NATION

PASSWORD

5

DispatchMetaGameplay

by The Eternal Union of The Ice States. . 71 reads.

"The GA is a clique!": Debunking Accusations of Elitism and Gatekeeping in the General Assembly

Introduction

It seems a common refrain among opponents of the General Assembly to accuse it of being a "clique". I aim to debunk this argument. This criticism almost entirely originates from a small yet loud group of players uninvolved in the community active in the authorship and drafting of proposals, which for convenience I will refer to as the "GA community". They may or may not have been historically involved in the GA, and are typically Gameplayers (in the sense of raiding and defending). The criticism typically identifies two behaviours as characterising the GA of being a clique. Firstly, that the GA community is overly protective of its own members; secondly, that it is overly hostile to outsiders. Even accepting arguendo that these criticisms are correct, I do not believe they actually make the GA a clique.

I do emphasise that this is not a statement that the GA cannot or should not improve in terms of being more welcoming to new players. I do believe it has been doing fairly well in this regard, but snark and hostility torwards new players does still happen and we should work to reduce it. What it argues against is the oft-repeated claim that the GA community is a "clique" or is otherwise "elitist".

The What: Defining the Criticism

As touched upon above, the criticism that the GA is a clique tends to come in two forms. The first is the GA community is overly defensive of its members, disregarding facts or reason; eg Link(Pallaith, 2023). Ironically, this is usually invoked when outside groups, ie Gameplay, attempt to force the ostracisation of members of the GA community; the most recent instance of this likely being efforts by Gameplayers to ensure the defeat of proposals by Wallenburg, as well as by members of The Communist Bloc, which includes such authors as long-time GA player Tinfect/Second Sovereignty and more recent author Namwenia. Such actors attempt to run players out even when they are respected within the GA community, eg Link(Varanius, 2023a); then, when the community pushes back, they accuse it of being a "clique". I refer to this as the "defensiveness criticism".

The second criticism is that the GA is overly hostile to outside communities, particularly Gameplay. On its face, this criticism is not necessarily false; as an example, historically GA regulars tended to avoid voting in the Security Council Link(Tinfect, 2023). Yet, it is rarely levied based on this; instead, similarly to the defensiveness criticism, it tends to be levied by outside actors when they seek to harm the GA and encounter opprobrium as a result. A somewhat recent instance of this can be found during the quorum raids, by Lone Wolves United and The West Pacific, against various GA proposals, most notably Countering Agroterrorism. In particular, it is argued that the GA community is selective and hypocritical; political campaigning is fine if done by members of the "clique" but not otherwise; we want to change other players' national statistics without their input; the rhetoric goes on, eg Link(Varanius, 2023b) and (Flanderlion, 2024) respectively. I refer to this as the "hostility criticism".

Dissecting the Hostility Criticism

What the hostility criticism, as described above, misses is that opposition to Gameplay tends not to be based on the mere fact that outside communities are engaging with the GA. This, ipso facto, has been welcomed historically; the authorship of eg Standards for International Freight by a largely Gameplay-oriented player received no pushback on the grounds of their lack of previous engagement with the GA, or their history in Gameplay. See also eg Link(Sciongrad, 2019). (Indeed, the GA is not NS Sports in ostracising players intending to contribute for "decid[ing] to swoop into our community".) The pushback responded to with "clique" rhetoric, instead, tends to be against the specific means of interaction. Authors such as United massachusetts or Excidium planetis have been poorly received when they engage in quorum raiding, just as Gameplayers have.

Adding onto the above, criticism of Gameplay campaigning in the GA tends to be not simply because they are not members of some clique, but rather because such campaigning is typically to promote external agendas, whether it be taking down proposals from opposing factions, perpetuating personal dislikes, or simply opposition to the General Assembly itself. This remains the case even where arguments ostensibly based on merits are invented as rationalisations. Such activity is especially poorly-received as Gameplay inherently has a much larger power over the GA than the GA community itself, by simple virtue of Gameplay's ability to more easily accrue votes as well as to engage in tactics such as quorum raiding.

It is worth noting that there is some plausible deniability with regards to the personal dislikes aspect touched on above. Opposition due to personal dislike of an author does happen within the GA community; it is not merely something that emerges from on high. Yet, this fundamentally misses the point of why this is an issue; comments considered unacceptable in Gameplay are often fairly minor within the GA; meanwhile, accepted behaviour within Gameplay (eg quorum raiding) is often very poorly received within the GA. Inasmuch as one community has influence over another, and the said communities are largely separate, this sort of difference is natural; for example, when I actually held meaningful influence in Gameplay, I did use it to advance opposition to other factions within the GA, including against players who engaged in quorum raiding. However, this very dynamic will necessarily result in conflict between the said communities; this is not the result of the GA community being a "clique", particularly noting the defensiveness criticism. Rather, it is the natural result of one community imposing its will on another in order to ostracise a member of the latter. When a player is respected within the GA community then it will obviously be unwilling to ostracise that player at the whims of an external group such as Gameplay. Nor do I believe either the hostility or defensiveness criticisms engage with what a clique actually is, as explored below.

What is a Clique?

Verywellfamily has a fairly simple definition of a clique: "an exclusive group of people who spend time together and do not readily allow others to join them" Link(Gordon, 2022). Obviously members of the GA community interact, so the first part is largely irrelevant; the operative section is "do not readily allow others to join them", the use of "exclusive" largely repeating this. Other sources have a largely similar definition, as a group "who spend time together and who are not friendly to other people", eg Link(Britannica Dictionary, 2024); Link(Collins Dictionary, 2024). For the sake of argument, I will work with both definitions here.

Addressing the first definition, it is obviously false that the GA community does not allow new members to participate. This has been acknowledged even by some of the most vocal proponents of a GA "clique" or "elite"; eg "any nation can become part of the WA Elite, if that nation so chooses to involve itself heavily with the affairs of the WA" (Jocospor, 2018). See also Link(Kerr, 2012). New authors regularly pass resolutions; at least six authors, two of whom -- The serendipitous and The Steam-Gardens -- were brand-new to the site, passed their first resolutions over the past year, while another by Walfo is currently quorate. There is an argument to be made that authorship is currently monopolised (or more so duopolised); I agree with this argument, and it is something which should be reduced; I say this as being one of the current duopoly alongside Simone Republic. However, this is not itself a sign of the GA being a clique, inasmuch as active authors are making no effort to prevent others from participating. In fact, active authors are almost always willing to help newer authors pass their resolutions; a few weeks ago both Tinhampton and myself co-authored Markanite's second resolution, a replacement for the resolution they repealed as their first; before this, veteran author Tinhampton had co-authored seven players' first resolutions since 2020, including those of such names as Barfleur and Greater Cesnica. My own second resolution was co-authored by Imperium Anglorum, while other regulars such as Kenmoria have made a name for themselves primarily for helping players draft their resolutions (Kenmoria themselves having co-authored the first resolutions of such giants as Honeydewistania and Rovikstead).

The second definition is arguably more complex to address, as prima facie the hostility criticism, if true as argued, would indeed imply that the GA is a clique. Yet, it is not true as argued, or in any way that meaningfully renders the GA a clique. Hostility is very rarely initiated by the GA community itself; it is initiated by outside elements that manipulate the GA in order to advance their agendas. This would be like a Generalite participating in II solely to prevent their political opponent from winning wars Icly; it would then be rather unreasonable to argue that II is a clique when the said Generalite then becomes unpopular there for what is essentially powergaming. This is essentially the defensiveness criticism. Then, a player who dislikes, say, P2TM godmodding there purely to rile up players and then calling P2TM a clique when they become disliked as a result is essentially the hostility criticism. When players engage in a behaviour such as quorum raiding because they know that it will irritate participants in the GA community, it does not meaningfully indicate that the GA is "not friendly to others" when it poorly receives the people who perform the said behaviours.

I acknowledge that much of the GA community may, in general, dislike other parts of the site and refuse to engage with them; say, Gameplay or the Security Council. However, two things here must also be noted. Firstly, this sentiment is far from universal; I have plenty of authorships in the Security Council, while some of the most active players in the GA are also involved in Gameplay. Secondly, no part of the site is owed the participation of GA regulars, even if Gameplayers often seem to repeat the rhetoric that criticism of Gameplayer actions is invalid if a player does not directly engage with Gameplay to combat them. Players simply disliking a community, or refusing to engage with it, does not a clique make.

The Who: Who the Criticism Comes From

I allude at this fact throughout this essay, but it is worth exploring the fact that the argument that the GA is a clique rarely comes from those involved in the GA. Instead -- with very few exceptions -- it tends to come from players opposed to the GA who, as said above, antagonise the GA and then when criticised argue that the GA community is a clique. Under the Collins/Britannica definition of a clique, this, if anything, characterises the groups of players who engage in this behaviour as themselves being cliques. The accusation, combined with the implication that cliques are inherently bad, is at best the pot calling the kettle black. These people lose their benefit of the doubt when they celebrate the departure of respected GA players, respond to criticism by calling the existence of the GA "trolling", quorum raid proposals by uninvolved authors while Linkthreatening WA Delegates to win an argument, threaten the same quorum raiding "whenever we feel like it" while telling GA players who criticise this to "cope harder", and support Technical changes on the grounds that they harm the GA. As stated by Wallenburg,

By excising these players from the community, at least to the extent it is possible to do so, we can promote a healthier and more vibrant community, free of the harm that bad actors would do to it.

I do wish to emphasise that I do not believe that this is something inherent to Gameplay; there are plenty of Gameplayers who engage cordially with the GA, even passing resolutions within it and becoming respected members of the community. Lord Dominator, who authored the passed repeal of the WA's original charter, is prominent as a former leader in raider region The Black Hawks, as well as the R/D military of The North Pacific. These sorts of players are also rarely the ones who argue that the GA is a clique. Instead, the use of the clique or elite rhetoric by bad actors to shut down criticism of themselves delegitimises good faith concerns about snark, monopolisation, and gatekeeping. Nor does the argument, when used this way, convince anybody other than those who already agree with it.

RawReport