Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We have moved to http://tspforums.xyz/. Please join us at the new site.
This forum is archived and posting has been disabled. You do not need to register to access previously hidden areas. If you see any personally identifiable information, please alert the current Admin Team so that it can be moved to a private setting.
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ideas for Embassy swaps; developing, comments WANTED!!!!!
Topic Started: Sep 17 2007, 01:35 PM (1,009 Views)
mavenu
Member Avatar
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:

  • Minimum population, say 50
  • have forum
  • have government
Defender regions:

  • Stay away from swapping?
  • Join in for swapping of embassies only?
Invader regions

  • Allow an embassy here?
  • Swap embassies
  • Deny all links?
Same issues as defenders...

Other issues

  • Allow dialogue with racist regions?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kloister
Member Avatar
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...

I would say pop it into the Assembly for discussion... ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kloister
Member Avatar
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...

Mav
 
General regions:


  • Minimum population, say 50

  • have forum

  • have government

  • What would you say is the average population for the smaller regions...We don't want to set it too high or too low for that matter...50 sounds reasonable but do we have any figures to back up that assumption?..
    Would we be looking for them to have not only a functioning government but have a foreign ministry of some description?..
    Quote:
     

Quote:
 
Defender regions:


  • Stay away from swapping?

  • Join in for swapping of embassies only?

  • I know we have steered away from both defender and invader regions in the past, concentrating on the more established regions, but maybe its time to look at modifying that stance...Or as an option we could open up more for Defender regions to give us a lead on what potential issues we would face with opening up more for Invader regions...To me Invaders pose more risks in general than Defenders...
    Quote:
     

Quote:
 
Invader regions


  • Allow an embassy here?

  • Swap embassies

  • Deny all links?

Same issues as defenders...

Other issues


  • Allow dialogue with racist regions?


I would not even entertain dialogue with racist regions...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tsrill
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
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Belstan


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Somniloquence


Quote:
 
would not even entertain dialogue with racist regions...


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Napieria
Member Avatar
Minister of the Region

Quote:
 
I would not even entertain dialogue with racist regions...


I'm going to ditto this. I'm not going to validate their beliefs by acknowledging them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caer Rialis
Member Avatar
Asleep

Quote:
 
Feeders + RR + Laz: In my mind, all 7 must have a TSP embassy.


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.

Quote:
 
General regions:
Minimum population, say 50
have forum
have government


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?


Quote:
 
Defender regions:
Stay away from swapping?
Join in for swapping of embassies only?
Invader regions
Allow an embassy here?
Swap embassies
Deny all links?
Same issues as defenders...


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?

Quote:
 
Other issues
Allow dialogue with racist regions?


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mavenu
Member Avatar
어머나!

Somniloquence
Sep 18 2007, 04:18 AM
Quote:
 
would not even entertain dialogue with racist regions...


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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tsrill
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.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Geomania
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....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Belstan


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kloister
Member Avatar
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...

Belstan
Sep 19 2007, 09:46 AM
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.

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...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bali Lo
Member Avatar


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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mavenu
Member Avatar
어머나!

Caer Rialis
Sep 18 2007, 08:33 AM
Quote:
 
General regions:
Minimum population, say 50
have forum
have government


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?


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)

Quote:
 

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?


:glare: looks like I opened another can of worms....

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Other issues
Allow dialogue with racist regions?


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.


darn i had forgotten about the 3wl. i guess that will eliminate this idea.

Quote:
 
  What about two-region alliances that have more than 50 members in total although each of their sections individually is below that threshold?


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caer Rialis
Member Avatar
Asleep

Sorry to have been such a picker of nits there, mavenu :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bali Lo
Member Avatar


mavenu
Oct 1 2007, 10:55 PM
Quote:
 
  What about two-region alliances that have more than 50 members in total although each of their sections individually is below that threshold?


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.

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...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mavenu
Member Avatar
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 B) 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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kloister
Member Avatar
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...

We can wait for any final comments and I am more than happy to help in putting together an initial draft... :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tsrill
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...
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caer Rialis
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
htz3
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
parrrrtay
Member Avatar
Do not follow me, for I am lost...

I agree these should be 'guidelines' not law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tsrill
Unregistered

Wow, people agree with me :D
Quote Post Goto Top
 
htz3
Member Avatar
Former Delegate Member of COG

Wow have we ever agreed before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archive: Assembly · Next Topic »
Add Reply