11/15/13
"The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom."
Versutian has grown exponentially as of late. I was rather curious why this was so I naturally had to find out. Fortunately, I was able to catch the region's Delegate, The Black Hat Guy, and he was willing to answer a few questions.
Personal Interest: Versutian Federation, the region you are in, has seen a very large population growth in the past month or so. Was there anything special about it? If so, would you recommend this technique for other regions to follow?
The Black Hat Guy: The vast majority of our population came from the two Zombie Apocalypses, in April and October. The VF accumulated more nations on the most recent one, climbing from about 300 to just over 600 in a matter of two days. The government knew what the last one was, and it prepared far ahead of time (legislation passed in May and the plan was changed and updated dozens of times since), because we realized that this was an excellent opportunity to grow as a region and help some nations in need. A lot of work went into it, between drafting threads, legislation, protocol, telegrams, and more, and we could not have been so successful if not for the dozens of dedicated citizens that helped refugees during the apocalypse.
As for a recommendation to other regions, it might work, it might not. As a whole, a region needs to have a large percentage of active nations and plenty of forewarning for it to work, because the cure only works well if a significant majority of nations are researching it. Refugees will not come if you cannot even save yourself, and activity is the #1 factor in that situation. There are a lot of regions that this could work for, and we could use some more competition.
The VF has also had luck with a large stamp recruitment drive in GCRs, a recruitment script I made (which has now been replaced with Afforess’s NS++ - major props to him for doing that, it’s miles beyond what I did), and an active recruiter base. Really though, the Zombie Apocalypses have been the best opportunities this region could have asked for.
Personal Interest: Do you think your regional population will shrink in approximately a month or so when some nations form the zombie apocalypse CTE?
The Black Hat Guy: It may. That certainly happened last time, we lost about 30 nations in a swarm nations that ceased to exist. This time, however, we will be looking into a large recruitment drive directly before the month ends to help keep the population relatively stable. We hope to stay at least above 600 at the end of the month, and I think that’s a reasonable goal.
Personal Interest: VF has elections for office every month. Why so often? Isn't 60 or 90 days a better length of time?
The Black Hat Guy: A stagnant region will die quickly, so the Versutian Federation has always strived to be as active as possible. With frequent elections, it can not only ensure that citizens always have a chance to engage in government, but that members of the government are more effective, as the next month, they will have to look back at what they’ve done and know that they have done well enough to defeat a contender and remain the incumbent. A longer election cycle can have its benefits, but given that the VF has an active founder, it is not prone to turmoil in transitions of power as other regions are, and with monthly elections, we can encourage activity and an effective government. Ineffective incumbents are removed quickly, and thus the Versutian Federation can help guarantee a more effective and active government.
Personal Interest: Some might say a month is too short. It gives little time for the official to show how good or bad he is. Has this proved to be true or false in VF?
The Black Hat Guy: Certainly false. So many things happen in a single month in NationStates, and a month is a fine amount of time to get to know an officer, good or bad. If nothing has happened within that month, that in itself is an indicator of the officeholder: taking initiative is one of the most important qualities of an officer, and that person initiates nothing noteworthy in a month’s time, he/she may not deserve to be in office. We’ve also recently started a reports system so that each officeholder writes a report of his/her accomplishments or actions within the term, to reflect upon what has happened in the month. Overall, a month long election cycle has worked quite well for us.
Personal Interest: What is your stance on the GA? What is the region's stance as a whole? NatSov or IntFed?
The Black Hat Guy: Personally, I would consider myself IntFed. National sovereignty is certainly an important consideration, but the way it is used by those who consider themselves to be NatSov is often atrocious. National sovereignty is not a barrier against legislation one does not like, it’s not a bulwark against any legislation ever affecting the internal workings of your country, it’s a safeguard against micromanagement. Too many times, I have seen promising resolutions discarded because of NatSov delegates, when in reality the resolution had real potential to create sensible legislation for member nations. There are certainly many issues that are best left to individual nations, and I have voted on that basis in the past, but those issues are not as prevalent as many seem to think. Human rights, development, and more are all legitimate issues for the WA to address.
The region does not mandate any particular stance in the WA, and we have a variety of opinions, but overall I would say it leans IntFed.
Personal Interest: So there is merit to NatSov arguments! ;) What would you be an example of such a bill shot down by NatSov Delegates? What would you consider to be IntFed bills overstepping their bounds?
The Black Hat Guy: Yes, there’s merit to both sides; I wouldn’t consider myself an extremist on either end of the spectrum. I think that the recent repeal of "Against Corruption" is a good example of that. While I voted for it myself because of the issue with wording, the resolution itself was a fine idea that could have been replaced with a better draft preventing corruption. However, the NatSov faction that voted for the repeal on the basis of “Believing that the appropriateness of gift giving is much easier to ascertain on a local level than through international legislation” will not allow that to happen, and thus a good opportunity goes to waste.
The Freedom of Dance proposal currently in a drafting process on the forums is rather the epitome of an IntFed bill overstepping its bounds. There will always be totalitarian nations, and while the WA should certainly be concerned with defending the rights of their citizens as much as possible, micromanaging something as relatively minuscule as dance is a waste of everyone’s time. It’s not a human rights abuse in any sense of the word, and the freedoms restricted by restricting dance are not at all large enough to be a serious concern of the WA.
Personal Interest: Thank you for taking the time to be interviewed.
No comments:
Post a Comment