Right-wing Double Standards Over Free Speech

Capitalism has made the internet a terrible place. The profit motive has not led to higher quality, but perverse corner-cutting. The phenomenon that forms the basis of this post is that of the professional Right-wing provocateur, someone who seeks notoriety (and advertising revenue) by doing all manner of things deliberately designed to maximise outrage.

Two low-quality fascist provocateurs had planned a speaking event in New Zealand using Auckland Council facilities. Decent people weren’t happy and Auckland Council refused to lend any of their venues for the advancement of fascist agitprop.

A cynic would wonder if Auckland Council’s response was anticipated as the “free-speech” brigade leapt straight into action. The objectors were the so-called Free Speech Coalition, which consists of many familiar self-important individuals that I criticised the last time NZ society showed neo-Nazis the contempt they deserved. They’ve managed to raise enough funds to sue Auckland Council!

The issue has split the left. For example, some emphasise the importance of offering counter-arguments to right wing speech, while others tell fascists to suck it up. I can see the merits to both sides, it is important that far-right messages are rebutted and that we don’t unwittingly play along with their silly little games. However, I have absolutely no sympathy for the far-right’s self-inflicted logistical challenges.

As I see it, the right to free expression has been conflated with the entitlement to a prominent platform, with all of the luxurious trappings such a platform entails i.e. attention, speakers fees, subscriptions, and advertising revenue. It is perfectly possible to have the right to free expression while not receiving widespread attention or payment, that’s how it works for most internet users. I suspect that social media celebrities have become so accustomed to being noticed and being paid, they see it as an affront should these things ever be removed from them.

One notable example is the advertising boycott that was instigated following Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham’s unpleasant Twitter attack on a young gun control advocate. Right wingers furiously painted the advertising boycott as a left wing censorship campaign. Yet the decision to withdraw advertisements was ultimately an economic decision made by the private businesses who felt that being associated with Ingraham harmed their brands. Surely the right to free speech applies to businesses who can choose to advertise wherever the hell they like?

It’s hard to imagine a workable alternative; it would be absurd to compel companies to pay to advertise on Ingraham’s show even if they didn’t want to! What the Ingraham example shows is that the political Right has an inconsistent approach towards free speech (and pro-business attitudes) that makes it difficult to take them seriously. Free speech does not entitle one to attention, let alone a livelihood. Boycotts are legitimate exercises of speech by property owners and consumers.

What I find even more alarming is how patchy New Zealand’s band of self-appointed  free speech police are when it comes to pointing out alleged infringements on free speech. First let’s note some of the many hypocrisies of the members.

Second, they have only piped up now that the extreme Right are the “victims”. They have stayed quiet on many other New Zealand free-speech crises that have been and gone:

  • Where is there outrage over the fact that we still have a blasphemy law?
  • Where was their outrage when Andrew Little was nearly bankrupted by a vindictive hotel magnate for doing his job as opposition leader?
  • Where is their outrage that Bob Jones is suing two citizens who had the courage to disagree with him for defamation?
  • Where is their outrage that the Harmful Digital Communications Act has been used to intimidate left-wing blogs?
  • Where was their outrage when the National Party criminalised protests at sea?

The selective approach towards free-speech advocacy means that the Free Speech Coalition are not truly supportive of the concept of free speech. Instead they (unknowingly?) seek to stealthily remove the barriers that inhibit the advancement of the extreme Right-wing.

Yet, I see no free speech crisis. Free speech is and should be a two-way street. Right-wingers can say whatever falsehoods and intellectually bankrupt nonsense they like. Similarly, property owners are not obliged to host them, consumers are free to not financially support them and decent people are free to criticise them


The Hollow Men by Nicky Hager: My Impressions

I’ve mentioned this book in passing before, it was the subject of attempted censorship by self-appointed “free-speech warrior” Don Brash. Having now read the book, one can cynically understand why. Neither Brash, nor his colleagues have much to be cheerful about. Here, I’ll briefly cover my thoughts about the revelations in the book and what they mean for NZ politics. There was also a documentary version directed by Alistair Berry, which may be viewed at NZonScreen.

I was 12 years old at the time of the 2005 election, so I have some limited first hand experience about the events covered in the book. I wasn’t yet politically aware in 2005, only looking back now do I realise how close New Zealand came to disaster.

A Very Brashish Coup

Following the National Party’s humiliating 2002 defeat and the lack of any improvement in polling, a challenge to Bill English’s leadership was made by Don Brash in October 2003. Hager reveals the identities of the strategists who advised Brash during the challenge and afterwards. Most of them were not members of the National Party but a greatest hits collection of New Zealand’s far-right clown car.

One of the most obscene examples was that of Michael Bassett (one of the Labour MPs responsible for NZ’s neoliberal malaise), who secretly offered Brash advice while simultaneously talking him up by writing positive newspaper columns about him. Bassett didn’t see the need to disclose this conflict of interest in his thinkpieces.

Meanwhile National party donors threatened to withhold donations unless Brash was elected leader. In the end, Brash won the caucus vote by one. Bad news for National Party activists across the country: you don’t matter, the leader gets picked by the big donors and has-beens from NZ’s political past. The National Party strategists openly acknowledged this hierarchy of influence, dividing donors into 3 distinct categories: A dozen or so top donors (far-right multimillionaires), several dozen medium donors (businesses) and everyone else was viewed with contempt as ‘low value donors’.

Contrast this situation to the Labour and Green parties, where party members get to vote on their leader(s). If a major party claims to be a voice for New Zealand, then it must be possible for the public (via party membership) to have input on selecting the leadership and determining policy. The National Party’s system is opaque and incompatible with a democratic society.

Interference by donors and lobby groups wasn’t just limited to installing Brash into the role of party leader, it would form a significant part of the financing and communicating the election campaign. Notable examples included:

  • The Exclusive Brethren cult financed and orchestrated a leaflet drop that was highly critical of the Labour and Green parties with the knowledge and consent of the National Party, while purporting to be independent. The Brethren is rightfully despised by most of NZ society, so the connection between it and the National Party was kept hidden.
  • The horse-racing industry placed pro-National Party advertisements at prominent racing events, ostensibly as part of a campaign for tax regularisation with casinos.
  • The Maxim Institute (an extremist think tank whose intellectual dishonesty I’ve covered previously) put out “research” about the education system that recommended National Party policies. The timing of the release of reports was chosen to ensure maximum political effect.
  • The National Party colluded with the Insurance Council (alleged to have made a very large donation) on the details of its ACC policy press release and on the messaging for the ensuing damage control once this was made public.

This collusion is alarming in two areas. First, these arms-reach operations didn’t require any money to go to the National Party, meaning that the Party could effectively spend more on campaigning than electoral laws allowed, a problematic loophole in the law. Entities such as the Waitemata Trust would be the depositories for big-ticket donors. More money means more advertisments, and more consultants who, like it or not, are effective at winning elections. Elections should be won on policy, hence in sensible countries there are limits on campaign spending.

Secondly, the public were being kept in the dark. All of these groups held viewpoints that are contrary and harmful to most New Zealanders. If the connections are not publicly known, then voters are unwittingly voting for something that they did not agree to. This is not persuasion, but manipulation.

The National Party’s links to the Brethren cult were revealed before the election and Brash’s credibility was destroyed as he tied himself in knots trying to avoid admitting to knowing anything about the collusion. National finished 2 seats behind Labour and had no path to forming a government because they lacked enough coalition partners.

Establishing Public Positions

Brash’s strongest attributes are that he is thoughtful and forthright with his beliefs. Unfortunately for him, his thoughts are terrible and not widely shared by the public (look at how he nearly killed the ACT party when he led it to its then worst ever result in the 2011 election). The challenge that National Party strategists had was to present Brash as an honest “non-politician” with popular ideas all while still remaining committed to unpopular far-right policies that their donors wanted.

When pressed on economic issues, Brash would issue non-committal statements about supporting the status-quo (known as “inoculation” by National Party strategists). Meanwhile, Brash took aggressive lines on race relations and law & order. His 2004 Orewa speech was a cynical exercise in stirring racial resentment and pushing economics out of the public consciousness in a way that paid off handsomely for the National Party.

Strangely, Brash and his strategists didn’t even believe in the objections that they raised in the Orewa speech. When curious journalists asked for more examples of race-based privilege, National Party strategists stonewalled any inquiries because they didn’t have any evidence!

Evidence or no evidence, if they could just keep up this pretense for the election, they could enter government on the votes of a misled populace, and then give their donors the “return on investment” they were promised. I am reminded of Hillary Clinton’s infamous “you need both a private and a public position” quote which sums up the duplicity of the National Party’s communications. My response is “no, your private position should be your public position”. Politicians may not claim that they have a mandate to enact their privately held positions when they were elected on the premise of their public positions.

As evidenced by the very existence of Hager’s book, the strategy doesn’t work if we found out about it. Voters were first alerted to the plan when the National Party’s collusion with American neo-cons was revealed over the issue of ending the ban on nuclear-powered ships. The “gone by lunchtime” statement precipitated a decline in National Party polling that would last until mid 2005.

By this stage, National Party strategists were increasingly desperate and turned to more foreign assistance.

We’re Off to See the Lizard of Oz!

The Australian public relations firm Crosby Textor Group is a mainstay of right-wing Anglosphere politics. Crosby Textor have been involved in victorious campaigns for Boris Johnson, the Australian Liberal Party, and the Queensland LNP. With such a track record, it was only natural that the National Party would seek their services.

Crosby Textor are experts at “dog whistle” politicking. This is where a message is crafted to sound innocent when interpreted superficially (plausible deniability), but has a specific meaning known to groups of a certain ideological persuasion.

Dogwhistles played by National at the recommendation of Crosby Textor focused on portraying the Labour government as lucky on the economy and distracted on “minority interests” such as civil unions, immigration, prostitution and Māori relations while paying no attention to “ordinary” New Zealanders. Such rhetoric is effective as there’s no better way for a party to lose support than if voters believe the party doesn’t care about them. With the messaging sorted, it was time to release it into the public consciousness…

Brash by Name, Brash by Nature

Crosby Textor’s messaging would form the backbone of the National Party’s effective 2005 election advertising campaign. The Iwi/Kiwi billboards and the Taxathon television advertisements have become the stuff of political legend.

PratPart-time marketing guru and full-time lunatic John Ansell volunteered his crazed mind to the National Party, creating bipolar billboards to portray the Labour Party as wasteful and obsessed with minority interests, while the National party was portrayed as efficient, focused and common-sensical.

A whole raft of these dichotomous billboards were created on a whole raft of issues such as fuel taxes, education, and beaches. I remember being at school during an event for gifted children, I met a fellow gifted child who adored Brash and was collating a whole bunch of images of these billboards. Others were also enthralled by the advertisements and National’s polling started to rise to match that of the Labour Party.

The tune to the Taxathon ad remains stuck in my head to this day. It was amusing to read the lyrics interspersed through what otherwise reads as a serious scholarly work. Cartoon Don Brash swept in at the end to offer salvation to the “drive-by voters” who get their entire political information from the National Party’s obnoxious marketing push.

The trouble with this flamboyant strategy is that the claims made had no basis in reality. Fact-checking wasn’t a thing back then, the media let the ads go unchallenged, even going so far as to praise them for their wittiness. Even better, National didn’t need to make any serious policy announcements, thus avoiding their main weakness.

Labouring Under a Delusion

Why does the National Party find itself in the situation where it hypes up and manipulates voters over trivial issues while promoting no discernible vision for important economic matters? Hager hypothesises that this approach is to paper over a ideological fissure within the National Party. Like many “centre-right” parties the world over, National has two key ideological groupings:

(1) The old-school conservatives, who hold traditionalist views over many social issues, yet support many aspects of the Keynesian Welfare state model that dominated NZ politics from the mid 30s til the mid 80s.

(2) The radical free-marketeers, who support socially liberal policies, and enthusiastically endorse the deregulated, privatised corporatist economic model that has dominated Western politics for the last three decades.

Let’s look at the Political Compass to visualise this gulf in values:


Figure 1. Politcal Compass political spectrum with the positions of ideological categories highlighted.

A political party cannot develop many policies that appeal to both factions, hence the National Party has no option but to campaign on emotive, but ultimately insignificant issues. This deprioritisation of issues is more worrying because it means that governing to improve society is supplanted by merely being in government. This is why the Key/English National government was deliberately inactive (Pike River, housing crisis), lacked innovation (buying fake carbon credits and poorly targeted R&D grants), with bursts of insanity to appease their donors (asset sales and charter schools).

Such a situation suites the free-marketeers just fine from both an ideological and a careerist perspective. Yet as voters, we expect better, yet better is something that a seat-warming government will not facilitate or deliver.

Indeed, this divide is the very reason that we ever found out about the National Party’s misconduct. Hager did not obtain this information unlawfully, instead decent principled members of the National Party (of the old-school conservative faction, I presume) blew the whistle and delivered it to him in an attempt to bring this madness to an end.

Concluding Remarks

The National Party strategy failed in 2005 because Brash, for all his faults has a default position of honesty. He was not a convincing liar, he could not convince enough voters that he was a soft centrist who wouldn’t pick up where Roger Douglas left off. Luckily for National, they had a charming psychopath waiting in the wings in the form of John Key. Key was able to pull off the duplicity required to win over the “drive-by voters” and led National to government in 2008. It should come as no surprise that with the benefit of incumbency they were able to deliver the right-wing agenda that their donors had paid for.

Hager believes that the law for electoral donations is not fit for purpose. It’s far too easy for wealthy influential donors to anonymise their bribes. The threshold for anonymous donations should be lowered well below the current $10,000 limit. The concept of replacing private donations with state funding was also considered. I do not believe that the wealthy are entitled to gain more influence by giving more money, thus I would support banning all private donations to political parties and covering reasonable operational expenses with state funding. Nonetheless, if private donations are here to stay, then they must all be publicly known so that voters know whose side parties are really on.

The public derides politicians for being economical with the truth and proclaims an interest in focusing on the issues. Yet the very same public is easily led astray by shallow tactics such as incendiary rhetoric, dogwhistles, and superficial advertising. The National Party uses their strategy because it works.

Voters need to become wise to all forms of misinformation if we are to get political parties to behave at a higher standard. The media has a responsibility to inform and educate the public, not insult them with irrelevant trivia, or openly display partisan bias in favour of the right-wing.  My primary schooling involved coursework on the electoral system and lawmaking, holding a mock election (the party I belonged to did poorly, of course), a visit to parliament, and meetings with local MPs. Every child should receive a high quality civics education like I did.

The conditions that corrupted the National Party in 2003 still exist today, what mysteries lie within the current embittered iteration of the party that has been returned to opposition? Because Hager’s advice has not been taken, New Zealand’s government is still at risk of being hijacked by right-wing fanatics. As voters, we must stay informed, think critically, and demand changes to electoral law to inhibit the undue influence of corporations and the wealthy.

The public is greatly indebted to Nicky Hager and the decent National Party informants for pulling back the curtain on the machinations of the Don Brash era National Party. The approach put forward by Brash’s supervisors is one that is bad for New Zealand. By recognising it and by refusing to reward it, we can bring such deception to an end.

Cheating in Universities: Symptoms of a Sick System

On Friday (May 4) the evening current affairs show, The Project (7 pm weeknights on +HR=E) ran an illuminating segment on one facet of cheating at universities: ghostwritten essays. Ghostwriters are authors who agree to write an item while passing it off as another’s work. Within the commercial publishing industry, ghostwriting is viewed as acceptable to meet consumer demand, to ensure high quality content, or to protect the identity of the author.

Within academia however, ghostwriting is unacceptable. While not identical to plagiarism, the intent is similar as the client seeks to pass the work off as their own. In order to protect the value of qualifications, it is essential that all graduates meet the academic requirements of a degree. Ghostwriting undermines our confidence in universities as we cannot be certain that graduates are actually competent. There’s also the ethical dimension where dishonesty is not permitted.

Academic ghostwriters like predatory publishers stridently promote themselves through unsolicited emails. The Project investigation revealed that ghostwriting agencies have turned to social media “influencers” to promote their brands. These influencers may have a fan base of several hundred thousand people, a massive potential client base for ghostwriters.

Speaking as someone who has graded undergraduate reports, we can find plagiarism quite easily. The Turnitin software is helpful, but if the marker happens to have two plaigiarised reports in the pile, the features are easy to pick up. Usually the reports will share errors in figures or the overall structure, upon closer inspection entire paragraphs are identical.

I’m not aware of ghostwriting being an issue in engineering and physical sciences where reports are usually on a very specific area that requires intimate knowledge of the course, laboratory equipment and procedures. I can imagine that it is a serious issue for the humanities where essays are more open in terms of possible content (i.e. analysing well-known literature).

This experience leads me to suspect that ghostwriting is much harder to identify than plagiarism, indeed I’ve never marked a report that I suspected was ghostwritten. I would need to know the student’s proficiency in English and match it up with the quality of the grammar in their report. Engineers don’t get to know the students that they tutor well enough to build up such familiarity.

Luckily we may not need to look for ghostwriting, thanks to ghostwriting agencies who have identified a new revenue stream: blackmail their clients after they submit the “work”! That’s right, pay the ghostwriter more money or they’ll report you to the university. Isn’t capitalism great?

That brings me to the point of this post, two questions that I have. (1) Why do students employ ghostwriters? (2) Why do ghostwriters ghostwrite? Since 1980, enrolments have more than trebled, outstripping population growth. Universities have gone from zero fees to student loans, from rectors to overpaid vice-chancellors, from blue-skies research to clickbait, the university sector’s volte-face over the past 30 years can answer these questions.

Why do students employ ghostwriters?

University entrance requirements are hilariously low which makes university accessible to many high-schoolers who lack the drive or the competence to succeed at tertiary study. With 42 Level 3 credits in the right places, you can get in even though you would have failed NCEA Level 3! As another example, VUW has a metric to determine if a student has guaranteed entry. My score was nearly double the minimum requirement.

The low entry standards situation is perfectly acceptable for universities. This is because New Zealand universities are expected to generate surpluses, which means that there is an incentive to enrol as many students as possible, even if they don’t have what it takes to complete the coursework.

More students means more revenue for universities, in the form of government funding, and tuition fees. This funding model has turned students into consumers who are determined to get a return on their investment. Failure has gone from no big deal (ask Steven Joyce) to becoming a very expensive problem.

With the stresses of struggling to keep up with a difficult workload, familial pressure and the burden of student debt, a student in such a situation may turn to a ghostwriter just to keep the wolves at bay. Less charitable scenarios may be conjured up too. An arrogant, entitled student with wealthy parents can’t be arsed doing any work hires a ghostwriter to keep up pretenses while they live it up.

Now that tertiary education has been turned into a commodity, can we really be surprised that integrity goes out the window as students seek to get value for money? An investment which is viewed as a stepping stone to a lucrative career instead of an intellectually enriching experience in itself.

The solution lies in the past. Remove the absurd corporatist models that universities need to follow, reduce intakes to the capable and committed (while providing more suitable training opportunities outside of university), and remove the spectre of financial expense. If people aren’t pushed to the point of desperation, they will not feel the need to hire ghostwriters.

Why do ghostwriters ghostwrite?

Another big problem with high student numbers is what happens once they graduate. Are there enough vacancies in their chosen field? What if there aren’t enough jobs for their cohort? What educational background does a ghostwriter have? Yes, academic ghostwriters are university graduates! I wonder if it was the dream job they had in mind when they turned up to their first lecture?

Ideally students would choose to study subjects and career paths that they are passionate about. One would only abandon that to become a ghostwriter out of necessity. It should come as no surprise that increasing the number of graduates means that some will miss out on jobs in their chosen field since there is no shortage of workers. Which suits industry just fine since they seek to suppress wages.

Most of us need to make money to survive, if a graduate can’t work in their chosen sector, then they may as well put their skills to use elsewhere. Why not capitalise on the anxieties and desperation of current undergraduates and become a ghostwriter? I can even imagine that dobbing in clients would be a satisfying exercise, a mockery of an economic model that failed the ghostwriter.

Once again, this is a charitable interpretation, a graduate might get work in their field, but find themselves unsatisfied with their earnings (in many cases, rightly so). Ghostwriting may offer better pay and conditions, which makes it an attractive line of work. Testimonies from ghostwriters confirm my suspicions.

The solution from this side of the problem also requires a reduction in enrolments, ignoring claims that we have skill shortages so that all graduates can find work in their chosen field. Correspondingly, we require better funding models for academic research, well-paid and secure career opportunities for early career researchers.

Dick Wilkins’ account of the old Department of Agriculture gives a brilliant insight into how a supposedly inefficient government research department was able to generate enormous wealth for New Zealand. The corporatisation of government science by the National Party in the 1990s produced AgResearch, which is ineffective and in a slow death spiral. It’s obvious which model is better to follow.

New Zealand is near the bottom of the OECD in terms of spending on R&D as a proportion of GDP. Just look at the countries that top the list, there are the secure societies of Scandanavia and Japan, the rapid rise in living standards of South Korea, and the military developments made by Israel. R&D is one of those areas where throwing money at it gets results, in terms of new knowledge and prosperous societies.


The problem of academic ghostwriting is a problem exacerbated by the nature of today’s university sector. Management has developed an obsession with enrolling as many students as possible with the aim of getting as much money out of them as possible. Entry standards are inadequate, and no consideration is given to the matter of whether all graduates can gain relevant employment or not.

The combination of desperate students and embittered, underutilised graduates has created a “willing buyer, willing seller” market for ghostwriting services. A market so large, that social media stars are now shilling for ghostwriting agencies.

The most effective way to stop this problem is to change the university sector. Abolish tuition fees, implement a universal student allowance, increase the entry requirements so that all entrants have a good chance of success and are not in a race to the bottom against other graduates in the job market. Increase funding for research to make it a rewarding career path from which society will benefit. In doing so, the demand and supply for academic ghostwriting will vanish.

The malaise in the university sector today is responsible for the proliferation in academic misconduct, only by ending the disastrous neo-liberal experiment with our universities will we see an end to cheating.

Elite Dangerous: Doing the Second Ram Tah Guardians Mission

The latest update to Elite Dangerous (3.0: Beyond Q1) has been active for a while now. One of the marquee features was another Guardian ruins mission. I have been able to complete it at the cost of considerable joy and anguish.

But first, I’ll briefly mention that I like the changes 3.0 brought to the Engineers. I have been able to max out the jump ranges for my Asp Explorer and Anaconda for a reasonable material cost. However, for me the real standout change has been with material storage. In the past, players were limited to 1000 items, now there are limits for each material type. This means that players don’t need to delete items to make room for others, which can hinder the desire to go and pick up materials. I am now actually choosing to jump into signal sources and drive around on planets to pick up materials knowing that I have room for them. It’s amazing that such a small change has improved the gameplay dynamics so much. It demonstrates that getting the basics right is so important and should not be overlooked in favour of aesthetics or monetisation opportunities.

As the second Guardians mission shows, getting the basics right is not something that Frontier Developments is good at.

In the game lore, the Guardians are a mysterious extinct ancient species. The only trace left of them are derelict obelisk networks clustered on airless worlds away from human inhabited space. The Engineer Ram Tah has a quest for intrepid CMDRs seeking to learn more about our long-gone galactic neighbours.

Recap of the First Ram Tah Guardians Mission

A mission from the Horizons expansion had players scan these obelisks while carrying a combination of artifacts in their SRV in order to unlock tidbits of information about the Guardians. The mission was badly implemented in several technical ways:

(1) Obelisks were supposed to flash with symbols indicating which artifacts needed to be carried in order to unlock so information. Instead, incoherent noise was shown, giving no indication about what artifacts were needed. The playerbase used trial and error to produce a guide about what combination was needed for each obelisk. When 3.0 was released, the symbol issue had been fixed. All of the obsessive speculation about secret messages in the obelisk patterns was all bunk, yet Frontier never had the courtesy to tell players to find a better use of their time.

(2) Players in multiplayer modes with multiple CMDRs present reported getting random bits of information. Indeed to complete the mission in its entirety required getting some pieces of information this way. Tough luck for people like me with no friends in weird timezones :'(.

(3) AMD graphics card players reported a bug where the dirt mounds were enlarged, blocking access to the obelisks.

From a design perspective, the mission is also poor. We started out knowing one ruins site which only had enough obelisks to partially complete the mission. More ruins existed, but they had to be found manually! Elite Dangerous purports to be a full-scale replica of the Milky way (with faster than light travel to allow you to go places). That means there are a lot of places to look. To complete the mission, players had to look through spreadsheets to find the sites that gave out the data they wanted. There really should be a simple in-game way to elucidate all of this information. I didn’t complete this mission in full, I only got 60/101 data items. Did Frontier learn from their mistakes with the second mission in 3.0?

Getting Started on the Second Mission

Players can dock at any station in the Meene system that isn’t Felice Dock. They don’t need to unlock Ram Tah (I haven’t), or have done the other Guardians mission. When landing, they get a mission from Ram Tah inviting them to “Decrypt the Guardian Logs”. Like the first mission, the player is to scan obelisks, this time at “Guardian Structures” which are a new installation for 3.0. There are 28 pieces of information to find, with a reward of 1 million credits per item. A 30 million credit bonus is added if you get all 28 items. Before you run off to the Guardian sites, you will need the following artifacts:

2× Ancient Orb, 1× Ancient Urn, 1× Ancient Casket, 1× Ancient Tablet,  1× Ancient Totem, 1× Ancient Relic. I would advise picking these up from the seminal ancient ruins site in the Synuefe XR-H d11-102 system, planet 1 B. Orbs can be hard to find at other sites.

1× Thargoid Sensor, 1× Thargoid Probe, 1× Thargoid Link, 1× Thargoid Cyclops Tissue, 1× Thargoid Basilisk Tissue, 1× Thargoid Medusa Tissue. Get the Sensor from an alien crash site, the Probe from a threat 2 NHSS around an ammonia world, and the Link from a Thargoid Structure.

Note that Thargoid artifacts damage your ship, so you’ll need a corrosion resistant cargo rack beforehand. How to get one? Unlock it at the tech broker. All you need to do is hand in an absurd amount of items! This is where Frontier made their first fuck-up. Neofabric insulation is only available as a mission reward, but for a while, it wasn’t given out as a mission reward! Instead players could earn limpets, scrap, or biowaste; which is like a neighbour giving you a handful of Werther’s Originals for mowing their lawn. Following a playerbase uproar, the game was fixed, and I was able to get my special cargo rack.

Getting the tissue samples turned out to be great fun. Players had to encounter Thargoid ships which are incredibly powerful and aggressive, and use a research limpet to pinch a tissue sample from their organic ships. I used the cold running strategy by engineering my DBX to put out less heat (subsequently, I named the ship after the ELO song Latitude 88 North).

To encounter a Thargoid, I jumped in and out of an instance with the attacked megaship around Electra 6 until I had one of each sample. This strategy is not ideal as it is immersion breaking and repetitive. A deterministic way to encounter each Thargoid type would be great. The best parts were the heart-pounding moments evading an angry Thargoid ship, then cowering out of view behind the stricken megaship waiting for the limpet to collect the sample. This was great fun and kudos to the developers for getting this right.

Shopping Around for Data

With all my artifacts, I headed out for Guardian space. While Guardian structures show up on the navigation panel when you’re in-system, there’s very little in-game information to find the right systems. Fortunately, a Galnet article offers up three locations, which will give you a good chunk of the data required, but to collect the rest will involve either lots of searching, or a third-party guide. My advice: keep your sanity, follow a guide.

Once at the site, hop in the SRV and start looking for ancient obelisks. I made an embargo on spoiler videos, so it was a fresh experience for me. The sense of atmosphere was impressive. I felt like I was snooping through an alien graveyard. Out of the blue, I was attacked by a hidden autonomous Guardian sentinel. What a surprise! Some of the sites are perched on hillsides, so also have the whole mysterious Himalayan temple vibe about them. The symbols on the obelisks are easy to understand, but if you get the wrong combination of artifacts, you can try again without re-logging. Overall, these parts of the mission were very well done. The information is given as audio logs by Ram Tah, which is a nice touch.

Waiting Outside the Bank

Admittedly, it gets quite dreary travelling to sites to scan a particular obelisk while getting harried by sentinels. Once I was done, I returned to Weber Dock in Meene to hand the mission in. But nothing showed up on the mission board for me to hand in! It turns out that the station has been UA bombed. This is when Thargoid Sensors are sold at black markets and cause damage to stations that limit the services on hand. The lockdown at Weber Dock could be the result of griefing (in-game trolling), or just other commanders selling Thargoid items on the black market once they’ve handed in the Guardians mission (it’s what I would have done if I had the chance).

It reminds me of the economic crisis in Cyprus, where people were prohibited from making withdrawals from their accounts while the banks pilfered their savings. Players go and complete the mission tasks, but are blocked from collecting their mission rewards when the mission issuing station enters lockdown and the mission expires. This is a deeply unjust situation that must be rectified.

The solution to this problem could be one of many things. I don’t think UA bombing is particularly interesting, so I would like to see it removed altogether, or black markets could be removed from Meene stations. If we must have UA bombing, then we should also have the ability to divert to different unaffected stations and hand in missions there.

Since I was running out of time to submit the mission, I raised a ticket with support who kindly gave me the credits using their god-powers and let the mission expire. I think this counts as a moral victory. That I had to go to these lengths because of the negligent design of the game mechanics is outrageous.

At Frontier, Every Hour is Amateur Hour!

Another Frontier fuck-up that I have kept away from is the Guardian based items from Technology Brokers. These faced criticism on two fronts. (1) Collecting the required materials is a tiresome activity involving charging 6 pylons around a Guardian Structure while fending off annoying sentinels. This activity has to be repeated far too often to get the necessary items. (2) The FSD booster item that was added to the game was broken! The booster will be fixed and returned to players who had unlocked it, along with a refund in their materials. All very generous, but it entrenches an inequality induced by yet another Frontier fuck-up:

Redoing the pylon puzzle multiple times wasn’t the only way to get the required materials. There was a bug where the materials were given by obelisks, a much easier way to get them. I contend that many of the players who unlocked the FSD booster were beneficiaries of this bug. It’s not just enough to fix the broken modules, the path to unlocking it should be less exasperating and equal for all players.

In summary, the second Guardians mission had some great elements to it, collecting Thargoid tissues was scarily exciting and the eerie atmosphere of the Guardian structures was brilliant. However, these great elements are sullied by technical and design mishaps that added to the frustration of getting ready to do the mission, and collect the reward. Like many players, my patience with the developers is running short. I’ll be sticking to exploring and short missions until quality control is improved.

The Tax Working Group Wants to Hear From Me

I hate internet advertisements, I hold them responsible for the low quality trivia that passes as news from the corporatised mainstream media. Ads motivate fake news pushers keen to make money. I am also disturbed that social media, internet browsing and loyalty cards are monitored to produce targeted ads. Frankly, it’s insulting that I am reduced to a cog in a consumerist juggernaut, I’m expected to blindly purchase items recommended by a snooping algorithm to fill the voids within my disempowered existence. Sod that.

Anyway, I saw a useful ad on the internet from the new Government’s Tax Working Group (TWG). They are scouting for input on tax reform in New Zealand. Given that tax reform is an area I’m interested in, I thought that I would check it out.

The TWG is asking five (5) questions of New Zealanders, with multiple choice answers.

1: How much does our tax system need to change to be ready for the future?

My answer: Major reform needed.

I didn’t go more extreme since there are things I like such as taxes on petrol and tobacco, and a progressive income tax system.

2: What is the purpose of tax?

My answer: Support those in New Zealand who need help.

While this answer is paternalistic, it indicates the importance of wealth redistribution to maintain social stability.

3: Are we taxing the right things?

My answer: Most things.

4: Should the tax system make housing more affordable?

My answer: Yes, help make housing more affordable

This question is presumably targeted towards a capital gains tax. Some other initiatives such as taxing unoccupied properties and restricting ownership to those physically in NZ would also help suppress speculative demand (aka, the wrong type of demand).

5: What tax issues matter most for you?

My answer: protecting the environment.

Of course, maintaining and reinstating the social contract is important too, but I had to choose one.

There are some specific changes that I would like to see to the tax system which I shall outline below. Some of these are out of the scope of the TWG due to the Labour Party’s backpedalling during the election campaign (driven by National Party fake news tactics), but dammit, I’ll talk about them anyway.

GST reform

GST is a 15% tax on all goods and services. At best, it’s a flat tax. At worst, it’s a regressive tax that eats up a larger proportion of low income earners’ wages compared to the wealthy. This situation could be rectified in two ways. (1) reduce or abolish GST altogether, (2) introduce a progressive GST system, where the rate depends on the cost of the item. The latter option has the advantage of discouraging expensive and tasteless purchases such as expensive clothing, electronics, and luxury automobiles.

Inheritance Tax

I am strongly supportive of an inheritance tax. Like many others, I consider myself meritocratic in outlook. Unfortunately, many self-identified meritocrats aren’t actually meritocratic. Instead, they are guilty of the just world fallacy by believing the wealthy are wealthy for legitimate reasons. The truth could not be more different.

Many wealthy individuals are the beneficiaries of their ancestors who passed down money and assets to their descendants. The trouble is that people have no control over the circumstances they were born into, any financial inequality that arises due to birth is unjustified. Much like a monarchy, inheritances are unearned and therefore undeserved. Defenders of the status quo will argue that individuals have the right to dictate their inheritances, but such an argument is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Considering how talentless many children of the wealthy are, the state should have no qualm depriving them of their parent’s wealth. If they are so deserving of such wealth, then they can go try to earn it themselves!

My preferred inheritance tax structure would be 100% on everything over $500,000. This system would not disadvantage middle class citizens who inherit the family home, which does not warrant the contempt that I reserve for the super-rich. Similarly, we could include a negative tax rate so that those in line to receive little to no inheritance aren’t left out.

A more progressive income tax system

I’ve spoken to some centre-right accountants and accounting students, it came as a surprise that they defended progressive taxation as a necessity to keep the state properly funded. Instead, any serious debate is over where the brackets should be located.

The top bracket is 33% for all income over $70,000. As far as I’m concerned, there should be more brackets above this one. Such proposals have been made by the Labour and Green parties in previous elections (usually ~40% above $150,000). I support going further, let’s not forget that at the height of McCarthyism the USA had a bracket of 91% above ~$3,000,000 in today’s dollars.

Such a rate (say 90% on income above $500,000) would discourage exorbitant CEO salaries. Contrary to fake claims that income taxation disincentivises work, curbing CEO pay would make our society more meritocratic.

Income threshold

As part of increasing the progressiveness of the tax system, in addition to ramping up marginal rates on very high incomes, we can reduce rates on low to middle incomes. In particular, a tax-free threshold should be introduced to improve the prospects of those particularly on low incomes. For example, Australia has a threshold of 18,200 $AUD. This policy is a common platform for smaller political parties in New Zealand, It would be great to see the government get on board with it.

Removing tax-free status from religious groups

Under the Charites Act, an organisation may register as a charity if it has a charitable purpose. The definition of “charitable purpose” is important, since a registered charity is exempt from taxation. Alarmingly, the “advancement of religion” is seen as constituting charitable purpose. I fail to see how the advancement of religion squares with one of the other definitions of charitable purpose (Other purposes beneficial to the community).

A community doesn’t benefit from extreme ideologies such as Quiverfull, Wahhabism, and Hindutva (to name just three) being allowed to advance themselves. The state should not help religious organisations advance their toxic messages by giving them a free pass on taxation.

Some of the already existing exemptions make a mockery of the current law, consider Destiny Church, which is just a scam to enrich Brian Tamaki, or Sanitarium, a corporation owned by the Seventh Day Adventists that enjoys a massive advantage over its competitors since it doesn’t pay tax on its profits. Besides benefiting extremists, tax exemption for the religious also rewards exploitation of the vulnerable and distorts the market to the detriment of secular honest brokers. Hence it has no place in our society.


Tax reform is required, the current system is too generous to high income individuals, too generous to the feckless children of the wealthy, and too generous for religious groups. I’ve outlined some policy changes that I would like the TWG to consider. There are other issues to consider that I haven’t touched on, such as pollution taxes, taxing foreign corporations that operate in NZ, or levelling the playing field between physical and online retailers.

My attitudes will not be popular with the greedy and their right-wing apologists, but it is simply common sense that those with the highest ability to pay should be those who pay the highest amount of tax. We all benefit from the civilising effects of state spending for healthcare, education, infrastructure, social security, law enforcement, research, arts, and conservation. Such a society is safer for everybody, where no citizen should feel the need to turn to crime, terrorism, or militarism.

Paying tax is the highest form of patriotism. What better way is there to express your love for your country and fellow residents than to pay what you can to ensure that the state is adequately funded?

Submissions to the TWG close on April 30. I’ll be doing my best to send something in.



On the Green Party’s Curious Strategy Move

While reading the news while eating breakfast this morning, I was surprised to discover that the Green Party is set to hand over many of their parliamentary questions to the opposition National Party.

Speaking from experience, Question Time is a guilty pleasure of many undergraduate students who happen to be at home on Tuesday-Thursday afternoons with nothing better to do. Question time should be all about obtaining information and keeping ministers accountable. It’s also when Parliament is at its most theatrical, mostly due to the antics of Winston Peters (my favourite being an insult directed at Gerry Brownlee in 2012).

One curiosity is that the questions are allocated based upon the number of seats a party has. Given that more than half of MPs form a government, more than half of the questions are allocated to the government. Since the government has all the information at its fingertips and is not interested in holding itself to account, it has no real need for these questions. Subsequently half of Question Time is so-called “patsy” questions where government MPs ask each other softball questions that allow them to talk up the government’s performance.

While I haven’t watched a Question Time session for the new Labour/NZF government, the patsy questions by the National/ACT/UF/MP government were dull and misinforming. The Green Party also sees patsy questions as pointless, as cited for their decision to hand their questions over to the National Party.

While I agree that patsy questions are a waste of time, I have two objections to giving the questions to the National Party:

Firstly, James Shaw was quoted as saying:

“We think patsy questions are a waste of time, and New Zealanders have not put us in Parliament to do that; we’re there to make positive change for our people and our environment.

The National Party will not use these questions to improve peoples’ lives or the environment. They will use them to oppose the Government’s agenda in favour of corporatist, anti-environmentalist conservatism and not for positive change. Shaw has naively assumed that all MPs are as decent, honest, and compassionate as he is.

Secondly, the Green MPs support the government in a confidence and supply deal that allows them considerable freedom to criticise much of the Government’s agenda for not going far enough. For example, the government is betraying its voters by pushing ahead with the terrible CPTPP “trade” deal despite wide opposition from the public. The Greens could use their questions not to ask softballs to their own ministers, but to hold Labour and NZF ministers to account instead.

I suspect the dimwitted mouthpieces in the media will soon praise the Greens for their “maturity”. The vapid blue-greens now have another reason to feel good about themselves while remaining disconnected from reality. Meanwhile, the National Party will have more scope to resist the slight semblances of progress that our “centre-left” government is willing to make.

This abdication of responsibility by the Greens is bad for democracy, bad for the environment, and bad for the quality of life of the New Zealand people. I expected more from the Greens, the logic behind this move beggars belief. The Greens should be using their influence to drag the government further left and not allow the National Party to call the shots. I hope they see sense and call off this ridiculous decision.

Academia Milestones: My First Invite from a Predatory Journal

This post is a follow-up to my similarly titled post Academia Milestones: My First Invite from a Predatory Conference. Here I document another pitfall of academia where predatory companies mislead researchers into paying to publish work in a low-quality journal.

Last year, I was invited to speak at a real conference as part of the young investigator contest. It was a great opportunity to share some of the details of my research with other academics. It also proved to be valuable in the sense that we were able to glean more ideas about future directions that the work may take from the talks given by other researchers. By contrast, my liver is thankful that the conference is over!

There are no proceedings associated with the conference. For any internet user who is interested, the book of abstracts* is publicly available for download. In principle, open access of scholarly work is an excellent initiative in terms of fostering innovation where research is accessible to individuals and organisations regardless of their financial situation. However, it is also important that only high quality work is published in order to maintain public confidence in science. Thus many legitimate open-access publishers will charge publication fees as part of keeping the lights on.

Where things get tricky is that charging researchers for publication changes the dynamics of academia completely. It has been in the best interests of academics to publish as many articles as possible since career progression has been heavily metricised** by the administrative dullards in charge of academic institutions and funding bodies. It is now also in the self-interest of open-access publishers to publish as many articles as possible in order to maximise profits. This is done at the expense of the review process that should ensure all accepted work is of sufficient quality. Legitimate publishers can avoid this temptation since: (1) it is an illegitimate and unethical practice, and (2) they’re already making massive profits. However, there is now room for predatory publishers to step in.

Without peer-review, anything could make it into the academic literature, truthfulness be damned! Hence open-access journals produced by predatory publishers are of no academic value due to the uncertainty surrounding the fidelity of the work that they publish. The predatory publishers themselves know this, which is why they make up fake impact factor scores for their “journals”.

In terms of strategies predatory publishers use, I’ve already talked about the OMICS corporation that uses a scatter-gun type approach to snare researchers. But following last year’s conference, I found out that other companies are much more sinister. In my spam filter was an email from David Publishing who were inviting me to publish my talk in one of their “journals”. This one was more convincing as it included the title from the talk that I gave at the conference (view email at this link).

Given the unsolicited nature of the email and the poor grammar, it was still clearly a scam email. But it’s a much more advanced scam than the one OMICS puts out. The attempt at personalising the email makes it much more likely to successfully mislead a researcher. Of course, all the sender would have done was trawl the book of abstracts and sent out emails to everyone who had an abstract in there.

It would have been nice if the conference organisers had emailed all authors to warn against this danger. If any of the work at the conference was published in a low quality journal, the authors would not be able to publish it in a real journal since double submission is frowned upon. That would be a shame.

A cursory search on the Google revealed that David Publishing is a predatory publisher. Amusingly, there was once a message on their front page claiming:

Recently, some authors have been cheated by another company (who told sent the emails in the name of our company but in fact it is not). In case more authors are cheated, please send your paper to us via the submission link as following: …

Understandably they are outraged by another company cheating authors, that’s supposed to be their job!

How do you avoid get sucked in? By doing your research. The very fact that a publisher is emailing you should be a sign of concern. Notice how all of the top journals don’t invite you to submit papers? That’s because they don’t need to. You should check the background of a journal that you are considering submitting to. Ask your supervisor and colleagues what they think. A whole raft of lists exists such as DOAJ, Publons, Think, Check and Submit and Open Access Journal Quality Indicators. Normally I would include Beall’s list, but it has been taken down and I discovered that he holds some un-nuanced views about open access:

Beall published an article arguing against the whole of open access publishing and not just predatory open access, claiming it to be an “anti-corporatist” [sic], “collectivist”, “cooperative” movement which wishes to “replace a free market with an artificial and highly regulated one”.

Beall has it backwards: predatory publishers are the inevitable result of the corporatist free market where self-interested individuals seek enrichment at any cost. Academic publishing is supposed to be cooperative and highly regulated. Articles usually have multiple authors, while peer reviewers voluntarily and anonymously scrutinise articles for quality. Legitimate open-access publishers should and do have these same basic features as closed-access publishers.

So long as predatory publishers are allowed to exist, researchers will continue to get caught out and the public will continue to lose confidence in science. Predatory publishers enable policy makers to use false information to make decisions or to validate their false ideologies. It is critical that all predatory publishers are named, shamed and denied our submissions. Governments and regulatory agencies must decisively try to shut them down for the good of society.

*Unfortunately, an abstract contains nowhere near enough information to give a complete picture of the work, let alone how to replicate it.
**The metrication of research is also responsible for other fraudulent practices like p-hacking, salami slicing, and fake peer reviews.