsical and typically designed to benefit the individual proposing the solution and not the region with the issue (eg. put me in charge of the region). While one would hope putting together individuals with such vast experience in a variety of regions and positions together would hope they are able to come up with solutions which are able to implemented, however, as Gameplay is used for their purposes, working together constructively does not happen in GP; such interregional cooperation usually resorts to private forums or chats.
Gameplay prefers to make matters public, to escalate them and for confrontations to be done publicly rather than for actors to deal with the matter professionally in private. As Gameplay is frequently consumed by whatever is deemed to be the “scandal” of the day, the issue being dealt with publicly serves as a form of entertainment for them whereas in reality, whatever the “scandal” of the day is can have a tangible impact on communities, i.e. through damaging a region’s security.
Gameplay has advocated at times for destructive actions which benefit no one such as bumping natives over the Delegate to mess with the region in hopes of causing chaos or to remove approvals of WA costing authors money as they wasted stamps when without interference from GP, the resolution would have made it to vote.
There are individuals who involve themselves on the GP forum and comment on matters there, these same individuals have been banned from the off-site forums of al the major regions for out-of-character reasons. Yet, the same individuals who ban these players who are a danger to communities out-of-character continue to interact with them on the forums. The presence of individuals shunned for OC reasons on the forums is not the fault of GP; rather the issues lie with the NS site staff who are not taking sufficient steps to protect the NS community. As such, the NS community has had to take the steps to protect themselves and each other in the absence of protection from site staff. While generally speaking the NS community has done a good job of dealing with OOC concerns (exceptions exist and a more in-depth discussion of this issue is outside of the scope of this article), it continues to legitimizes players by interacting with them on NS. By communicating with players who should be universally ignored by the NS community , it gives them power (albeit a limited amount) and a platform which they can use in.an attempt to reenter the game. It would be far better to just ignore these players whenever they appear in the absence of site staff which are willing to take further steps to protect the NS community.
This is not to say that GP is never correct regarding some matters or that they should be completely ignored; even a broken clock is right twice a day. But who uses a broken clock to tell time?
Now returning, to the reason which I write this (having first established the downsides to participation in GP)—a conflation of FA and GP—there is interest in becoming more involved in interregional affairs and increasing the North’s presence abroad. However, it is incorrect to target GP as to where outreach and development should happen.
There are definitely areas in which we can do more (which I will outline soon), prior to presenting opportunities I wish to note TNP is involved more in interregional affairs than given credit for, unfortunately this is not given as much credit. During our most recent Delegacy elections, I was surprised to see a candidate put forward an idea to work with Forest on issues; ignoring all the discussions (publicly available) between the governments. Obviously, Delegate candidates should be doing research prior to proposing platforms (which evidently was not done); the point of this example is to demonstrate that private citizens in TNP which should be knowledgeable of this information are not. How can we expect private citizens who are not sufficiently interested in Foreign Affairs to do their own research (although still interested) to know what the government is doing? The Ministry should be working on reducing barriers to accessing information on the region’s position in the world. One way to do accomplish briefing of information is by the Minister’s revival of the Weekly Reports started by yours truly. While the previous iteration was simply a report on internal affairs and what had been accomplished, this can easily be expanded to report on other matters of importance to the region and the current Minister is taking this approach to better inform the region of what transpires.
To reduce the barriers for the majority of citizens to accessing information on Foreign Affairs without needing to resort to participation in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Defence or World Assembly Affairs (for tangentially related information) or needing to do their own research, the Ministry may take the initiative to briefing the Regional Assembly (privately if need be) on matters of import. This would assist the region as a whole to understanding complex situations which, depending on who you are, may have several different interpretations. Were the Ministry to produce a sourced information briefing on both the what happened and what resulted and how it affects North Pacificaners. By presenting a factual summary of events such as the recent events relating to the Pacific and the events relating to The South Pacific, it will be easy for TNPers to be aware of interregional affairs relevant to the North and facilitate discussion between citizens.
Additionally, given the interest of Northerners to doing more inter-regionally, there is definitely an opportunity for The North Pacific to do more interregional especially given the aforementioned ideals of positive diplomacy.
The North Pacific has a suite of allies, each with a different government al system than us. An evaluation of different techniques to recruitment, integration ,and training in collaboration with our allies (and which could be opened up to expand to other regions not allied to us) presents a method fr The North Pacific to involve themselves in other regions-in a way which benefits all regions involved. And most importantly our allies. The South Pacific has recently taken an stronger cultural interest in endotarting. The North Pacific has a strong culture of endotarting—and was recently was ranked first in terms of average number of endorsements. Through a festival designed to increase endorsement levels. While there were issues logistically in participation for The South Pacific, there is no reason that the region cannot continue to share information and procedures on how to best increase security. Similarly, Europeia has had for a number of years now a thriving radio (which has had its own Ministry), The North PAcific’s Northern Broadcast System is currently under a revival. Given Europeia’s consistent success in the area collaboration effort could work to help The North. Additionally, there are opportunities for the NP to collaborate with regions in ways which would mutually benefit both regions in ways that have not yet been explored, from working on cards or collaborating on reviewing different systems in each regions and debating merits of various processes. Such discussions are more constructive than nit-picking other nations or regions for issues without providing a constructive, realistic method for which for them to improve.
In NS, there are innumerable ways for a nation or region to concentrate on improving their own region whether internally or externally. While mentorship programs are frequently given a lot of attention, in the long-term, I have seen reach success. Interregional organizations similarly reach success however can offer many benefits to regions which can make them work (eg. The North Pacific’s participation in the World Assembly Legislative League (WALL)). Alternatively, actors can choose to participate in Gameplay and focus resources there. Is such an approach really worth it though? Is it the best use of resources when focusing on other programs or policies can directly result in tangible effects?
I think there are better priorities and I hope I have convinced you too.
By applauding regions for “joining” GP, it makes it—making a thread in GP—seem like an accomplishment. Making a thread is not an accomplishment. It is quite easy. Yet somehow this makes it seem as though a region has “made” it and prior, real accomplishments like building a military or your Delegate’s endorsement count do not matter. Indeed, I have seen one of the largest regions with one of the largest endocounts and military be accused of irrelevancy when practically, they are most definitely not.
In contrast, the reaction is remarkably different when a new UCR “joins” GP by making a thread in that typically, there is no reaction barring exceptions when a new UCR has an unique theme. There is no need to congratulate these regions since they are doing what is expected of them and “joining” GP.
These behaviours result as a weird conflation that joining gameplay is entering interregional affairs and that to enter foreign affairs one should join GP. This is most assuredly not the case and while the difference may seem pedantic, it does matter. GP is a subset of Foreign Affairs and the activity of individuals and region’s participation in it can fluctuate similar to partaking in R/D or the WA. Advocating for more participation in interregional affairs can include more participation in GP but it can also mean more participation in other areas of Foreign Affairs. As I am opposed to increased participation in GP (which will soon be discussed) but not to increased participation in Foreign Affairs, this distinction is important. Conflating where a region should direct, and how their Foreign Affairs is important as their resources are limited and they must prioritize.
For myself, I believe working on getting more involved in Gameplay is counterintuitive; it can distract from real interregional priorities, holds little effectiveness and only increases animosity towards our region. Given recent discourse in the region (and outside the region) on our relationship with Gameplay with certain individuals advocating for an increased presence, I felt compelled to outline the issues with Gameplay and inform residents of the North Pacific (or of other regions) of the risks involved.
Make no mistake, this is a direct retort to those seeking to influence the North Pacific (NP) as a region whether from internally or externally to get the NP to participate more in GP under the pretext of getting more involved in interregional affairs.
Ultimately, this text is meant to be informative for those who are unaware of the differences between Foreign Affairs and Gameplay and help them understand why the NP should not be seeking to further their involvement in Gameplay. Lastly, it offers several alternatives for constructive ways in which the NP can further our involvement in Foreign Affairs.
Prior to discussing why foreign affairs is not GP, I would first like to define the terms for those unaware. The definition of foreign affairs is easy. Foreign Affairs is dealing with any member of regions or organizations that is not the NP or dealing with those regions and organizations. Defining Gameplay is tricky it is not just defined by the forum. It is a subset of Foreign Affairs (as it deals with other regions and organizations), not comprising exclusively certain regions and excluding others, not comprising exclusively of certain individuals excluding others, and is not limited to just the forum and not everything in the GP forum counts as being part of the broader and more popular use of GP.
It is difficult to get a good definition of GP. While I will put froward my own definition of GP based upon my discussions with many individuals involved in Foreign Affairs; doubtlessly there will be individuals who disagree with my definition.
Nevertheless,, I will put forward a definition to better explain why the NP should not further their involvement in GP. Gameplay is playing the “game” for power for the sole purpose of increasing one own’s power or playing for the entertainment arising from the interplay of individuals and regions jockeying for power.
Gameplay features what I refer to as negative diplomacy. Negative diplomacy tends to focus not be diplomacy at all, it focuses more on criticisms of regions or individuals, frequently, when there is no relevancy between the entity doing the criticism and the entity being criticized. Such criticism does not come from a place of being constructive nor of good faith but of trying to “one-up” their opponent. Negative diplomacy does jot focus on building people or regions up but rather on tearing them down.
For comparison, I view positive diplomacy as constructively working with other regions in order to achieve mutual benefits (although not necessarily proportionate). These benefits may arise through cooperation in R/D, working in the WA together, sharing intelligence, hosting festivals together, or working together on region building.
This is not to say negative diplomacy should be completely eschewed in favour of positive diplomacy. There are times in which criticisms of other individuals or regions will be necessary and withdrawing collaboration with a region or enacting a form of condemnation (in the WA or otherwise) will be necessary. However, even negative diplomacy can be done in a manner which is professional, polite and respectful representing our region properly. If conducting negative diplomacy, it should be done only when it is relevant to a region and their interests rather than participating on whatever matter/scandal is popular at the moment. Additionally, positive diplomacy should be conducted whenever necessary while negative diplomacy should only be done whenever there is a pressing need for it.
The best way to illustrate why a region or individual should not involve ourselves in GP is to demonstrate activities typical of them: desire for entertainment at the expense of communities, desire for technical change for entertainment at the expense of communities, hypocrisy, focus on unimportant matters, propaganda popularity, does not ofer solutions and is not professional, taking action to mess with other communities, and the involvement of OOC shunned individuals.
As the 2018 year ended and 2019 year began I observed multiple GPers begin to comment on what they were hoping for in the new year: a GCR coup. And not a coup of a specific region for a specific reason—which is an understandable desire regardless of whether one agrees with the target and justification—but rather just any coup. The reasoning expressed for a desire of a coup, while not always stated would typically be entertainment. Let me be clear and repeat for emphasis, there are individuals who would be fine with, and encourage a coup of the North for the purposes of their entertainment. They would not care about harm to our community and how it would set our region back.
Similarly, it is frequently expressed interest in creating technical changes to the game. GPers frequently propose a multitude of technical changes to the game whether these changes are discussed on Discord, proposed in the technical forum on NS or even given consideration and input by site staff. I would have no problem with suggesting improvements to the game designed to make the gamer better. However, the improvements they suggest are more along the lines of making the game more interesting. And improvements which are interesting does not equate good changes. Suggestions have ranged from randomly ejecting a GCR Delegate on a periodic basis to creating more GCRs just to “see what happens” (left unsaid in the case of the latter suggestion is the opportunity for actors to seize power).
These suggestions stem from a point of concern of not wanting GP to stagnate and believing that GP is currently stagnating. Which, is this really such a bad thing? GP revolves around power dynamics changing and the interplay which as the side effect of hurting nations which participate in other communities in NS whether roleplay, R/D, WA authorship or just chatting casually on their region’s RMB.
Such complaints are additionally hypocritical coming from individuals who have worked to remove individuals, regions or organizations which are seen to be harming the security of other regions. This is definitely understandable and would be a position I would take to define my region. There is no harm in working to secure your region or allied regions from security threats. However, combining removing these actors from the game and complaining on Gameplay’s stagnation, is hypocritical. These very same actors were the ones who were spurring the activity which Gameplay was living off of.
There is a focus on criticizing unimportant matters, say the title of a thread not being edited. Focusing on criticizing “problems” lie these are petty and once again continue to detract from more major issues at hand. Similarly, Gameplay will ounce on trivial matters on a whim and beat on the matter repeatedly until another event arises which they are able to criticize uselessly.
Gameplay is a place for propaganda where actors attempt to persuade others of their view (making themselves look good or others look bad). Despite the unprofessionalism, actors attempt to put their best foot forward in polished, edited statements carefully crated and designed to advance a certain narrative. Actors in GP are content to argue for days and for pages about whether a certain event is a “victory” in a war against a region or which they can claim credit for or whether it is not an event which can be attributed to their own actions in their war or not. All this time and resources are wasted in pointlessly arguing in circles in an attempt they will be able to claim they were right and their opponents were wrong. As of yet, there has been no demonstration of tangible benefit to nations or regions by participating in these endless arguments.
Typically, in elections, candidates put forward ideas on where they believe the position they are running for should take their portfolio. If they see a problem, they note it, and they come up with a reasonable solution for they can implement in their time. In Gameplay, problems are definitely noted and brought up critically. Feasible solutions are not put forward, solutions that are proposed, are whimsical and typically designed to benefit the individual proposing the solution and not the region with the issue (eg. put me in charge of the region). While one would hope putting together individuals with such vast experience in a variety of regions and positions together would hope they are able to come up with solutions which are able to implemented, however, as Gameplay is used for their purposes, working together constructively does not happen in GP; such interregional cooperation usually resorts to private forums or chats.
Gameplay prefers to make matters public, to escalate them and for confrontations to be done publicly rather than for actors to deal with the matter professionally in private. As Gameplay is frequently consumed by whatever is deemed to be the “scandal” of the day, the issue being dealt with publicly serves as a form of entertainment for them whereas in reality, whatever the “scandal” of the day is can have a tangible impact on communities, i.e. through damaging a region’s security.
Gameplay has advocated at times for destructive actions which benefit no one such as bumping natives over the Delegate to mess with the region in hopes of causing chaos or to remove approvals of WA costing authors money as they wasted stamps when without interference from GP, the resolution would have made it to vote.
There are individuals who involve themselves on the GP forum and comment on matters there, these same individuals have been banned from the off-site forums of al the major regions for out-of-character reasons. Yet, the same individuals who ban these players who are a danger to communities out-of-character continue to interact with them on the forums. The presence of individuals shunned for OC reasons on the forums is not the fault of GP; rather the issues lie with the NS site staff who are not taking sufficient steps to protect the NS community. As such, the NS community has had to take the steps to protect themselves and each other in the absence of protection from site staff. While generally speaking the NS community has done a good job of dealing with OOC concerns (exceptions exist and a more in-depth discussion of this issue is outside of the scope of this article), it continues to legitimizes players by interacting with them on NS. By communicating with players who should be universally ignored by the NS community , it gives them power (albeit a limited amount) and a platform which they can use in.an attempt to reenter the game. It would be far better to just ignore these players whenever they appear in the absence of site staff which are willing to take further steps to protect the NS community.
This is not to say that GP is never correct regarding some matters or that they should be completely ignored; even a broken clock is right twice a day. But who uses a broken clock to tell time?
Now returning, to the reason which I write this (having first established the downsides to participation in GP)—a conflation of FA and GP—there is interest in becoming more involved in interregional affairs and increasing the North’s presence abroad. However, it is incorrect to target GP as to where outreach and development should happen.
There are definitely areas in which we can do more (which I will outline soon), prior to presenting opportunities I wish to note TNP is involved more in interregional affairs than given credit for, unfortunately this is not given as much credit. During our most recent Delegacy elections, I was surprised to see a candidate put forward an idea to work with Forest on issues; ignoring all the discussions (publicly available) between the governments. Obviously, Delegate candidates should be doing research prior to proposing platforms (which evidently was not done); the point of this example is to demonstrate that private citizens in TNP which should be knowledgeable of this information are not. How can we expect private citizens who are not sufficiently interested in Foreign Affairs to do their own research (although still interested) to know what the government is doing? The Ministry should be working on reducing barriers to accessing information on the region’s position in the world. One way to do accomplish briefing of information is by the Minister’s revival of the Weekly Reports started by yours truly. While the previous iteration was simply a report on internal affairs and what had been accomplished, this can easily be expanded to report on other matters of importance to the region and the current Minister is taking this approach to better inform the region of what transpires.
To reduce the barriers for the majority of citizens to accessing information on Foreign Affairs without needing to resort to participation in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Defence or World Assembly Affairs (for tangentially related information) or needing to do their own research, the Ministry may take the initiative to briefing the Regional Assembly (privately if need be) on matters of import. This would assist the region as a whole to understanding complex situations which, depending on who you are, may have several different interpretations. Were the Ministry to produce a sourced information briefing on both the what happened and what resulted and how it affects North Pacificaners. By presenting a factual summary of events such as the recent events relating to the Pacific and the events relating to The South Pacific, it will be easy for TNPers to be aware of interregional affairs relevant to the North and facilitate discussion between citizens.
Additionally, given the interest of Northerners to doing more inter-regionally, there is definitely an opportunity for The North Pacific to do more interregional especially given the aforementioned ideals of positive diplomacy.
The North Pacific has a suite of allies, each with a different government al system than us. An evaluation of different techniques to recruitment, integration ,and training in collaboration with our allies (and which could be opened up to expand to other regions not allied to us) presents a method fr The North Pacific to involve themselves in other regions-in a way which benefits all regions involved. And most importantly our allies. The South Pacific has recently taken an stronger cultural interest in endotarting. The North Pacific has a strong culture of endotarting—and was recently was ranked first in terms of average number of endorsements. Through a festival designed to increase endorsement levels. While there were issues logistically in participation for The South Pacific, there is no reason that the region cannot continue to share information and procedures on how to best increase security. Similarly, Europeia has had for a number of years now a thriving radio (which has had its own Ministry), The North PAcific’s Northern Broadcast System is currently under a revival. Given Europeia’s consistent success in the area collaboration effort could work to help The North. Additionally, there are opportunities for the NP to collaborate with regions in ways which would mutually benefit both regions in ways that have not yet been explored, from working on cards or collaborating on reviewing different systems in each regions and debating merits of various processes. Such discussions are more constructive than nit-picking other nations or regions for issues without providing a constructive, realistic method for which for them to improve.
In NS, there are innumerable ways for a nation or region to concentrate on improving their own region whether internally or externally. While mentorship programs are frequently given a lot of attention, in the long-term, I have seen reach success. Interregional organizations similarly reach success however can offer many benefits to regions which can make them work (eg. The North Pacific’s participation in the World Assembly Legislative League (WALL)). Alternatively, actors can choose to participate in Gameplay and focus resources there. Is such an approach really worth it though? Is it the best use of resources when focusing on other programs or policies can directly result in tangible effects?
I think there are better priorities and I hope I have convinced you too.
