- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Think hosting the Olympics is a bad deal? Try hosting the World Fair | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 22 2014, 03:43 PM (485 Views) | |
| OnderKelkia | Dec 22 2014, 03:43 PM Post #1 |
|
Think hosting the Olympics is a bad deal? Try hosting the World Fair In order to consider whether hosting the World Fair offers a poor return, we need to identify the different ways in which the hosting arrangements for the World Fair might be regarded as falling below legitimate expectations. The host region subjects itself to a competitive and public bidding process. An assessment of the benefits which accrue to a successful bidder and whether they are worth entering this process must be at the heart of considering whether hosting the World Fair is a poor agreement for the host region to have entered into. Yet in a wider sense all participants in the World Fair have a stake in the way in which it is administered because regions and people across NationStates invest in its success. The hosting arrangements for the World Fair should be a good deal for them too. Thus, while our primary focus will inevitably be on the interests of the host region, it is important to bear in mind the impact of the present system on the quality and openness of the World Fair. Moreover, we can use the topic of the World Fair’s hosting arrangements to explore wider defects affected by very much the same root problem. This lecture will argue that this problem is that the so-called ‘World Fair’ is in fact dominated by a small number of individuals, in particular one individual. While these people and this person put in a great deal of effort, it is unhealthy for the governance mechanisms of an accessible, global institution to be so limited, particularly given the assumption that a diverse range of regions will attend each fair. This lecture will contend that the benefits offered to the host region are insubstantial, that ultimate control of the World Fair is essentially closed for good and that the voice of the wider NationStates community is weakened as a result. The fundamental reason why hosting the World Fair offers a poor return is that being awarded this privilege does not entitle the host region to actually host the World Fair at all. If you win a competition to host the World Fair, a highly publicised and lengthy competition, then a good deal would be able to actually host the Fair. However, to genuinely host the World Fair would be for the host region to win the right of having the World Fair on its forum. That is what hosting would be taken to mean its conventional sense. Instead, the World Fair is permanently hosted by Unibot and his fellow World Fair Committee members. Many of these individuals are distinguished but they are self-selecting. The effect of the host region being unable to actually the host the World Fair is that the character and layout of the forums is beyond their control. Their input may be accepted or rejected, but this largely depends on whether Unibot likes it. Likewise, the practical role of a host - in serving the needs of their guests - is also beyond the host region, as they are equally powerless when it comes to routine administration in the course of the Fair. It is true that there would be significant disadvantages to a system whereby the World Fair was actually hosted on the regional forum of the host region. For instance, regions in political disputes with the host region might be uncomfortable about visiting the Fair or the host region's government or administrative team might be incapable of providing the necessary staffing problem. The latter objection is easily dealt with, because a region's capacity to host the Fair can, remarkably, be considered a criterion when deciding whether or not to make them host. More difficult is the question of maintaining the World Fair as a space in which NationStates players from all standpoints can congregate. Yet under a system where the World Fair rotated between being hosted in different regions, those who felt uncomfortable could opt out of attending in a particular year. Under the present system, the only choice available to someone who is uncomfortable with the actual hosting arrangements - which are led by a highly controversial figure - is to either boycott all the world fairs rather than a particular year's or to attend despite this discomfort. Unibot, of course, loses his administrator status once the Fair begins (although as this forum's member no. 1 he still has access to the Admin CP, removing his admin merely leaves this unadvertised) but he remains the principal public organiser. Among the administrators, Eluvatar, while a respected figure, is not a neutral one. The present system embeds the self-selecting members of the NS World Fair Committee as hosts forever and anyone who is not prepared to work with them is in consequence excluded from the process forever. This arrangement is both for a poor return for the host region and for the NationStates community (which is stuck with no choice of provider). However, even in a system where the host region is not trusted to actually host the World Fair, they could still be offered considerably more advantageous terms than the present system allows them. Under the current system, what is the host region presently entitled to? An explanation has been offered: Considering the bidding and selection process which the host region has put themselves through (albeit in the full knowledge of these terms), this is is a comically poor offering. The host region region gets to make an opening speech, make a closing speech and offer some suggestions for events. How significant are these rights? The opening speech of this year's fair was delivered by Beatrice of The Independent Order here. At time of writing, there has not been a single reply. Not one person attending the fair has deemed the opening speech to be significant enough to warrant their attention. The topic has received 52 views, which is the lowest number of all the topics containing lectures in Auditorium One - Lecture Hall (not counting the transcripts posted in the early hours of this morning of seminars given by Eluvatar and Thomasia, which are rather different in character being transcripts). Last year's fair tells a better but similar story: only two people posted beneath Escade's opening speech, one of them Unibot. By way of contrast, when Unibot delivered the opening remarks at the 2012 World Fair, which was before the introduction of host regions, the opening ceremony garnered much more interest, coming to 37 replies. It is unsurprising that Unibot's opening speech got significantly more attention than either of the two opening speeches delivered by the two host regions. This was not because the two speeches offered by the host regions were of lower quality; their quality was at least equal or better. It is because Unibot was the actual host and people knew he was the actual host, whereas they know that the host region's opening speech is essentially a public relations exercise because the host region has no direct power over the World Fair. This is meant to be the host region's big opportunity. The opening speech is the only tangible aspect of the Fair (prior to its conclusion, when we get the closing speech which can have little influence on the Fair's course) which is under the exclusive control of the host region. Having a massive contest over the right to make a speech which few people will read (with none among those who do caring enough to post) is absurd; it is unfair to the bidders and unfair to the voters. With regard to the closing speech, we are yet to receive this year's version, but last year's closing speech was in fact delivered by Unibot, despite the fact that the 2013 World Fair thread promised that the host region could do this. This not only illustrates Unibot's effective ability, while leading the efforts of the NS World Fair Committee, to take over anything in the Fair he so chooses. It also shows that the opportunity to make a closing speech is not necessarily of much value in any case - or presumably The South Pacific would have done it or objected publicly to Unibot doing it. After all, the closing speech is one of the very few tangible elements which actually being the host region involves, even if it is slated to take place after everything else is done so cannot influence the course of the World Fair. As for the ability to suggest events for the World Fair, that is all well and good, but the host region's ability to make suggestions is entirely subject to the NS World Fair Committee's willingness to accept those suggestions. Anyone who has a good idea and can make a persuasive case could probably offer a suggestion in private and get it taken on board. Entering a public and major selection process, for which there were five credible short-listed candidates this year, for the opportunity to make 'some suggestions' (as Unibot's FAQ puts it) is hardly a good deal when an individual could make such suggestions without this cover. The arrangements for the World Fair therefore leave the host region with little practical function. Even without allowing the host region to actually host the Fair, they could be offered a substantially better deal: for instance, they could be awarded responsibility for the selection of speakers within parameters to ensure balance laid down by the NS World Fair Committee. Alternatively, they could be given a veto over decisions taken by the NS World Fair Committee. As it stands, they are powerless; they are reduced to making meaningless speeches (assuming Unibot does not decide to make them instead) and offering a few suggestions (mainly in their bids, which are offered by all candidates before they even become the actual host region) - the implementation of individual suggestions being entirely within the discretion of Unibot and his colleagues. This a very poor deal. So why does anyone want to host the World Fair if it is this bad? For both the organisers of the World Fair and the winning host region, the bidding and selection process is purely a promotional exercise. This does not mean that the host region does not want contribute to a successful fair and would not rather do so. It means that the system that Unibot and his colleagues have devised does not allow the host region to have any degree of control over the process - that is control independent of any interference. In consequence, what is left are the publicity benefits to the host region. The host region gets to say they hosted the World Fair. They don't get to actually host it. The contest to host the World Fair is very much a favourability contest between the regions concerned. If hosting the World Fair is a worse deal than the Olympics, politics enters into the voting process more than with Eurovision. It might be argued that winning this contest is a significant benefit to the host region. If so their prize is winning the vote to become host, not actually hosting (because they are not allowed to host it anyway). As for Unibot and his fellow committee members, what do they get out of holding a promotional exercise? They get the chance to stir up hype about the World Fair in advance. To keep people in anticipation. To frame the World Fair on the model of major real international events. To enhance the Fair's legitimacy by getting people to participate in the process in the hope of influencing the host region, which staves off the possibility of boycotts. Unibot gets to pretend that the process for selecting a host region carries some meaning. This charade gives a democratic cover to the World Fair, which suggests there is a genuine popular element. In fact there is nothing but a sordid publicity contest followed by the winner not even getting to host the event. In conclusion, hosting the World Fair is a bad deal for the host region and for the public because the only real benefit takes the form of winning a publicity contest which conveys an unrealistic impression of the host region's significance to the running of the World Fair. The 'host region' is relatively unimportant to the World Fair because they are simply not the host. They do not host the World Fair in any sense beyond being described as such. Unibot and his colleagues are the hosts. Unibot and his colleagues have done excellent work and put in a lot of effort. However, if the NS World Fair is to be an institution which truly transcends regional divides, it should not be a closed institution, particularly under the permanent leadership of someone so controversial. It should be a democratic institution, in which the public's ability to select the host region actually means something. That means that the host region should have the power beyond making suggestions in their bid (given that good suggestions from other bids and indeed elsewhere) can be picked up, where individual items are entirely subject to whether the World Fair Committee accepts them. The host region does the job of supplying ideas, whereas the actual power over what ultimately happens lies with the World Fair Committee. The only aspects of the World Fair supposedly under the host region's actual control, namely the opening speech and the closing speech, are (as I have illustrated) largely ignored (that is assuming that the host region actually delivers them rather than Unibot). This situation should not continue. The World Fair should move to a more open framework. Therefore I hereby give notice that, until and unless there are significant reforms to the way in which the World Fair is hosted, which remedy the concerns I have raised, The Land of Kings and Emperors will be boycotting all future fairs from next year. The status quo cannot continue. This fair should not enjoy universal acceptance until it is hosted fairly. |
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| Sopo | Dec 22 2014, 04:11 PM Post #2 |
|
This is a very interesting take and something to which I had not given much thought. I would support changes like Onder suggests. |
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| Kringalia | Dec 22 2014, 04:49 PM Post #3 |
|
This actually is an interesting read, and I agree with many of the points raised. As someone who was involved in making the bid of the South Pacific, I can say that I did have the impression our participation was nominal. We did discuss with the Committee for possibility of canceling the EuroSoviets lecture to avoid a boycott, but we weren't consulted about the organisation of the Fair as much as I thought a host would be. It would be interesting to look at the bids and see if the host's suggestions have been implemented. I took a look a TSP's bid, and don't think any of our suggestions were implemented, aside from things we did on our own venue. I like the Fair, and think having a host is awesome, but Onder does raise valid concerns about the process. It'd be interesting to see how those concerns are addressed. |
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| Unibot | Dec 22 2014, 05:05 PM Post #4 |
|
Administrator
|
You weren't informed about EuroSoviets as a lecturer until I was informed of EuroSoviets as a lecturer -- the Lecture Hall's schedule is often only finished within a few hours before it is posted because multiple changes will often happen leading up to the Lecture Hall's schedule being posting. Ultimately, the Committee reluctantly agreed to the host's proposal to restrict EuroSoviet's participation. I don't believe a more "open" framework would be possible without significantly limiting the quality of the event. Bearing in mind, the more "open" the framework, the more that the url of the forum has to be distributed and the more fractured communication becomes -- communication surrounding the World Fair is already an organisational nightmare and without a central figure planning the event, you can't coordinate an event between dozens of event organizers across the entire game. Furthermore, most of the host's suggestions for the Fair often duplicate existing ideas for the forum -- like the Lecture Hall and the NS Sports tournament -- or they are not implementable without a significant redesign of the forum, or they are too small of an event to be placed in parallel to the Lecture Hall and the NS Sports and the Regional Venue as a single event (and thus better placed in the host's Regional Venue). |
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| Glen-Rhodes | Dec 22 2014, 09:10 PM Post #5 |
|
Eh, I see the general point that hosting the World Fair isn't all it might seem to be. But I wouldn't say it's a "bad deal." You're right that what the winner wins is, well, winning the contest to be the host. It's PR. TSP rode that PR both domestically and in foreign affairs. I'm sure a lot more (important) people know of The Independent Order now than before, even if they have no editorial control over the World Fair at all. I do think Unibot has a point that the structure exists because the World Fair would be lesser quality without it. One of the mainstays of the World Fair is curating a lecture series, and I'm not sure there are many people who have Unibot's chops (and neutrality) when it comes to that. |
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| Guayabal | Dec 22 2014, 09:58 PM Post #6 |
|
I liked the lecture but I have something to say, the Olympics are way difficult than this, because you take hours to plan scorinations, check users skill average, grading RP's, rosters and more stuff during almost a month, I don't see a fair point on the name of this essay, with the due respect to your effort but that's wrong. |
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| OnderKelkia | Dec 22 2014, 10:54 PM Post #7 |
|
One starts from the assumption that regions are applying to host because they want to host or at least significantly contribute to the Fair rather than because they wish to win a public relations exercise. If we assume this, then an outcome where the host region has no actual control over the Fair's content is indeed bad for them. In any case, my argument is also that, for the wider NS public, the term 'host region' is misleading and provides an impression of democratic input into the World Fair which does not reflect the reality of the situation.
I don't see why the ability to organise the Fair is limited to the World Fair Committee led by Unibot. If a host region's role was widened, it could be assessed not just on its suggestions but on its capacity to host, including resources and connections. There are several large regions which would be capable of running this event. Some of which would be more inclined to apply if they thought that hosting was a better deal. You might say that will only some potential hosts will meet this criteria but at present only Unibot and a couple of others ever get to meaningfully contribute to running the Fair, so it is much more open than the prevailing situation. Alternatively, if it is concluded that insufficient talent can be found in any one region, then simply abolishing the 'host region' function and restructuring the committee so it is a representative group of organisers, rather than a self-selecting group (were Unibot is by far the most significant), would make substantial sense. There is no reason why the system for running the Fair should be designed to concentrate power so tightly in the hands of its principal organiser to the exclusion of others. The wider NS community should have a voice in its fair. On this vein, I see no reason why only Unibot is capable of identifying and inviting appropriate lecturers.
The analogy is to the real life Olympics, not to an NS version. My apologies if that causes confusion. Additionally, it wasn't intended as a comment on the amount of effort or difficulty involved in each undertaking. Indeed, what this lecture regards as a better deal for the host region in fact involves them doing more work. Edited by OnderKelkia, Dec 22 2014, 11:02 PM.
|
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| Christian Democrats | Dec 23 2014, 01:23 AM Post #8 |
![]()
|
Great article, Onder. Minus the personal swipes, I agree with all of your points. More than a few regions have the manpower to host an international expo in the substantive sense. A few suggestions for future world fairs:
|
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| Avakael | Dec 23 2014, 05:51 AM Post #9 |
|
I suppose this is the lecture I was keeping an eye out for the most, so nice to be able to finally see it. ![]() I can't reply immediately, and I am not a member of the government of The Independent Order anymore beyond being considered part of the regional nobility, but I did have a hand in various other aspects and can shine some light on our involvement in the preparations. |
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| Todd McCloud | Dec 23 2014, 07:44 AM Post #10 |
|
Last stop to heaven just like Moses on a motor bike.
|
I might be in the minority, but I sort of like how the world fair forums look. They're unique and have kind of a kitchy NS feel to them. While I've never been involved in the coding, I know Solm and Unibot both work their tails off designing them. Even last year when enough people complained about the sidebar issue, they worked with me to get that code fixed. I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. Unibot and I put our heads together and helped lay the framework for the 2012 NS world fair. At the time, I didn't really think there'd be another one. But, enough people loved it that there was a 2013 one. And a 2014 one too. But they didn't love it because of what we did, they loved it because of what everyone did during these events. To me, they remind me of those April Fools moments where we sort of lay aside differences and enjoy each others' company regardless of stance or past issues. That's what the fair means to me, personally. But that's just me. It may mean something else to you. The host region becomes a part of such celebration. It's a feather in their cap, one that will be remembered for all time, well, all NS time. If individuals want the host to have more control over this, it's okay with me. But we should figure out how, because I do agree that if the host takes total control over the forums, for instance, the quality of workmanship may go down - not because they couldn't do it, but because, well, like I said I've had the ability to watch these guys build forums for three years, and they know a lot of tricks on how to make it look nice. Also, they unveiling of the forums is something pretty cool too. Host region would be good to be mentioned in the header. Heck, we might be able to do that now if everyone's ok with it. |
| OFF Profile | Quote ↑ |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Auditorium One - Lecture Hall · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





7:53 AM Jul 11