With regard to the Honourable Members suggestion for an 'Anti Pacific Alliance' hereafter referred to as the APA, I submit this response from a Defence and Intelligence Perspective. It is hoped that the questions raised will allow further dialogue to assess the validity and achievability of this proposal.

According to their Charter (I can provide it if it would be of assistance), the League of the Pacific’s (hitherto referred to as TLP) is an organisation founded to restore order to the five Birth Regions. Much as the NPO's original charter set out to do, TLP has set out to achieve this by different methods. A comparable real-life example would be The Illuminati or other such organisations who, through difference of opinion and ideologies now follow separate paths striving to achieve the same goal. It is much the same here, as both organisations seek to end the in-fighting within the Pacific’s and create their own vision of Utopia for the Birth-Regions. However, with the inherent amount of power struggles and political-bureaucracy this vision of the ideal has become obscured as micro-power games are created and recreated. To concede, it has become apparent as the Honourable member stated that the minority are those holding true power as well as the keys to open the doors to become involved in the democratic-process.

This further emphasises that both the NPO and TLP are peas from the same pod and that their process of achieving the goal has become warped through no fault of their own and derived power play inherent in major Region politics. There can be no one unifying force or alliance. The most prudent course of action would be for all five Pacific’s, The Rejected Realms, and Lazarus, to agree on a shared Constitution, but leave the enforcement of said constitution to the duly democratically elected Cabinet and populous of respective Region. The creation of another such large organisation will only serve to heighten the current level of power-politics and drive them further of the goal they seek to achieve.

The ADN was never anything more that a defensive alliance for the preservation of peace (with loose use of the term) within The Pacific’s. Even the Militaries of the five Pacific’s were no more than a tokenistic approach in maintaining order and these themselves were the bulk of the ADN. Naturally, this incited power-games in conjunction with those within the Respective Regions' government, meaning that the ADN could never truly fulfil it's function unless a hierarchy was agreed upon by all members. That was never going to happen due to the nature of the Pacific’s and the instability that arose from the time that Francos Spain declared the North Pacific as The New Pacific Order.

Due caution is necessary here. If not careful, and this alliance comes into being, it could become that which it was designed to combat and fall into the same power-trap.

If this were to be true, it would be necessary to instigate mass-constitutional amendments so that each member Region held electoral processes at the same time to ensure consistency of policy, implementation, and vision. Some Regions may not agree to the fundamental altering of their politics at the micro-systemic level.

My only concern here is: If a Region circumstances change making it no longer meet the necessary entry criteria for the APA would that Region, by default, be expected to forfeit membership? If this proposed alliance hold true to it's core ideals and philosophies, the answer is a categorical unequivocal yes.

The idea in principle is a true vision of democratic-utopia. Theoretically, the design, implementation, and maintenance of such alliance is plausible. Systemically however, there is the necessary bureaucracy to contend with in the initial stages whilst the alliance establishes itself to its members and the international community.

Mass constitutional amendments would not be required. The Alliance would be more UN than EU. Nations would require a basic democratic system with free elections and guarantees that pretty much anyone could get elected to any office. Beyond that, no other constitutional change would be required.

The APA would be a forum for like-minded usercreated regions to exchange information and work on shared goals and values. Nothing more, nothing less.

The APA would simply shift the focus of the world away from the power-hungry anti-democratic politics of the Pacifics, and towards the stable workings of the Middle Powers, and hopefully yield population increases at the expense of the Pacific regions. That way, instead of exporting democracy to regions that are inherently undemocratic due to game mechanics, we are instead transporting persons to already functioning democracies where gameplay rules favour democratic systems.

My vision is for all 150 + democracies to be automatically eligible for membership. Where a democracy falls into a totalitarian system, they'll be booted. If a democracy's population falls short of APA minimums, the APA could also consider members on a case by case basis who fall short of stated population targets, but that would be up to the APA to decide. My only goal is to provide the spark.

My belief is that Canada should spearhead this movement - as the home of the APA, this region stands to reap many rewards and be viewed as a leader amongst Middle Powers, proving once again that the region is a destination of choice for Nations of nationstates.

And there will be bureaucracy - it is necessary in any democratic system.

Essentially, the APA will be a gathering place for the enlightened democracies, and will allow all of the Middle Powers to exchange information and cooperate on areas of mutual importance.

I actually really love the idea of an alliance of middle powers, I think there'd be tons of benefits to Canada.

BUT (you knew there'd be one :D ), I do not condone the denouncing of all the Pacific regions. I do not like the clustering of all of the feeder regions under one undemocratic banner.

Also, you might have a hard time finding a lot of middle powers who are willing to ditch their alliances with feeder regions for this one.

So...I would carry through this suggestion in one of two ways:
1) form an alliance of middle powers, that is not entirely "anti-Pacific"
2) create this alliance in the event that the NPO takes over all 5 of the Pacifics

The alliance isn't meant to denounce the Pacifics. It is merely a recognition of the fact that game mechanics ensure that the Pacifics cannot be as democratic as the Middle Powers, and that game play rules dictate that the Pacifics are meant to be autocratic kingdoms, and not true democracies.

I disagree with option 2 - whether all five regions are NPO or not is irrelevant - the premise behind the alliance, or union, or community, or whatever you wish to call it, is that they play by different rules and therefore have little usefulness to the true democracies who are not permitted to be griefed or crashed with mass ejections.

That being said, an alliance is worth buidling in my view, so long as the basic premise that the Pacifics are different than us is observed as a fundamental principle. This shouldn't be too controversial, because they are plainly different, since they are birth regions with completely different dynamics than the Middle Powers.

Also, APA was a working name, if you want to call it Middle Power Alliance, Or Middle Power Community, Democratic Union, or whatever Cabinet wishes to call it, that is up to you.

As I am not in Cabinet, I have no power, and Cabinet is empowered to do with my idea whatever they wish. If I don't like what is happening, you'll know. :)

In all fairness, I think the idea is fantastic. It's just incredibly difficult to implement. I would be all for an Intelligence/Defence Alliance as such a large organisation would mean that case loads would be insignificant in comparison to it's current level.
I think that both of Checkers' suggestions could be combined into one with the emphasis on:

In essence, this alliance could be formed with the operation remit of collective defence and intelligence operations for the 'middle powers' with necessary dealings with the birth-Regions as is necessary. I would also say this be true for The Rejected Realms and potentially Lazurus.
In case of emergency, the second would take precedence where all member Regions rally to support the targeted Region(s).
I have no complaint about drafting Defence/Intelligence protocols for such an agency and, if allowed, will gladly accept the challenge. It's not that I don't like the idea, it's quite the contrary, it's just the Administration of such an agency could lead it down the path of the ADN.
However, I am definately in favour of this as I think the the dividends will far out-weigh the initial challenges.

I have lifted this from another board, and bring it to the government's attention. It is an opinon of a current moderator, who seems to share the Canadian Sovereignty Party's view on how to deal with feeder regions:

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are NOT "official,"
nor are they universal to the moderating staff. I am here in a purely personal capacity, and will pass no judgement on whoever chooses to respond. This is not the NS forum, and I am a guest here, not a moderator. Before you ask, no, I will not delete your account for disagreeing with me, and no, this never has been a common practice to any mod. You wouldnt beleive some of the snivelling I get sometimes. In fact, for me to do anything moderator-wise as a result of my experiences here would be horribly bad form and as such I will faithfully avoid such action. Unless you claim to be hacking someone or making threats: then I have to do something.

I'm sure most of you know who I am by the username alone. In case you don't, I am 'Melkor Unchained" in NationStates: the site's first Game Moderator.

Allow me to explain this situation, if I may.

I do not like Great Bight. I do not think what he is doing is right, and I sure as hell don't think people should be allowed to eject 100+ nations from a region and still retain the Delegacy. This is the reason why I ejected Great Bight from the UN in the first place. Only problem is that apparently, the moderation staff is to hold feeder regions to a different standard.

I'm not so sure I agree with it. I think it's something of a double standard to delete someone entirely for ejecting 15 nations from one region, and allow people like GB and Francos Spain to eject literally hundreds of people from their regions. I cannot speak for the rest of the moderators, but i'm sure many of them feel the same way I do.

That said, us moderators do not dictate policy, we merely enforce it. Every so often, some sort of situation will come up, and a moderator will have to make a ruling in the abscence of the site admin. Not knowing this had already happened with Francos Spain, I made an on-the-spot ruling regarding GB and ejected him. However, I was later informed of the Francos precedent, which occured at some point several months ago while I was busy wrecking my car.

I would venture to guess that a more enjoyable way to play the game for most people would be to create your own region instead of staying in a feeder. It's nearly impossible for us to hold feeder regions to the same standard on account of the fact that it's the 'primordial stew' of NS, if you will. It's nearly impossible for us to determine who the "natives" are, or even if there are any, in a purely technical sense. Were we to create regulations for becoming a native [ie, "you have to live here for x days], it would be incredibly difficult to enforce and even more difficult to monitor. And even then, you'd have the same problem: the invaders would just stay in the region until they became native, and use the leverage to justify themselves.

Basically, the way I see it, running feeder regions is a quandary. There is no way to make absolutely everybody happy, and to be honest, the sooner you realise this the better off you'll be. I've seen some implications here I don't particularly care for, namely the fact that the moderating staff is 'ignoring the situation' or we're 'incompetent' because we don't enforce your region's charter.

We're doing what we've been told to do by the site admin: no more, no less. I'm debating initiating some policy changes with regards to feeder regions, but all I can do right now is wait for the site admin to pop up so I can say something about it.

Despite apparently popular beleif, we're not 'out to get' anyone, much less you guys. If what Great Bight is doing is legal, then you need to go about unseating him the same way.

Peace,

--Melkor

Perhaps this feeling is not isolated and is felt by many NationStates players, If this be the case, then it would stand to reason that an alliance such as the APA (or name to be agreed upon) stand a good chance of suceeding. It may also be a worthwhile endeavour to contact Melkor and ask for opinions from the perpective of a game Moderator and how such an alliance could not only operate but maintain a position of legality within, what appears to be, the heavily biased rules of NationStates.

Another suggestion for Melkor/Mods/Site Admins that would remove this is to make the feeder regions delegatless. Not sure what the overall implications would be but, it possibly solves this particular problem.

A very valid point. However, I think it's one that would require a system overhaul. Perhaps something for the fabled NS2?

This would take some tricky coding. A simpler approach would be, as I have often suggested, to remove the ejection powers from the Delegacy, as they did with the Rejected Realms.

I think we in the RR have long since proven that such a system works and can produce a viable system: Here, the holder of the usually-coveted Delegate seat is nothing more than the regional delegate to the UN, and is but one leader among many, not the Grand Poobah and Supreme Dark Lord. If I command any additional respect and authority, it is because people respect me, not due to the strength of my position. The same applies to those who were before my and my eventual successors. Those few who failed to understand this and became Delegate anyway left shortly after taking power.

NS2 will be completely unlike NS1 and region-crashing and ejection features would both be impractical and nonexistant.

A simple and effective approach that I suspect will not be implemented. The powers-that-be, as is their perogative, seem content with the current structure of the game.

If such a radical approach were taken, it would leave the feeder-Regions in a substantially stronger position in the long run as no-one would be able to eject potential threats. It would also mean that the Delegacy may also stagnate causing the Region to do so. I guess those that are 'the powers that be' are 'the powers that be' for a reason. I'm just not sure what thaw is off-hand.

I have a few questions about what seems to me to be discrepancies in the CSP proposal.

On the one hand you say:

Yet:

Which says is was once possible for these regions to be democratic. I'm not disagreeing the these regions are becoming less democratic. While totalitarian rule is increasing, I disagree that it has to remain that way.

What happened to support of the 'Hudson Bay Doctrine'? At the same time you concede that:

How would the APA end up any different?

The core of this idea I agree with, although I would change "seize control" with "exert influence".

Here's how I would like to modify your proposal:
1) Don't form an alliance, instead form a committee. Rather than bind together to directly challenge totalitarianism and fascism, discuss and promote ways to increase viability of democratic institutions in the Pacifics.
2) I would propose that the committee membership be by invitation rather than an arbitrary "democracies with a population of 150 nations or more". Limit the committee to nations who seem to likely to be able to offer creative solutions to the problem.
3) The committee approach would not require that the "middle powers" do anything different than they are doing today. (other than focusing on developing solutions to the problem)
4)

This is where I think you got off track. I feel the focus should be on insuring that democratic institutions get a fair chance, a "level playing field".
5)

. A constant and joint effort to promote migration is most likely our most powerful option.
6)

I totally agree.
7)

I think these are the correct goals. I just happen to think it will not be possible for a new large alliance to perform any better than the current defense alliances. The reason being that it would be focused on the wrong issues. A strong clear voice pressing for fair game mechanics, while at the same time heavily promoting what we feel are the advantages and appeal of democratic institutions IMHO would be more effective.

I didn't write this one out very well, to be sure. The idea was not for an alliance (despite the dubious name I gave it) but merely the creation of a centralized forum whereby democratic, user created regions could discuss issues, and choose to cooperate on issues of mutual importance.

One idea that was in the back of my head at the time was the Realm of Criminology's World Court. That idea was one that was dominated by the Pacific regions - meetings were conducted where only the pacifics, the RR and members of teh Realm of Criminology were invited. The rest of NS (12,000 regions) were shut out. This did not sit well with me.

At the same time, the Pacifics were in turmoil, dragging the entire NS world into their dubious conflicts between NPO and non-NPO factions. It was my view that the Pacifics were a lost cause, were taking valuable resources away from more important ventures, and generally dominating the NS agenda.

My response was the creation of the APA, or Middle Power Union, or whatever you want to call it. A forum where all democratic regions with a population of at least 150 nations, (and certain qualifying regions of less than 150 nations) could discuss issues, work together (where appropriate) in creating neutral international institutions, and take the global agenda away from the politics of the pacifics, to more meaningful pursuits.

It sounds like we are more in agreement than I thought. However, I think the weak spot in your approach is to try and pull this together at the regional level.

A forum of NS' brightest democratic voices would be less combersome. They could then in turn report back to their own regions for actions that should be taken at that level.

Part of the process may require that the Mods change some of their positions. While we may try to say that we represent X number of nations I'm inclined to believe that the Mods only respond to the individual nations.

This mode of government sounds frightfully familiar. If I'm not mistaken, it resembles a model of 'new social-democracy' referred to as 'The Third Way' in the UK. As a theoretical approach to government it is truly fantastic. Implementation from a systemic perspective is a fearsome task. However, that being said, a simulation within a virtual [global] community may actually work.

I would very much like to see this initiative gain some momentum and, if allowed, would very much like to participate within this. If nothing becomes of this venture, so be it. At least people can't say it wasn't tried.