#Vision2026 - Vara for Secretariat

Dear member states, voters, academics, freaks, radicals, establishment goons, contrarians, psychos, surgeons, philosophers, alien duck-men, gnomes and gnome-makers, outrage farmers, true believers, and anyone between, outside, or without, I present to you a Vision. I hope you’ll see it through with me.

I’m Vara, and if you haven’t seen my name on the delegate graph or one of my resolutions or, even worse, one of my posts, that’s just fine. I’ve played NS for a little under 7 years, and in that time I’ve authored 23 World Assembly Resolutions, split roughly down the middle between the General Assembly and the Security Council. I’ve served as Delegate of the West Pacific for over 400 days now, and been centrally responsible for devising, articulating, and advancing World Assembly policy in the best interests of a community of hundreds of people, who I have also been responsible for leading as head of government. I’d like to use those skills now to do the same for the broader community.

The Security Council

A lot of people are likely very fairly concerned about the sleepiness of the current Security Council. More even than the General Assembly, the SC relies upon us, the community. Rather than write about concepts and policies from the real world, the SC is only capable of telling stories about the people, communities, and events that shape the Multiverse. It’s much quicker to write a resolution about a legacy than it is to have a legacy, so one just outpaces the other! For that reason, the SC is always informally amending its standards; what level of roleplay or region-building do you need to earn a Commendation, how big does a Frontier have to be protected with a preemptive injunction?

The Security Council, as such, is a game of context and experience. I’ve been on a total of 10 Security Council resolutions of all sorts. Commends, condemns, repeals of both thereof. Both historical and contemporary players. As the SC twists and turns, I am ready and able to analyze and summarize any of these contexts or motivations in ways accessible to everyone.

The General Assembly

I’ve authored and co-authored a total of 13 General Assembly resolutions, both affirmative and repeals. But to start with all cards on the table, I am a National Sovereigntist. This needs some explaining, since there are a lot of misconceptions about what a NatSov is, with a few commentators deriding the ideology as nothing but endless repeal waves, which is not true. It would be completely undesirable to start the new GA with a repeal wave even if there was anything to repeal. My position is simply that of the National Sovereigntist: it is in the best interests of both the member states and the body at large to ensure that the GA does not end up a peremptory and cumbersome institution.

In the old General Assembly, a resolution’s statistical effects were tied to its category. Regardless of the text of the resolution, the stat effects could thus only go so far. And their effects were often quiet and automatic, with many states, even those that care about issues very significantly, not necessarily checking the damage every four days. This will not be the case in the new General Assembly. Rather, resolutions will be like issues, endlessly customizable to the strength of the text. And rather than being automatically updated, you will be denied the vote until you have chosen to adopt 80% of resolutions.

Now, member states will have to actively select for whatever resolutions the GA passes, regardless of its effects or their strength. Think of everyone in the WA answering one big issue, and you have to answer however the majority does in order to keep your vote! Now we have a dilemma, where increasingly broad, powerful, or micromanaging resolutions will see more and more voters who care about their stats surrendering their vote at the whims of larger powers to run their nation how they choose. If you just have one vote, and in order to keep it you have to keep risking wrecking your stats…why not just stop doing it? A General Assembly as aggressive and bureaucratic as the old one will see fewer people engaging, fewer people voting, and fewer people caring. The GA would self-select for an increasingly narrow policy pathway, with each stage driving out whoever’s been left at the margins from the last stage. This struggle would be especially acute for delegates of grassroot communities, who do not always have a deciding voice in these results, but are responsible for representing their region to the world, even if it means they have to sacrifice their nation piece by piece to do it. But why should they have to do that?

The solution to this is not to throw up our hands and tell ever-growing swathes of our game good riddance. Nor is it to sit on our hands and never pass anything, leaving a desiccated corpse where we once had a real body. The solution is for the General Assembly to take a direct, responsible, and cooperation-minded approach to international legislation. If you want to know what I mean by that, the Sovereign Seven has recently released seven pillars of quality legislation which will guide me heavily in my recommendations.

That is my vision for the World Assembly. We are at our best when we respect and include each other. The World Assembly is not a weapon for half of us to use against the other half. It is for all of our benefit. Share it with me.

If you have any questions, please visit my campaign thread and ask away!