NationStates Jolt Archive

A copy of an open memo to TWP member nations, reproduced here for the attention of our UN colleagues. To those of you who have already shared your views, our thanks for your support, for the rest, your opinions are welcomed.

UN Delegate for Cave Canem

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have a deep sense of foreboding in preparing this memo to our TWP colleagues. We know the opinion we're sharing here will be unpopular in many quarters and may even lose Cave Canem some of her existing friends. We do not feel however that we can in good conscience keep our peace on this topic.

We have lost count of how many telegrams we have received in the last week alone, with the message - please endorse us, and we will endorse you - or a variation on that theme. This is clearly a successful tactic, many of the nations these messages initiate from have tens of endorsements.

Comrades of The West Pacific we ask you - what is the value of an endorsement thus gained? Are you really happy to see the name of your nation associated with the endorsement of a third party about whom you know nothing other than that you will in turn be endorsed?

We have a policy of actively seeking those nations we wish to be associated with (whether because we respect their voice in the forums, agree with a policy direction they are pushing, or simply respect the way in which their nation is managed) and offering our endorsement, with no expectation of a return. We wish only to be endorsed in this same way. Unsolicited messages requesting mutual endorsement are politely but finally declined.

For what does the endorsement of your nation mean if it is given so freely away? It clearly does not represent a value judgement, a sign of respect or even solidarity. And indeed, what can the endorsements offered to your nation mean if they are merely automatically given in anticipation of a return?

Make the endorsement of your nation worth something. Make your nation proud of the endorsements it receives. We implore nations of The West Pacific not to seek or offer blanket endorsements.

Speaker for Cave Canem

Endorsement swapping like that could be a prelude to invasion. It is how it started in the North Pacific.

In any event, my government completely agrees with your position here: endorsements are things to be carefully guarded and are most effective when you only give them to nations you can completely trust.

Mattikistan shares your view, although being a small, relatively unimportant nation in a small, relatively unimportant region we have never really had an issue with people attempting 'endorsement swaps' with us. We have only given endorsements to those nations who share similar political ideals and make similar decisions as we do. The delegate for our region for example frequently votes the same way we do on UN resolutions, and has thus kept Mattikistan's endorsement since we arrived there. However, we will soon be revoking all endorsements pending a review and possibly associating ourselves with a new region, if we can find a more suitable region to be associated with.

Tempest in a teapot, IMHO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but endorsements serve only two purposes:
The nation with the most endorsements is Regional Delegate
Anyone with two endorsements can submit a UN proposalIf you're working towards an invasion, reason #1 makes endorsement requests reasonable. For anyone else, anything beyond two is simply overkill.

Tempest in a teapot, IMHO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but endorsements serve only two purposes:
The nation with the most endorsements is Regional Delegate
Anyone with two endorsements can submit a UN proposalIf you're working towards an invasion, reason #1 makes endorsement requests reasonable. For anyone else, anything beyond two is simply overkill.

Those are the basics, but it is a bit more complicated.

If you are in a feeder region, it is not only easy to collect endorsements, but wise for a few "runners up" Delegates to collect large numbers of endorsements to prevent an invader from sneaking into the Delegacy position.

The North Pacific story goes as follows. For around a year, the UN Delegate position changed frequently, but typically went to well established nations that were extremely active on the off-site regional forum. Though Thel D'Ran represents a "Democractically" elected Delegate whom actually campaigned on more than an endorsement swapping platform, two of the three UN Delegates before him pretty much rose to the position via just simple swapping (NOTE: UPS Rail actually did participate on the off-site forum and had a few campaign issues, but most were pretty vague). What is important is that UPS Rail became the delegate when Magicality (the Delegate before him) was put on "vacation" mode due to a very unfortunate medical problem. :(

In other words, UPS Rail was "#2" and got bumped up, but after a week or so of being the UN Delegate started ejecting and banning nations for political reasons. UPS Rail also stopped supporting proposals and resolutions authored by natives from the North Pacific. The best example was his lack of support of the Ban of the DeathPenalty resolution. Granted his support would not have allowed the resolution to pass, but it was clear that he didn't care about local's needs (support for the resolution was significant ... not overwhelming, but significant). UPS Rail left, and the next delegate was Great Bight, whom ejected 100s of nations (which is not considered griefing in a feeder region).

The point of course is that had an active nation been up there when Magicality was put on vacation mode, UPS Rail and Great Bight may never have come into power.

For most of us, two is enough. But I think having a second nation around "just in case" isn't bad form either.

Of course, if your region has a region founder around, no worries. Your founder will probably prevent mass griefing from a trigger happy UN Delegate. :)

A region's founder can access Regional Control without being in the region, even if they are on the ban list. That is why I am now the founder of Part123 - our region was invaded, and since our original founder went inactive months ago, the mods had to come in and unlock the region. I was then appointed the founder so they wouldn't have to come in again.

In regions like the Pacifics (feeder regions), there is no founder, and endorsement swapping must be done very cautiously to prevent fiascos like happened wth The North Pacific and Great Bight. Be sure you approve of the nation's policies, etc., BEFORE endorseing them. It will save you a lot of grief(ing).

However, we will soon be revoking all endorsements pending a review and possibly associating ourselves with a new region, if we can find a more suitable region to be associated with.

:)

I read that as, "Please invite me to your regions!"

:)

In regions like the Pacifics (feeder regions), there is no founder, and endorsement swapping must be done very cautiously to prevent fiascos like happened wth The North Pacific and Great Bight. Be sure you approve of the nation's policies, etc., BEFORE endorseing them. It will save you a lot of grief(ing).
This has been the mantra, repeated over and over for as long as NS has existed, and you know what? Nothing's changed. Endorsement swapping is still pathetically easy, and not just in the feeders.

Endorsement swapping is still pathetically easy, and not just in the feeders.

The question is: are larger or smaller regions more likely to be negatively impacted by endorsement swapping?

The question is: are larger or smaller regions more likely to be negatively impacted by endorsement swapping?

I do believe the smaller regions are more prone to negativity from endorsement swapping, as for larger regions, it's harder to actually accomplish anything from it, whereas, in a smaller region, it only takes a smaller number of endorsements to capture the Delegate position.

Nah, people in smaller regions tend to know what's going on. You get only a small ratio of people endorsing you when you mindlessly swap, and it doesn't go far enough in smaller regions. It's a huge danger in the feeders, because so many people didn't even take the time to switch regions and have no idea what's going on in the game. And with sooo many UN nations out there, you can get a hundred in a day, if you're diligent.

My question wasn't a hypothetical one ... I actually see points in both what Tuesday Heights and Unfree People have suggested.

Smaller regions are easier to crash, because the goal is lower. But feeder regions offer a sort of stealth via the "big pond" effect.

From the desk of Representative Robert Anderson...

I whole-heartedly agree with the memo from the honorable representative from Cave Canem. After being told on a few occasions by U.N. members in my region, that they were receiving the same kind of messages, I thought about doing the same thing, as a counter-tactic to that kind of political bribery. But the Kingdom of Traxtonia will not belittle it's or the region's honor and integrity to uphold a position in it's region that would be held worthless, if it was aquired through such means.

Traxtonia is committed to the relationships it has formed with like-minded nations sharing the same values that we do. We have appreciated the endosements from our U.N. member nations, because we feel that they are given based on the same principles that each nations wishes to guide the region.

We applaud the representative from Cave Canem for standing up to this unethical and corrupt practice.

Sincerely,
Robert Anderson
Representative, Kingdom of Traxtonia
A Place In The Sun Regional Delegate

:)

I read that as, "Please invite me to your regions!"

:)

You can read it how you like, I immediately put people who telegram me with such advertisements on ignore.

Cave Canem thanks our friends in this forum for their constructive responses, we are pleased that our memo has sparked some debate.

In amongst the voices of support in our region, we have received many responses that are variations on the theme of 'the only way to get big <sic> is to trade endorsements'. We understand the doubts expressed by these nations - we do however insist that it doesn't have to be this way.

The answer, we believe, lies in more active engagement with NS. By this we don't mean prolific postings, or twenty-four seven activity - we simply mean taking the time to look at the principals and objectives of nations in our regions, and if we feel they align with our own values, proactively offer our endorsements.

The proactivity is key here we feel. Amongst other things 'endorsement begging' springs from the fact that so few endorsements are proactively offered. If a nation is engaged with the politics of its region, then that nation should already have a sound idea of which of their fellow nation's views they support - I urge my colleagues of TWP and the UN to contact these nations, don't just endorse them and be done - let them know what it is that compels you to offer them endorsement.

The more nations that use their endorsements in this manner, the more meaningful and precious they become, and as a result the more leverage they provide. This opens the way to lobbying regional colleagues - for instance suggesting that whilst your nation agrees with the thrust of their arguments, for your endorsement to be forthcoming they would need to soften their stance on X, or be more vocal in support of Y.

The endorsement of a nation is a powerful tool that has been dulled my misuse, we believe its potency can be revived with the gradual implementation of region wide shifts in culture. The cessation of the blind trading of endorsements is the first step.

With thanks for your continued attention and support

UN Delegate for Cave Canem

The question is: are larger or smaller regions more likely to be negatively impacted by endorsement swapping?

Our region has an informal endorsement swapping policy (except I always forget… and I need to be reminded by our founder…) but since we are a small hand picked region of 'UN (forum) regulars' I don't think it causes any trouble. That and our founder blocks delegates from doing anything…. :p

I agree with this. In my region I don't really have to worry about it because I founded it, and its a bunch of my friends while a password stops invaders (Who wouldn't target us anyway). I endorse every nation that endorses me, but I know all of them personally and it gives them a chance to submit resolutions, while encouraging their continual endorsement of me (which increases my votes, while not harming anything). The best way to solve this problem in any region with a founder is to keep the delegate out of region control, and if the founder does not like the leadership they can boot the delegate.