Header Courtesy of Lynxi 

June 2019  

New Appointments Keep Osiris Moving

By Malphe Vytherov

In the last month Osiris has seen a huge diversity of new government appointments and changing positions. Valerievna/Rachael being appointed as
Chief Vizier, Lukatonia/Ham as Vizier of Gameside Affairs, Arnavaz/Sarah as Vizier of Community Affairs and of course Anabelle as Pharaoh! The
last of which marking a decidedly fast and efficient delegacy transition, succeeding Ghostfox/Lynxi's reign over the last few months.

Starting off in chronological order is Rachael’s appointment to Chief Vizier by Pharaoh Lynxi on May 24th. The Chief Vizier, in Lynxi's words "an old,
dusty office within the government that hasn't been seen since before Altino was delegate" presides over the Council of Viziers and helps the Pharaoh
in their duties as their second in command. It previously existed in Osiris but had not been used for over a year. Lynxi explains how she was unable to
fulfill her full duties as pharaoh alone due to IRL concerns and describing Rachael as a "perfect model for the idea of a meritocratic government that
replaces itself", trusting that her contributions would make up for the potential lull in attention from the Pharaoh.

Rachael's appointment left her previous position, Vizier of Gameside Affairs, open and needing a new person. The choice for this was obvious; Ham
had been performing admirably in Gameside for months and made a stellar replacement for Rachael. In her appointment post Ghostfox explains "Ham
is so dedicated to Gameside it makes me violently sick, but it has had an astounding impact on the department and the goals that they have set out for
themselves", going on that "He's going to do wonderful, and I'm excited to see what he can do".

On May 30th Lynxi announced that she would be stepping down from leadership in the next few days, commenting that "there are a lot of tings
outside of this game that are driving me to do this a bit early" and that "soon I'm going to vacate the delegacy". She appointed her successor-
Anabelle- in the same post.

Anabelle, who joined Osiris in 2016 and had been the standing Vizier of Community Affairs, ascended to the delegacy on the 13th of June. She said in
her opening post "I'd like to thank everyone who has stepped up in Osiris to keep us together and moving along. I'm a firm believer in being able to tell
a lot about a person by how they deal with the slightest adversity and we're an incredibly strong community with amazing people". In the same post
she appointed Sarah Bread as her replacement as Vizier of Community Affairs, who was previously a deputy Vizier in the same department.

Shifts and new appointments in government are indicative of a healthy, active meritocracy and show that anybody in Osiris can ascend higher through
hard work and perseverance. I have no doubt all these new appointees will do (and for that matter, have done >.>) great in their positions.

TWP + Osiris Go To Prom!!

Anabelle
The West Pacific and Osiris put their heads together to host a joint event celebrating their long alliance. This year, they put on the West Osi High
School Prom. For those not in the know, a Prom is a semi-formal dance typically held in the last year of High-School. It was complete with the
delegates of both regions serving as school principals, a hand crafted playlist, prom pictures, superlatives and of course a Prom King and Queen.

Here are the winners for the West Osi High School 2019 Prom:

Most likely to be delegate (coup or otherwise)​ Rach
Most likely to purge a region​ Mike
Best Smile (excessive use of emoji)​ Sarah
Most glittery​ Rigel
Most friendly​ Skies
Biggest personality​ Miska
Most likely to have socks stolen​ Ham
Most likely to be together forever​ Kawaii and Lynxi
Most likely to be delegate​ (coup or otherwise) Kawaii
Most likely to purge a region​ Dali
Best Smile (excessive use of emoji)​ Khanter
Most glittery​ Neenee
Most friendly​ OT
Biggest personality​ Badger
Most likely to have socks stolen​ Riz
Most likely to be together forever​ Altino and Rigel

Prom King​: Dali & Nequedum

Prom Queen:​ Skies

Congrats to everyone who won and a big thank you to everyone who participated. A special thank you goes to Bran of The West Pacific for the lion's
share of planning and Drinarius of Osiris for the posters and invitations.
 Point/Counterpoint
A debate by Josh and Lord Protector, foreword by Josh
Welcome once more to my parlour of philosophical pontification! The higher ups let me have another piece on abstract concepts rather than NS itself, so I’m pretty happy this time. This
edition, we’ll be discussing the merits of individualistic and collectivistic social structures, with me naturally arguing for a position of collectivism. Those who know me will no doubt roll
their eyes with a complete lack of surprise. In the individualistic corner we have Saph, and I must say that his style and line of argument make a fine addition to this month’s Oracle (this
being one of the rare occasions where I have actually read the submission before writing the preamble). Without further ado, let us proceed.
Josh
First and foremost, I must define the parameters of the collective I wish
to defend when opposed to an individualistic, or should I say selfish
and blind, viewpoint. There’s a lot of collectives one could think of; a
family unit, a religious or cultural group, a village, a town, a city, a
nation… but none of these come close to the kind of collective interest
I keep in mind when discussing these matters. These are small and
arbitrary units, divided by geography, the slightest of genetic markers,
and false collective perceptions of in and out-groups. No, the collective
viewpoint which must be embraced, the only one that can claim moral
superiority over individualism, is that which treats the entire species as
one’s own collective. A species-wide approach eliminates arbitrary
divisions, and seeks what is best for humanity as a whole, enhancing
the opportunities of every individual. This would not have been
possible in eras of lesser technological capability, it’s true, but now that
the opportunity exists it is imperative we embrace it. The planet wide
crises of the coming years will demand it.
It would be easy to fall into a majoritarian or utilitarian calculus with
any collective grouping, where only a majority sees its advantages, the
rest being left to suffer to keep the 51% comfortable and happy. This
too is not the kind of collectivism that interests me; the utilitarian
calculus always struck me not as a method for the betterment of all
mankind, but for the betterment of the dominant cultural/religious
grouping. Clearly, that does not permit for the growth of everyone else.
Instead, I propose that we take some time to think about the supposed
conflict between individual interest and collective good. My opponent
has certainly taken an interesting and perhaps not conventional path
through the issue, so allow me to propose a similarly unconventional
view.
Self interest, when rationally considered, is indistinguishable from the
collective good of mankind. ​“How is this possible? Surely a person’s
interests can differ from the group’s?”​ The human collective is the
structure on which all individuals rest. Our achievements as a group
define the limits of each individual’s lives. For an individual to have a
certain level of technology, the collective must have it first. For an
individual to have opportunities to pursue their dreams, the collective
must systematically permit that first. For an individual to even feel the
most basic level of security, the structures of society must exist first. It
is therefore within every individual’s interests to view the success of
the collective as integral to their own.
This does not constitute an argument where individuals are bound to
forever work in some predetermined role for a nebulous eventual
“social good”, but instead an appeal, in the general sense, to view
collective progress as directly impacting upon their own quality of life
and their own opportunities. Certainly, we have a long way to go before
my interpretation can properly play out. This is not an appeal to how
things are or ever were; instead I present a world that could be, in the
event humanity finds a way to transcend its petty boundaries.
Collectivism requires connectivity and mutual understanding, at a level
that has been previously impossible to achieve. It will take concerted
effort to break the entrenched individualist ideas of the capitalist age,
but efforts spent in doing so will convey a significant advantage for
humanity.
Lord Protector
Beware always those who would be despots, under the false presumption that
their desires and agendas are somehow more imperative than those of their
fellows. A society that does not see to the needs and rights of all of its
members is not a society - it is a crime.
That quote is from a game called ‘Stellaris’ - a space-themed strategy video
game. The quote itself regards to a concept called ‘Fanatic Egalitarianism’
which is an adoptable ideal in the game for the players. The game itself is not
what matters here, what matters is the meaning that the quote carries.
Paraphrasing on what it said, the quote says that we need to be constantly on
the lookout for people whom - under a false presumption - thinks that the
agenda they have are more important than the agenda of others around them.
While not directly referring to the concept of Collectivism, the quote is
largely intertwined with what Collectivism entails. By writing this article, I
hope to make a competent case for Individualism.
As a starter, let’s understand the meaning of these two concepts first.
Simply put, Individualism - in its most basic form - is the prioritization of
individuals as the name of the ideal itself would suggest
(Britannica.com/topic/individualism). However, it should be understood that
this definition does not necessarily entail the deprioritization of the
collective, that would refer to what I would say, anti-collectivism, which is a
stance that I don’t ​exactly t​ ake on this topic.
Collectivism - on the other hand - is the prioritization of the group, otherwise
known as the collective. Again, the same logic I used for Individualism
would also apply here. It should be understood that Collectivism does not
necessarily entail the deprioritization of the individual, that would be what I
would say, anti-individualism, which is a stance that I also don’t ​exactly t​ ake
on this topic.
Now that we’re done with the semantics, let’s get to the big question at hand:
Which side of the argument matters more, the individual, or the
collective?
Answering that question, I will answer with the individual.
Let’s do a thought experiment. Let there be a hypothetical collective made
out of some 50 people. In the event that a catastrophic disaster were to wipe
out all the people of that collective, would it be possible for the hypothetical
collective to exist?
From that premise alone, it would already be conclusive to say that no, that
particular hypothetical collective will not exist because no member of it
exist. This is a position which happens to be also a critic by one Ludvig von
Mises - a 20th century philosopher famous for his works regarding but not
limited to economics, epistemology, politics, sociology, ethics, and history.
Mises argues by a doctrine called ​Methodological Individualism​. He states
that only individuals act and concurrently, a ​collective’s action ​can
ultimately be reduced to the actions of various individuals. What Mises does
here is denying the independent existence of collectives and I would say that
he does a great job at it. There is simply no way that a ‘collective’ could ever
decide anything without people making and agreeing to carrying out those
decisions.
 Another one of Mises’ points is the supposed fact that the goals that are
Collectivist thought itself conveys benefits, and these are increased by elevated in a Collectivist Position is not actually the goal of the entire group,
orders of magnitude when one considers the current situation we find but merely the goal of those of the most powerful in the group. Let’s try to
ourselves living under. find an example of this particular point. Somewhere along the lines of Yuval
Noah Harari’s book, ​Sapiens, ​he starts talking about the collapse of local
First, however, we must understand how individualism relates to the intimate communities. He gives an example of a government which tries to
systems of government that exist in western nations. It is vital to take advantage of local intimate communities and this example was of the
acknowledge that individualism is not merely an isolated worldview in Chinese Ming Empire.
a sea of isolated ideas, but instead exists as an intrinsic part of the
liberal democratic political system extant today in the West. “... the population was organized into the ​baojia ​system. Ten families were
grouped to form a ​jia, a​ nd ten ​jia c​ onstituted a ​bao.​ When a member of a ​bao
Ideology, when all-pervasive in society, shapes social norms in committed a crime, other ​bao ​members could be punished for it, in particular
significant ways. So significant, in fact, that the results often blend into the ​bao e​ lder ...”
those norms as if they were never absent, seeming to be an inherent “Life in the bosom of family and community was far from ideal. Families
part of human thought. The rise of capitalism and of self-made-men and communities could oppress their members no less brutally than do
shook the foundations of society to their core, in a massive upheaval, modern states and markets, and their internal dynamics were often fraught
destroying traditional perspectives and creating a new set of identities. with tension and violence - yet people had little choice. A person who lost
her family and community around 1750 was as good as dead. She had no job,
The self rose in importance rapidly to become the object of preeminent no education, and no support in times of sickness and distress. Nobody
concern. Yet, this process is significantly beyond living memory. We would loan her money or defend her if she got into trouble. There were no
have arrived at a point where the average person in the West sincerely policemen, no social workers, and no compulsory education. In order to
believes that the default method of social and political organisation is survive, such a person had to find an alternative family or community. Boys
liberal democracy, much as a peasant in 1300 would have believed and girls who ran away from home could expect, at best, to become servants
feudalism was. The individualist approach we are all conditioned to in some new family. At worst, there was the army or the brothel.”
take to life is yet another part of the dominance of the liberal capitalist
system over all our lives. It seems so innocent, so natural, and so That is but a couple of excerpts from the book itself. Those alone - however -
inconsequential as with all things that blend into the background of the should give you an idea of how Mises could be correct. And how the first
social fabric. The primary realisations one must take from this are that quote in this text is too. This is, what I would say, a stark embodiment of the
the world we live in is not the only option we have, and that there are flaws of Collectivism.
negative impacts of the existing system.
Furthering my case for individualism, let me change my standpoint into that
The individualist trend has cultivated a certain kind of thinking in the of a more pragmatic one. A dramatic change over the last two centuries has
nations it has come to dominate, both on a personal/social for been occuring and is most likely still occurring to this very moment. This is
individuals, and on the far more impactful governmental plane. referring to the rise in prominence of state control over local control. And
quite peculiar is the fact that we can substitute the word ‘state control’ with
Individualism has, naturally, made people prioritise themselves, and at ‘individualism’ and ‘local control’ with ‘collectivism’, both words somehow
best their immediate families and friends, to the exclusion of all other still follows true to the logic behind the sentence. Let me explain.
people. In the West, we live in a culture that implies all is well with the
world if you ​personally​ are contented in your miniscule social bubble, Over the last two centuries, we have slowly (but surely) shifted the focus
ignoring vast suffering merely because it has no immediate impact on from our actual family into what I would call our ‘state family’. This ‘state
your​ life. Feeding these perceptions has been an extremely good way family’ can be interpreted as our country or anything similar to ‘a country’.
for individualist-capitalist power structures to last as long as they have, This is what Yuval Noah Harari calls, “an imagined community” and he has
allowing them to ignore large sections of the population of the planet a great point. There is simply no way for a citizen of a particular country to
and favouring wealthy, privileged members of Western nations. As know every other member of that country. No German can intimately know
long as enough of those in the nations with the power to do something the other 80 million members of the German Nation, or the other 500 million
about the system are contented, the system remains in place, and members of the European Common Market. This change - done by utilizing
bugger the rest. our imagination - is not a lie. It is just imagination, like the concept of
money. It’s not that it’s not real, it’s just that they are abstractions that only
Those with concerns about a utilitarian calculus being applied to exist in our thoughts.
collectivist governance would perhaps be well served by examining the
calculus present in their favoured system. From this consideration, we The nation itself does its best to hide the fact that it is but mere imagination.
can see how individualism has lasted not because of its benefits, but Most nations argue that they are a natural and ‘eternal’ entity, created by
because it is very good at self-perpetuation. ‘some primordial epoch’ by mixing the soil of the motherland with the blood
of the people. Yet, such claims are typically exaggerated. Nations existed in
The blinkers that individualism places upon populations have had dire the distant past, but their importance were smaller than today because the
consequences for marginalised and oppressed social groups, importance of the ‘state family’ was much smaller. A resident of medieval
disadvantaged nations, and even members of the dominant groupings Nuremberg might have felt far more loyalty towards the German nation, but
who find themselves facing hard times. Playing on a lack of social care the resident would’ve felt far more loyalty to his family and local
for the “invisible,” liberal Western governments have ignored the needs community, which took care of most of her needs. Most nations only evolved
of minorities, effectively punished the poor and sick for being in after the Industrial Revolution.
situations over which they have no control, and continued to exploit
less economically developed areas of the world in a neo-colonial Exhibit A would be the Middle East as they provide ample examples. The
capitalist system. Social activism has come some way towards Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese, and Iraqi nations are the product of haphazard
addressing a handful of the myriad issues one could use as examples of borders drawn in the sand by French and British diplomats who ignored their
the above, but in a system where injustice is not obvious, but only its local histories, geographies, and economies. In 1918, it was determined by
obvious presence and impact will get it addressed, these kinds of these diplomats that the people of Kurdistan, Baghdad, and Basra would
activism are simply insufficient. henceforth be ‘Iraqis’. It was primarily the French who decided who would
be Syrian and Lebanese. Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Asad therefore
 Powerful interests in Western liberal states use the lack of popular
pressure for change as a legitimising factor for their neglect, with
people having been fed the democratic narrative that only large
consensus makes an issue worth addressing. A collectivist worldview
from above would actively seek out and correct injustice, rather than
waiting on such pressure to build up that it becomes politically
untenable to continue doing nothing. Such individualistic-democratic
processes waste years, throughout which the oppressed must continue
to suffer.
The individualistic blinker effect has created an additional glaring
problem in both governance and social thinking; short-sightedness.
Short-term gains are prioritised massively over long term planning and
sustainability. People primarily concerned with their profit margins and
the wellbeings of their immediate families have brought the world to
the brink of environmental collapse. Democracies where terms of
governments almost never reach a decade long find themselves
incapable of planning for the future.
actually tried their best to promote and reinforce their
Anglo-French-manufactured national consciousness, but their bombastic
speeches about the allegedly ‘eternal’ Iraqi and Syrian nations had a hollow
ring (Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: 362-364, Imagined Communities)
But, ​how does this relate to individualism mattering more than
collectivism?
Well, if you’ve noticed, the changes which I’ve mentioned - from the
collectivist emphasis on families to the individualist emphasis on people -
has largely been responsible for many ‘improvements’ in the modern world.
The change from a collective emphasis has allowed us to see the world
clearer from an ‘us and them’ position to an ‘I and you’ position, and in turn,
this has promoted more unity than the collectivist position ever could. Using
an ‘imagined community’ as Yuval Noah Harari would put it, is one of the
most efficient ways of organizing people to a common ground.
But, ​aren’t imagined communities just a bigger collectivist position
rather than an individualist position?

Instead, they pander to individualistic voters’ immediate concerns over
minute areas of policy without regard to the long term impacts of
systems. Personal financial enrichment is advertised as the primary
social good, the best an individual can ever hope to do. People have
become shackled to their jobs, leaving no time for personal concerns in
a capitalistic system intrinsically designed to exploit everyone for
maximal profit margins.
Again, we cannot ignore that individualism is a product of the
economic systems we live under. I present an alternative; a state where
everyone matters, where everyone’s concerns are addressed. Not
because public opinion demands it decades or even centuries after the
problem came into being, but because it is ​right​ to address injustice.
This is the collectivism I am an advocate for. Break free of your false
consciousness, I implore you, dear reader who bothers to get this far
(thanks for indulging me btw). You have nothing to lose but your
chains!
You would be correct if what you are saying is that an ‘imagined
community’ is just a bigger collective. For example, let’s take a country.
Germany and France are technically collectives in their own right and they
have their own people which agree to a baseline idea of a ‘Germany’ or a
‘France’. But, the change that I am referring to is the emphasizing of
individuals rather than the collectives. Before a majority of this shift taking
place, it is generally quite hard to immigrate to other countries. We can see
from today’s times that this has radically changed. If you were a farmer of
Village A, it is highly unlikely that you would ever be accepted into the
community of VIllage B due to a multitude of factors. Maybe their local
community has a radically different tradition than you. Maybe you have no
acquaintances there, no people that you know. Maybe you don’t even have
any family there, no relatives. If any of those factors rings true, it is highly
improbable that you would ever be accepted into that particular community.
The incentives of migrating to live there underweighs the loss of leaving
your particular community. But, with the rise in prominence of the
Individualist position, we no longer have to ‘adapt’ to the traditions of one
particular community, we no longer have to even have any acquaintances,
and we certainly no longer have to have a family, or relatives in that
community to migrate there. Individualism, therefore, has allowed for large
autonomy to individuals.
With this in mind, we can safely say that ‘imagined communities’ are not
mere ‘bigger collectivist position’ but instead a ‘bigger individualist
position’, embodied in the form of an ‘abstraction’ which only exist in the
thoughts of fellow humans. I rest my case.

Inside with Gameside

Interview by Sarah Bread

Hey lovies! I'm doing an interview! "Inside with Gameside". I'll throw out some questions. You can respond and we'll create a magically
mess. ^-^ As you can see, we had a very professional time with this interview.

Has gameside considered not being Hitler?

Ham - Lol I mean Dakota has left us as Vizier and we haven't played Secret Hitler in a while.

Skies - The evil runs through our bones, we couldn’t purge it if we tried :(

What's your favorite thing about Gameside?

Ham - The reactions from Osiris natives. One time they broke the news that I was adopted and another time they told me I couldn't bribe
them to endorse Lynxi.

Skies - My favorite thing about Gameside has definitely changed since I’ve joined it. I’ve grown very attached to the Osiris natives,
especially the ones we only really get to interact with on the RMB. So many people I wish would join the Discord.
(Interview cont.)

What color socks are you wearing right now?

Ham - White with black stripes, plain enough to lower the chance of them getting snatched.

Skies - Blue Ravenclaw crew socks. I’m not a nerd, you are >.>

It can be really hard staying motivated to get people to join the WA or converse on the RMB, how do you keep yourselves from
burnout?

Ham - I struggled really bad with this when I was Sub Vizier. What I do is just change my strategy and try to get others involved.
Gameside is a group effort and I try to involve as many people into what we do as possible.

Skies - I’ve definitely been feeling the burnout a bit. Whenever I’m not quite motivated to do Gameside things, I like going and chatting on
the RMB a bit, it reminds me of what I love about this community, and why I want to keep helping it grow.

Do you salt your watermelon?

Ham - To be honest I don't think I have ever ate watermelon.

Skies - Salt? On watermelon? Chat masala’s way better on it.

What's something you wish more people knew about Gameside?

Ham - That it is really fun. Some of the conversations that have happened in gameside. One day not too long ago Dakota made wheel
that would pick what we do and the options were chat on RMB, Send a region wide telegram, and poke Ham a bunch. Gameside is just a
fun and happy department!

Skies - We’re not always completely evil! And we have a really good time. Joining a department can be intimidating, but I like to think that
we’re pretty chill.

What's your favorite TV show?

Ham - I love watching NCIS!

Skies - Funnily enough, mine would also probably be NCIS. I don’t watch much TV, but I’ve seen a good bit of that.

If you had unlimited power in Osiris for 24h, what would you do/change?

Ham - OK so the first thing is that I would banject Res for being lame. Next I would make the WFE rainbow and sparkles (I know some of
y'all are having flash backs to Ponysiris). The last thing I would do is make each Discord role some variation of purple. So many people
would hate it lol.

Skies - Change the Legionnaire role color, then probably just wait out the rest of the time. Very interesting, I know.

Thanks for the interview, lovies! I'm concerned Ham has never had watermelon :-o Please rectify! Overall, I had a lot of fun seeing their
responses! You can really tell they are a team, and they both really care about Gameside! Keep up the fantastic work, Gameside!