[Discussion] Regional Honors

Pursuant to the NPA reform initiative, I'd like to start a discussion about our regional awards.

Currently, we have a hodgepodge of various regional honors entirely at the discretion of the Delegate. Delegate Directive 12 outlines two of these discretionary honors: the Order of Polaris for regional service and the Delegate Service Award for contributing to projects. Delegate Directive 5 (the NPA one) outlines an effectively defunct "Hall of Honour" system that entails a huge amount of red tape to award... and can be unilaterally revoked by the Delegate or Minister. It also has permissions attached to it, which is not good. We have a mess of various "honorary titles" and one-offs and a giant pile of ribbons on top of that. Having myriad awards that are unilaterally created, assigned, and revoked at will makes things messy, increases executive overhead, and diminishes the prestige of any one honor.

Regional honors have serious potential to boost not just the prestige of the people earning them but the prestige and presence of the region itself. While TNP has no issue passing commendations and condemnations for exceptional members of our community, regional honors can serve as a way to recognize the accomplishments of people who may not be commendable quite yet, streamline the commendation process, and potentially provide another accomplishment to be cited in the commendation text (which would boost the presence of the honor and TNP with it).

To that end, I propose creating a formal award for exceptional service to TNP. This award would be enshrined in the Legal Code. It would be nominated by the Delegate and confirmed by the RA, with the RA also being able to nominate and confirm on its own. The same process would apply to revoking the award. Each nomination would have a statement accompanying the award. Every recipient and the accompanying statement would be tracked in a thread. My initial idea was to have a second such award for exceptional NPA service to replace the Hall of Honor, but I'm not certain if that would be too much too quickly.

I'd like to hear thoughts on this, particularly:

1. If having an NPA-specific honor makes sense or if just having one for TNP service would be prudent for now.
2. Whether the award should replace the Order of Polaris (with recipients either being grandfathered in or re-nominated and confirmed) or be something separate.
3. What the honor(s) should be called. So far, I've gotten "Order of Hersfold" and "name it after the person who restarted the NPA" from @Blue Wolf II, and reusing "Order of Polaris" from someone in today's cabinet meeting whose name escapes me. We could call it the "Order of the Ram" for maximum personality cult.

My thoughts:

1. I think having an NPA-specific honor makes sense. There might be some whose contributions remain primarily within the realms of the NPA, but would not constitute overall TNP service. It'd still be nice for their efforts to be recognised.
2. I'm not entirely sure. There could be advantages to re-nominating and confirming, although it might mean lots of votes and discussions, etc. Maybe grandfathering them in would be easier, since an honour was already awarded.
3. I am the person from today's cabinet meeting who said that my preference would be for "Order of Polaris" though I really don't mind that much about what it is called.

I think this is a very worthwhile discussion to be having, especially in the context of ongoing reforms within NationStates and our region.

First, I agree that the current system feels overly fragmented. A mixture of discretionary awards, legacy systems, honorary titles, and ribbons — all created and revoked unilaterally — inevitably dilutes prestige. If honors are meant to reflect exceptional service, then structure, transparency, and institutional backing are essential.

On the question of an NPA-specific award: I do think it makes sense to establish one for the North Pacific Army. There are individuals whose contributions are primarily operational or military in nature. While those contributions may not always translate into broader political or administrative service to The North Pacific as a whole, they are nonetheless vital to the region’s strength and reputation. Providing a distinct avenue for recognizing that service would preserve morale and accurately reflect the diversity of contributions within TNP.

Regarding the name and structure, I would favor reforming and formalizing “Order of Polaris” within the Legal Code rather than discarding it entirely. Retaining the name preserves continuity and tradition, while moving nomination and confirmation to a Delegate + RA process strengthens legitimacy. That balance between heritage and institutional reform feels appropriate.

As for existing recipients, grandfathering them in seems the most practical solution. Re-nominating everyone could create unnecessary procedural overhead and repeated debates over decisions that were already made in good faith.

Overall, a streamlined, codified honors system — with clear nomination, confirmation, and revocation procedures, along with publicly archived citations — would significantly enhance both the prestige of recipients and the institutional identity of the region itself.

I’m very supportive of moving in this direction.