| Welcome to The South Pacific Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Ideas for Embassy swaps; developing, comments WANTED!!!!! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 17 2007, 01:35 PM (1,009 Views) | |
| mavenu | Sep 17 2007, 01:35 PM Post #1 |
|
어머나!
![]()
|
Just some thoughts, from my election campaign. I'll have to expand this, but I'm looking for comments now to allow this to brew... (actually, does this belong in the assembly?) Feeders + RR + Laz: In my mind, all 7 must have a TSP embassy. General regions:
Other issues
|
![]() |
|
| kloister | Sep 17 2007, 01:56 PM Post #2 |
|
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...
![]()
|
I would say pop it into the Assembly for discussion...
|
![]() |
|
| kloister | Sep 18 2007, 03:26 AM Post #3 |
|
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...
![]()
|
I would not even entertain dialogue with racist regions... |
![]() |
|
| tsrill | Sep 18 2007, 03:58 AM Post #4 |
|
Unregistered
|
Feeders, yes. As for the rest, I think 50 is the absolute minimum...I think it is better to have fewer, rather than more embassies, since we don't have the manpower to staff them. I think each non-feeder should be judged on a case-by-case basis: are they important and interesting enough to us or to the game as a whole to keep contacts going? In this line, it might be not a bad idea to have some contacts with both defenders and invaders. Besides, I guess there is not always a clear line to draw between a region helping out its allies and a defender region, so avoiding a clear stance against either could save us a lot of trouble. -Tsrill |
|
|
| Belstan | Sep 18 2007, 06:12 AM Post #5 |
![]()
|
If I can have my say I would say HELL NO to racist regions. In my opinion we should ever try to break them down instead of opening relations with them. Defenders and invaders? They are a special part of this game right? Can't really say anything about them since I don't really know what you're talking about. |
![]() |
|
| Somniloquence | Sep 18 2007, 06:18 AM Post #6 |
![]()
|
I think it should depend on the extremity of the rascism (and other prejudice). If by opening dialogue you could help make them more moderate this would, I think, be a good thing. However, it would have to be carefully done to avoid being tarred with the same brush. |
![]() |
|
| Napieria | Sep 18 2007, 09:35 AM Post #7 |
|
Minister of the Region
![]()
|
I'm going to ditto this. I'm not going to validate their beliefs by acknowledging them. |
![]() |
|
| Caer Rialis | Sep 18 2007, 10:33 AM Post #8 |
|
Asleep
![]()
|
Yes. As a feeder ourselves, we ought to maintain ties with each of the other feeders, including the RR and Lazarus. Besides, these are the largest regions and are most similar to ourselves than the founded regions.
These are good criteria. I might add the idea of time. How long have they been a region? Is this region simply a flash in the pan? Was it formed by exiles from another region hoping to reclaim it and, thus, hopes to soon close?
I’m of several minds here. I can see wanting to deny both access to our embassy row. We don’t want to see sovereign regions sniping at one another all over our boards. At the same time, allowing access to our boards will give us a chance to hear out both sides, gain a bit more information about NS conflicts, and also, perhaps, to serve as mediators in disputes. Similarly, if a general region should become, for whatever reason, an invader or defender, would we then close their embassy if we don’t allow invader/defenders on the row?
As I can see any dialogue within embassies from various “hate” regions as violating our 3WL and in such as way as we can’t enforce the law, I’d say, no, we don’t need to deal with these regions. |
![]() |
|
| mavenu | Sep 18 2007, 10:55 AM Post #9 |
|
어머나!
![]()
|
Previous Arguments (from 2003). We didn't have a system in place then, nor do we now. This is why I ask it. As indicated frequently on jolt, Max's theory is that we discuss to change beliefs. Of course, we have the choice to not go near then at all. and that includes invaders/defenders as well. |
![]() |
|
| tsrill | Sep 18 2007, 11:42 AM Post #10 |
|
Unregistered
|
I don't think invader/defender and racist regions have the same kind of moral implications involved. I see no problems in having contacts with the former, but I think having contacts with the latter gives a very wrong signal and I would vote strongly against it. We cannot sell it to the outside world and we cannot sell it to our own populace. The South Pacific is a multi-ethnic society and everyone, regardless of skin color, eye color or length of their legs, should feel welcome. |
|
|
| Geomania | Sep 18 2007, 07:56 PM Post #11 |
|
Former Minister of Security/other stuff
![]()
|
I would recommend swapping embassies with both defenders and crashers. There is a precedent of defenders swapping embassies with crashers, such as with the Rejected Realms accepting the embassy request of The Black Hawks. Accepting the embassy requests of crashers pose no immediate danger to us, nor is it an endorsement of their foreign policy. As for defenders, I feel that it will not harm us to formalize relations with them. This also does not have a probability to embarrass us. We should have neither zero tolerance for regions that are racist nor any sort of diplomatic relations with them. I think we should have relations with regions that are above the mean in regional population. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the mean in regional population is, unfortunately.... |
![]() |
|
| Belstan | Sep 19 2007, 03:46 AM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Crashers is the same as invaders? Maybe it's indeed a good idea to have both sides here and as said before, that way we can try and act like the UN in RL. Try to settle things diplomatically. |
![]() |
|
| kloister | Sep 19 2007, 03:54 AM Post #13 |
|
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...
![]()
|
That indeed is an admirable and worthy stance to take...However, I fear that situations to act as mediator would prove limited, after all invaders invade, crashers crash and defenders defend...Obvious I know but they do it to fulfil their 'Charter'...It would be like raining on their parade... If things got nasty, or out of hand, or we had other diplomatic reasons for playing peacemaker and 'stressing' that point then there could be some value in it... |
![]() |
|
| Bali Lo | Sep 22 2007, 08:54 AM Post #14 |
![]()
|
What about two-region alliances that have more than 50 members in total although each of their sections individually is below that threshold? I'm quite heavily involved with the 'Conservative Paradise Alliance', which consists of 'Conservative Paradise' itself (currently on 40 members) and 'Conservative Paradise Reborn' (currently 17 members). We do have both a government and a forum, although admittedly our 'OutsideStuff-Hall' (i.e. 'Foreign Ministry') needs waking up... We're neither defenders nor invaders/crashers, and not a racist group. As for longevity, 'Conservative Paradise' has managed to survive (with membership changes, of course, and through three re-foundings) since 2003, although our longest-serving active members "only" arrived in 2005. As for importance to NS as a whole, we have maintained an active voice in the UN for a long time and currently have three members who are regular speakers in the General Assembly. We have one successful UN Resolution to our credit (#148, 'Meteorological Cooperation', which was my work) as well as a number of other proposals that didn't reach quorum... Oh, yes, and we're a member of ACCEL. Do we look potentially worth bothering with? |
![]() |
|
| mavenu | Oct 1 2007, 10:55 PM Post #15 |
|
어머나!
![]()
|
Hm. i Hadn't thought of it that way. I'm of two minds on this. If we have relations with another region, and they have a exiled group, would we want to have relations with both sides? perhaps as a dialogue connection for the two sides And if the region split themselves, would we also want to have relations with both sides (or perhaps drop it until they figure themselves out, unlikely idea though)
:glare: looks like I opened another can of worms....
darn i had forgotten about the 3wl. i guess that will eliminate this idea.
AGH! i knew i forgot a segment. I would think that it depends how tightly the two (or more) regions are tied together. Do they share a common cabinet? or are they meant as feeders to the main region. |
![]() |
|
| Caer Rialis | Oct 2 2007, 06:08 AM Post #16 |
|
Asleep
![]()
|
Sorry to have been such a picker of nits there, mavenu
|
![]() |
|
| Bali Lo | Oct 2 2007, 12:25 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
They share a government. The group's original region was re-founded last December, and the player who became the 'Founder' then subsequently (in March) used the power which that position gave him to throw everybody else out. We organised the newer region as a place in which to regroup, and when we reagined control of the original region (in June) -- and re-founded it again -- we decided to keep the two running in parallel instead of trying to force everybody to move back to the original one... |
![]() |
|
| mavenu | Oct 17 2007, 11:12 PM Post #18 |
|
어머나!
![]()
|
mebbe i should ask klo to help me clean this up to put forward as a bill...considering I have no experience in writing one... at any rate. I personally think that it's okay if regions are joined together. But the nutshell is that people are leaning towards ... A) mid-to-large regions B.) Government formed for discussion (yes, i remembered the icon...)C) individual region forum D) Defenders/Invaders are both okay E) possibly split over a number of regions, with a central government F) No racist leanings regions I'll leave this open for more comments till next monday/tuesday (I'm going away for the weekend...). I'm sure I've forgotten something (like working on the ambassador report). |
![]() |
|
| kloister | Oct 18 2007, 05:08 AM Post #19 |
|
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...
![]()
|
We can wait for any final comments and I am more than happy to help in putting together an initial draft...
|
![]() |
|
| tsrill | Oct 18 2007, 07:52 AM Post #20 |
|
Unregistered
|
Actually, I propose that this will not be put into law but into government policy. We can still vote on it if you like... |
|
|
| Caer Rialis | Oct 18 2007, 07:53 AM Post #21 |
|
Asleep
![]()
|
I think Tsrill's correct here. This is more of a policy statement than legislation, really. The Foreign Ministry is outlining its goals and standards on embassies the South Pacific will operate |
![]() |
|
| htz3 | Oct 18 2007, 10:49 AM Post #22 |
|
Former Delegate Member of COG
![]()
|
I'm with trsill and CR on this it is policy not law. Your call as the Minester but you can poll just to see where people stand on the idea. |
![]() |
|
| parrrrtay | Oct 18 2007, 03:15 PM Post #23 |
|
Do not follow me, for I am lost...
![]()
|
I agree these should be 'guidelines' not law. |
![]() |
|
| tsrill | Oct 19 2007, 06:10 AM Post #24 |
|
Unregistered
|
Wow, people agree with me
|
|
|
| htz3 | Oct 19 2007, 03:39 PM Post #25 |
|
Former Delegate Member of COG
![]()
|
Wow have we ever agreed before? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Assembly · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








icon...)
3:39 AM Jul 11