Opinion: Disclosing Foreign Affiliations can be Problematic







Opinion: Disclosing Foreign Affiliations can be Problematic
Written by Dax




(June 6, 2019) - On May 20, Senator Rand made a post in the Senate regarding officials to share their foreign affiliations for both Senate confirmed positions and elected positions. The idea was initially met with discussion about how relevant this would be both to most positions, and how useful overall.

Disclosing a citizen’s foreign affiliations is nothing new in Europeia since its one of the very first questions fresh members address when applying for citizenship, but after some experience in NationStates, that answer is bound to change. However, should this small piece of information be the deciding factor for whether or not the candidate gets the job? For higher foreign affairs positions such as the Chief of State it makes more sense to take this into consideration, but it seems absurd to consider foreign affiliations for offices such as senate positions due to the senate being a legislative position rather than being geared toward foreign affairs in much of any way other than electing a Chief of State.

Senator Prim brought up the potential danger of this proposal stating that “We have seen a few individuals in here being stalked or harassed by other individuals in NS. If they were forced to disclose all of their active memberships, they could easily be followed and stalked in these other regions as well.” This is a point commonly argued over throughout the discussion of the proposal both inside and outside of the senate. However, in NationStates, when a player is being harassed in multiple regions it can prove to be a more difficult task to deal with for the administration involved to deal with this problem.

Overall, this amendment doesn’t seem necessary when it comes down to it. Not only does it open doors to harassment, but imagine how easily anyone could lie about this information. We truly have no way to check their answers other than if they accidentally reveal the truth themselves.

 
Glad to see someone wrote an opinion about this! Perhaps a bit late, but at least we have something about it! Good job, Dax!
 
This doesn't add anything new or even elaborate on the existing concerns. I'm not sure I understand the point except to continue pushing a narrative about security that doesn't hold water.
 
Yea, this is a little light for an opinion piece. It almost seeems like it would have been better suited as a plain news piece just summarizing the arguments.
 
This doesn't add anything new or even elaborate on the existing concerns. I'm not sure I understand the point except to continue pushing a narrative about security that doesn't hold water.
I stand by my concerns, but feel free to dismiss them as you like. I've literally witnessed several people who have been followed to other regions by creepy individuals when they found out about those other regions. This disclosure idea will only help aid in that sort of stalking.
 
This doesn't add anything new or even elaborate on the existing concerns. I'm not sure I understand the point except to continue pushing a narrative about security that doesn't hold water.
I stand by my concerns, but feel free to dismiss them as you like. I've literally witnessed several people who have been followed to other regions by creepy individuals when they found out about those other regions. This disclosure idea will only help aid in that sort of stalking.
We have avenues for dealing with OOC concerns. Would you advocate for removing that portion of the citizenship application as well? We have a right to know what conflicts of interest exist for our potential citizens and potential political leaders. This is one large game and regions are connected, whether folks like to admit it or not. I'd want to know if, for example, my potential Chief of State also happens to be Minister of Foreign Affairs in The South Pacific.

I don't mean to be dismissive of people's safety concerns, but anyone playing this game at all, in a certain sense, is putting themselves at risk. You can't hide part of your IC identity because of OOC reasons when that information is an important component of playing the game at all. We've seen many players get in trouble for attempting to hide alternative identities in different regions. If someone here was doing the same, I'd want to know, especially if they were seeking high office. Not only that, but I believe voters have a right to know and that withholding that information should be a crime.
 
Last edited:
We have avenues for dealing with OOC concerns. Would you advocate for removing that portion of the citizenship application as well? We have a right to know what conflicts of interest exist for our potential citizens and potential political leaders. This is one large game and regions are connected, whether folks like to admit it or not. I'd want to know if, for example, my potential Chief of State also happens to be Minister of Foreign Affairs in The South Pacific.

I don't advocate for removing it from the citizenship application, as I've stated elsewhere. Those who are newly joining our region probably don't have any stalkers in the region, but over time, they may become targeted by harassers and requiring them to disclose all of their other regions every time they want to serve in an office is an issue.

Secondly, I support Aex's new bill (requiring disclosure for FM/DFM and CoS/DCoS) --
I'm not opposed to the concept as a whole, I'm opposed to "locking out" all of those privacy-focused in our region from all elected or nominated positions. I don't think this is the worst idea in the world, especially for top-level or FA-focused positions. But I do think there is a concern here regarding privacy that is not being taken seriously, and could make some people more hesitant to get involved in positions in the future. I'm fine with disclosure being used, sparingly, for some of our critical positions, but to propose this for all positions, elected or otherwise, is just too far.

As I mentioned in the FA Poll thread--
I actually offered a compromise early on to Rand that I would support one of these options:

CoS/DCoS + Councilors (those who focus on FA issues, seems logical for foreign disclosures)
or
FM/DFM+ CoS/DCoS (those who have top-level access to decision-making processes)
 
With all due respect, I don't think that the point of disclosing foreign affiliations is to "be the deciding factor for whether or not the candidate gets the job". It's a matter of security in the eyes of proponents, and I doubt that this disclosure would ever affect a candidate's ability to secure an office unless their disclosure proves them to be a security issue/threat. It would never be a factor should a Senator stand 50/50 on a nominee.

Some writing tips for the future (opinions aside, the inner english teacher in me is coming out): this article didn't flow all that well. It started out talking about a view that it is "absurd" to consider affiliations for offices not named Chief of State, abruptly transitioned to a concern about harassment with a quote (rather than your own view with the quote to supplement), and ended with a reaffirmation that harassment is a concern and also mentioned the potential to lie (which wasn't mentioned but sort of thrown in at the end) and didn't mention the previous concern that it's unnecessary for any offices besides CoS.

Overall, some elaboration on some points and better flow would serve you well for future opinion articles. While I don't necessarily agree with your viewpoint, I do respect it, and it's something I listen to as a Senator. Thank you for your contribution to the public discourse on this issue.
 
@Prim I was editing my post while you responded, but my second paragraph is relevant to your reply as well.

We take on an inherent risk by participating in any sort of online community. We have legitimate IC reasons for these disclosures, and I don't believe individuals have a right to anonymity in terms of their other NS affiliations.
 
You can't hide part of your IC identity because of OOC reasons when that information is an important component of playing the game at all.
And we have the DEIA on record stating that this disclosure isn't really a silver bullet for the perceived problem. Foreign Disclosures required to obtain office is more of a "feeling of comfort" for internal voters than it is any kind of security measure. And I don't think the benefits, in that regard, at all outweigh the privacy concerns.

And again, this is a completely voluntary game, if we make participation in this game at all uncomfortable for people to continue engaging in our government, they may decide it isn't worth the effort. I think requiring disclosures for all positions is overkill and more likely to cause harm to participation in the region. But I still support Aex's bill requiring disclosure for our highest positions.
 
I think the idea that the Senate as a whole has found disclosing foreign affiliations for some positions acceptable, and have actively worked to identify which positions should disclose through compromise, undermines the argument that this is such a great concern.

There just seems to be some reason that the Senate wants to protect itself from disclosing, despite the crucial FA role the senate plays, which I really don’t understand.
 
Last edited:
That's not entirely accurate. The bill currently before the Senate only mandates disclosures for the FM and CoS (and their deputies) while providing for the process to allow elections administrators in all other elections to be able to ask for the disclosures, and candidates to submit them.
 
Given that the Senate and CoS play equal roles in treaties becoming law (CoS proposes and Senate ratifies - its a two-way dance), Senate should be included and not left out as optional.

If we want to leave out offices that aren’t directly involved in shaping foreign policy or laws, I think that’s a fair and reasonable compromise.

Indeed, it is my opinion that when discussing reasonableness, it is more reasonable to include the Senate and more unreasonable to exclude them.

Further given the discussion is being had not about any positions but rather which positions, we should focus on those that have direct and important FA requirements. It simply doesn’t pass the smell test to say the Senate doesn’t. And at this point, the privacy argument holds very, very little weight since we’ve decided that some positions do merit disclosure.

Of course, you and I have had this discussion before and we don’t need to rehash it as we have fundamentally different viewpoints.
 
I think the idea that the Senate as a whole has found disclosing foreign affiliations for some positions acceptable, and have actively worked to identify which positions should disclose through compromise, undermines the argument that this is such a great concern.

There just seems to be some reason that the Senate wants to protect itself from disclosing, despite the crucial FA role the senate plays, which I really don’t understand.
I understand your position on this, but both of these paragraphs read as if there's another paragraph that's supposed to be sandwiched in-between that would make it flow better. Instead it seems like two disjointed thoughts :p
 
The sheer amount of out and out bullshit being peddled in the responses to this article is astonishing.
 
The plan currently before the Senate does not stop candidates from disclosing their affiliations, it only requires it for the set of offices that impacts the day to day life of most Europeians the most. Any elections Administrator is free to ask for disclosures on any election, and candidates themselves are free to disclose them on any election. If you feel that a candidate running for a specific office who didn't offer any disclosures should do so, public pressure from private citizens is an appropriate way to get them to provide that. However, I don't believe a mandate for offices beyond CoS and FM are particularly impactful.

I think that's a pretty fair compromise. If people down the road feel like the law needs to be amended to include mandates for other positions that can propose that, but I don't see the harm in this being the starting point to see how it impacts (or fails to) our elections/politics
 
I've been holding off chiming in and spending some dedicated time thinking during this discussion. And here's something I want to add.

I think the people who are concerned about this legislation for OOC purposes are big-hearted and caring people, who have perhaps seen firsthand how stalking can perpetuate in this game.

That being said, I think we are trying to take on wayyy too much responsibility than the structures of this game can support.

Our job here is to design a game that we want to play and have fun governing our little micronation that is Europeia. And so long as the game we design is not demanding any real life information from people, we aren't invading anyone's privacy or overstretching our bounds. There's a real risk at assuming too much liability, and crippling ourselves with fears of the rarest circumstances. Even in real life, trying to build structural systems that deter crazy people is a high bar, here it might be almost impossible.

I also worry that we are disempowering members by seeing structural system changes as the solution to abuse. That is to say, passing a law, or having administrators change what they are doing, rather than empowering users who have tools at their disposal to handle a situation.

Users can block other users, on the forum and on discord. If users are circumventing those blocks, they can report that to Discord staff. Too often users aren't using these tools, and then throw their hands up when us administrators can't immediately fix the problem.

My primary argument here is that if we've gotten to a point where a harasser is following another member across the internet to continue their abuse, we are probably already at a place where the situation has already spiraled to where in-game systems are only going to be so much help. That's not to say as an administrator I won't try, I will do whatever I can to keep people safe, but there are only so many tools in my arsenal.

Ultimately, this game is opt-in. And if as a member, you are in a place where you would fear for your safety by continuing to play, then I would say you should opt-out. If I'm playing monopoly with a lunatic who threatens to beat the shit out of the other players if we build hotels, I'm not spending my time trying to re-write the rules of the game to appease that nut, I'm trying to get him ejected from the premises, and if I can't, I'm bouncing myself.

I want to make clear, this in no way is an abdication of doing everything I can to keep this game safe. My resume of work trying to eject nuts from this game is long, and I'll continue working at it so long as I am here. But it's important to be realistic with ourselves, and know that in every activity you ever engage in (online or RL) there's a risk you'll cross paths with a nut, and it's probably impossible to design any structures that resist that.
 
And so long as the game we design is not demanding any real life information from people, we aren't invading anyone's privacy or overstretching our bounds.

Overall, great post HEM. The takeaway is that there is zero harm, literally zero, in asking for this information from candidates. Let's not forget it is information previously provided and simply serves as an update. It simply isn't an invasion of privacy and there are legitimate reasons.

And no matter how much we try to minimize the Senate's role in FA, the undisputed fact is that the Senate plays a very meaningful role in FA. Why some Senators seem to want to keep the Senate from disclosing when all legitimate reasons point to inclusion rather than exclusion, I don't understand. Why there seems to be a wall between CoS and Senate, when both are required to execute and implement FA policy, boggles my mind.

As I asked previously, why wouldn't we want to err on the side of caution when it comes to FA? FA, after all, is SO IMPORTANT to our region that the EAAC exists, that the Senate elects the CoS, and it is the stage on which we are judged by our peers.

The bottom line is that the only reasons that hold weight in this argument are reasons for inclusion and not exclusion. Toss out privacy, which is pretty much a dead reason at this point, and there's no reason to keep the Senate out. I hope the Senate will do the right thing and include the Senate. And even the Senate recognizes the value of this information as they've included an "opt in" - so why not just err on the side of caution for the most important part of our government and include the Senate? Given that there really is no invasion of privacy, the opt-in option doesn't make any sense whatsoever or add value to the proposal.
 
Back
Top