PAID EDITORIAL - Against Proposed Changes to the Constituion
Jun 13, 2023 19:24:06 GMT -5
Markanite, Woonsocket, and 5 more like this
Post by United Royal Islands on Jun 13, 2023 19:24:06 GMT -5
DISCLAIMER: This is a paid campaign advertisement from a concerned XKI citizen opposed to the constitutional amendment and uses personal funds to solicit votes for a cause. Payment recorded 10000islands.proboards.com/post/1898308/thread in accordance with advertising rules.
Hello Fellow Islanders,
I come before you today to ask for your consideration and vote against the proposed constitutional amendment, which is being publicly discussed here, and was proposed in council chamber here. Your vote may be cast at 10000islands.proboards.com/thread/44051/delegate-eligibility-constitutional-amendment-citizens.
To begin with, I wish to introduce myself to anyone unfamiliar as I have been lurking in the region but away from its politics for some time. I am United Royal Islands and have been honored to serve the region as a previous Delegate, TITO Knight, Minister of Education, and my favorite as Regional Reserve Chair. During my time, I have also been a part of the founding of the Circle Party and an outspoken advocate for gradualism, constitutionalism, and defenderism. In defense of this last value, that of Defenderism, I come forward again to speak and ask for your consideration and vote today. I am deeply troubled by the Council of Nine's latest attempt to promote activity and candidates by removing the constitutional requirement that delegates candidates be a member of TITO when they run for office. This change undermines our commitment to defender values and removes from the constitution a requirement that promotes defender values in our international facing public service and at the peak of prestige and influence in our region outside of the Chief Executive. In this editorial, I will address the importance of defending to our history and now, the internal and external risks of making this change on that value, as well as some counter-arguments to points made in favor of the amendment.
Our region has a long and proud history of being defender aligned from the beginning and has always promoted a view of defense that goes beyond the give and take of the R/D gameplay found on the forum. At it is now, our belief in defending affirms the native rights or regions to exist without interference or vandalism. This vision brings hope to small regions not previously afforded respect and autonomy by large regions that sought to impose policy and take these regions as trophies. I myself have long exposed a view of defense that would one day negate the need for defenders when raiders would no longer be able to inflict such harm on those who have not consented to the gameplay. As I have previously defined it, Defenderism is a political position that asserts these values are integral to our region, its political and social culture, and how we interact with the wider world at large. We are all likely aware that the recent changes in the NS world have made our region and others safer. The Frontiers and Strongholds update (F/S) removes from the equation that any sufficiently large force of invaders could overcome our delegate and impose changes upon us from abroad. Additionally, many regions with active founders have been able to secure their borders more permanently in ways that we have long called for. However, these changes were not made without concessions, and it still remains that many regions remain vulnerable to invasion and vandalism due to falling outside of the requirements to secure their borders permanently. Being a committed defender remains now as important a role in the world as ever, especially as the update removes the perceived urgency to these remaining injustices.
With the continued importance of defenders established and a broader vision for its global impact, the risks of undermining our region's commitment or our international reputation as a beacon of defender values remain the most pressing concern with this change. While such a change theoretically opens the Delegate to more candidates by removing the requirement to join TITO first, prospective nations who may wish to seek out the delegacy already can easily comply with this requirement, as it is far from the most demanding of the requirements to become a delegate, even with it being in our constitution. Despite the reassurances by proponents that a non-defender aligned candidate could win the Delegacy, it strikes me odd that there would exist a WA member, aligned with defender values, who is otherwise desiring to become a delegate and meeting all other requirements but has yet to join TITO. Consequently, it is more likely the changes to this requirement are not likely to benefit any such nations but rather those not aligned with defending, namely those members completely unaligned with r/d entirely, those who hold neutral alignment, or those sympathetic with raiding but unmotivated to join a raider region (not that there is strong evidence of the later existing within the region). Yet, despite no evidence of such nations existing, this change risks upsetting that balance and exposing us to foreign interference in our culture and politics. And the overall lack of certainty around candidates and their ability to represent the region on these issues expose us to potential periods of turmoil and betrayal.
On the first point of risks, this change is aimed at more neutral nations and risks decoupling the link between government service and defender values. As partially explored above, the purported barrier of joining TITO is minimal in the scope of the other legal requirements. I’ll be the first to admit that my TITO record severely lacks activity due to my scheduling and attention issues. However, even such a meager record was sufficient to meet the requirements of running for delegate. I am honored to have been elected and served time as the delegate for the time I did. TITO membership is a symbol and identity that confirms those who undertake it to are not just proclaiming defender values but also taking actions to uphold them; beyond any other benefit service to the region that membership provides. Also, the delegate is our highest elected office, as our Chief Executive remains insulated from the political process; as such, they gain prestige and influence in the region with their words and actions. Without the shared basis in defender values and de-emphasizing the importance of service in TITO, it becomes foreseeable that our delegate’s words and actions may become unlinked from the efforts of TITO. Risks entirely that delegates may inadvertently or intentionally promote cultural and social connections that undermine TITO or reduce its effectiveness internationally. And lastly, on this risk, the delegate is also the face of our diplomatic and foreign affairs presence in the world. As defenders, we stand for the notions of native rights and the sovereignty of other regions. When we defend, we carry that hope and promise with us. However, those regions will also look to our delegate, and daylight between the two stances, if any such differences exist, will be all the more glaring and undermine faith in our commitments and values. It will reinforce the cynical notions that underpin raiding as just another part of the game and equally deserving of respect.
On the second risk of foreign interference, I do concede the point made that other regions have had elections untethered from R/D service that have gone off without risk of foreign interference, notably strong WA-focused regions bound by a shared commitment to remove themselves from the politics of R/D and focus on international legislation. However, just as those elections exist, there is also a history of raider interference in GCR elections, influencing and changing the alignment of those regions. While I accept that such overt campaigns would be challenging in light of the other requirements, the loosening of TITO membership requirements may be seen as an invitation to try by those regions with longstanding grievances against XKI. The TITO membership requirement provides additional vetting of candidates beyond the shared camaraderie and alignment of words and deeds mentioned above. It also requires that members be subject to investigation by command so that attachments to prior regions may be noted and monitored. This process adds additional security against covert attempts at infiltration. These covert attempts to change our alignment or undermine our international public commitments become much more feasible in an election with less oversight.
Finally is the internal dissent and struggle that the lack of trust in our region's delegate may cause in our region to become unsettled politically and culturally. At a minimum, this raises the question that, given the F/S update, are our core commitments to defending that go beyond being against raiders truly valuable anymore and that the global consensus that R/D is just another game within NS one that we can and should adopt? I believe I have given a fair rebuttal of the question above, but this assertion may be insufficient for many. At its worst, this change courts these questions as we are presented with neutral or raider-affirming candidates in our elections and we are forced to confront this issue not directly but in proxy between candidates.
If the goal of this change is to decouple our military and civilian institutions, then that is a broader question that should be more directly addressed. If we want to adapt our region to the F/S update by adopting a new understanding of defender values, that should be the question. For myself, this change harkens both and is being made without having those far more impactful discussions first. To be fair to proponents of this amendment, I do not believe that any underhanded or nefarious motive exists to force our region to change its stances on Defense and what it looks like in light of the recent F/S update. This change is facially a decent idea. It, however, has not grappled with the regional history and culture and exposes us to far too many risks solely for the benefit of engagement. If we make these changes to our collective values, we must first have these discussions. As unorthodox as the method of campaigning against an amendment, I am optimistic that many in the region will appreciate this perspective being brought forward and giving clarity to a deeper and more important issue that these changes serve in proxy of. If the goal of this change is solely activity and engagement with all WA citizens, this is a far too risky change to undertake. I have explored how the requirement is not a barrier that is hard to overcome and that the potential benefits of this change are not limited to those we would be reassured would run.
While this requirement is not foolproof in its application, it remains a core and vital component of our political culture. Other regions may be fine without it. However, those different regions likely do not have the depth of history in the R/D sphere, and it would be unwise to throw out a protective element of our constitution on a whim or to promote activity. Not all activity is good, and the engagement we risk courting with this move opens our region up to potential sabotage through reduced vetting of candidates and changes in our political culture and stances that may undermine our region and standing in the world. No one can foresee the future, and this change risks more than the benefits it purports to give us.
I respectfully submit for consideration of all voters to reject this amendment and for the council to seek other ways of generating activity and engagement without resorting to constitutional changes.
Hello Fellow Islanders,
I come before you today to ask for your consideration and vote against the proposed constitutional amendment, which is being publicly discussed here, and was proposed in council chamber here. Your vote may be cast at 10000islands.proboards.com/thread/44051/delegate-eligibility-constitutional-amendment-citizens.
To begin with, I wish to introduce myself to anyone unfamiliar as I have been lurking in the region but away from its politics for some time. I am United Royal Islands and have been honored to serve the region as a previous Delegate, TITO Knight, Minister of Education, and my favorite as Regional Reserve Chair. During my time, I have also been a part of the founding of the Circle Party and an outspoken advocate for gradualism, constitutionalism, and defenderism. In defense of this last value, that of Defenderism, I come forward again to speak and ask for your consideration and vote today. I am deeply troubled by the Council of Nine's latest attempt to promote activity and candidates by removing the constitutional requirement that delegates candidates be a member of TITO when they run for office. This change undermines our commitment to defender values and removes from the constitution a requirement that promotes defender values in our international facing public service and at the peak of prestige and influence in our region outside of the Chief Executive. In this editorial, I will address the importance of defending to our history and now, the internal and external risks of making this change on that value, as well as some counter-arguments to points made in favor of the amendment.
Our region has a long and proud history of being defender aligned from the beginning and has always promoted a view of defense that goes beyond the give and take of the R/D gameplay found on the forum. At it is now, our belief in defending affirms the native rights or regions to exist without interference or vandalism. This vision brings hope to small regions not previously afforded respect and autonomy by large regions that sought to impose policy and take these regions as trophies. I myself have long exposed a view of defense that would one day negate the need for defenders when raiders would no longer be able to inflict such harm on those who have not consented to the gameplay. As I have previously defined it, Defenderism is a political position that asserts these values are integral to our region, its political and social culture, and how we interact with the wider world at large. We are all likely aware that the recent changes in the NS world have made our region and others safer. The Frontiers and Strongholds update (F/S) removes from the equation that any sufficiently large force of invaders could overcome our delegate and impose changes upon us from abroad. Additionally, many regions with active founders have been able to secure their borders more permanently in ways that we have long called for. However, these changes were not made without concessions, and it still remains that many regions remain vulnerable to invasion and vandalism due to falling outside of the requirements to secure their borders permanently. Being a committed defender remains now as important a role in the world as ever, especially as the update removes the perceived urgency to these remaining injustices.
With the continued importance of defenders established and a broader vision for its global impact, the risks of undermining our region's commitment or our international reputation as a beacon of defender values remain the most pressing concern with this change. While such a change theoretically opens the Delegate to more candidates by removing the requirement to join TITO first, prospective nations who may wish to seek out the delegacy already can easily comply with this requirement, as it is far from the most demanding of the requirements to become a delegate, even with it being in our constitution. Despite the reassurances by proponents that a non-defender aligned candidate could win the Delegacy, it strikes me odd that there would exist a WA member, aligned with defender values, who is otherwise desiring to become a delegate and meeting all other requirements but has yet to join TITO. Consequently, it is more likely the changes to this requirement are not likely to benefit any such nations but rather those not aligned with defending, namely those members completely unaligned with r/d entirely, those who hold neutral alignment, or those sympathetic with raiding but unmotivated to join a raider region (not that there is strong evidence of the later existing within the region). Yet, despite no evidence of such nations existing, this change risks upsetting that balance and exposing us to foreign interference in our culture and politics. And the overall lack of certainty around candidates and their ability to represent the region on these issues expose us to potential periods of turmoil and betrayal.
On the first point of risks, this change is aimed at more neutral nations and risks decoupling the link between government service and defender values. As partially explored above, the purported barrier of joining TITO is minimal in the scope of the other legal requirements. I’ll be the first to admit that my TITO record severely lacks activity due to my scheduling and attention issues. However, even such a meager record was sufficient to meet the requirements of running for delegate. I am honored to have been elected and served time as the delegate for the time I did. TITO membership is a symbol and identity that confirms those who undertake it to are not just proclaiming defender values but also taking actions to uphold them; beyond any other benefit service to the region that membership provides. Also, the delegate is our highest elected office, as our Chief Executive remains insulated from the political process; as such, they gain prestige and influence in the region with their words and actions. Without the shared basis in defender values and de-emphasizing the importance of service in TITO, it becomes foreseeable that our delegate’s words and actions may become unlinked from the efforts of TITO. Risks entirely that delegates may inadvertently or intentionally promote cultural and social connections that undermine TITO or reduce its effectiveness internationally. And lastly, on this risk, the delegate is also the face of our diplomatic and foreign affairs presence in the world. As defenders, we stand for the notions of native rights and the sovereignty of other regions. When we defend, we carry that hope and promise with us. However, those regions will also look to our delegate, and daylight between the two stances, if any such differences exist, will be all the more glaring and undermine faith in our commitments and values. It will reinforce the cynical notions that underpin raiding as just another part of the game and equally deserving of respect.
On the second risk of foreign interference, I do concede the point made that other regions have had elections untethered from R/D service that have gone off without risk of foreign interference, notably strong WA-focused regions bound by a shared commitment to remove themselves from the politics of R/D and focus on international legislation. However, just as those elections exist, there is also a history of raider interference in GCR elections, influencing and changing the alignment of those regions. While I accept that such overt campaigns would be challenging in light of the other requirements, the loosening of TITO membership requirements may be seen as an invitation to try by those regions with longstanding grievances against XKI. The TITO membership requirement provides additional vetting of candidates beyond the shared camaraderie and alignment of words and deeds mentioned above. It also requires that members be subject to investigation by command so that attachments to prior regions may be noted and monitored. This process adds additional security against covert attempts at infiltration. These covert attempts to change our alignment or undermine our international public commitments become much more feasible in an election with less oversight.
Finally is the internal dissent and struggle that the lack of trust in our region's delegate may cause in our region to become unsettled politically and culturally. At a minimum, this raises the question that, given the F/S update, are our core commitments to defending that go beyond being against raiders truly valuable anymore and that the global consensus that R/D is just another game within NS one that we can and should adopt? I believe I have given a fair rebuttal of the question above, but this assertion may be insufficient for many. At its worst, this change courts these questions as we are presented with neutral or raider-affirming candidates in our elections and we are forced to confront this issue not directly but in proxy between candidates.
If the goal of this change is to decouple our military and civilian institutions, then that is a broader question that should be more directly addressed. If we want to adapt our region to the F/S update by adopting a new understanding of defender values, that should be the question. For myself, this change harkens both and is being made without having those far more impactful discussions first. To be fair to proponents of this amendment, I do not believe that any underhanded or nefarious motive exists to force our region to change its stances on Defense and what it looks like in light of the recent F/S update. This change is facially a decent idea. It, however, has not grappled with the regional history and culture and exposes us to far too many risks solely for the benefit of engagement. If we make these changes to our collective values, we must first have these discussions. As unorthodox as the method of campaigning against an amendment, I am optimistic that many in the region will appreciate this perspective being brought forward and giving clarity to a deeper and more important issue that these changes serve in proxy of. If the goal of this change is solely activity and engagement with all WA citizens, this is a far too risky change to undertake. I have explored how the requirement is not a barrier that is hard to overcome and that the potential benefits of this change are not limited to those we would be reassured would run.
While this requirement is not foolproof in its application, it remains a core and vital component of our political culture. Other regions may be fine without it. However, those different regions likely do not have the depth of history in the R/D sphere, and it would be unwise to throw out a protective element of our constitution on a whim or to promote activity. Not all activity is good, and the engagement we risk courting with this move opens our region up to potential sabotage through reduced vetting of candidates and changes in our political culture and stances that may undermine our region and standing in the world. No one can foresee the future, and this change risks more than the benefits it purports to give us.
I respectfully submit for consideration of all voters to reject this amendment and for the council to seek other ways of generating activity and engagement without resorting to constitutional changes.