The North Pacific Wire

[Cerian Quilor]

Thanks for the info, Georgie, Biyah.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Basically, every time we did something you didn't like (which was almost everything), we were terrible at running our own affairs, because we dared do something of which you didn't approve.

The problem is that you guys didn't actually do anything. There was no point in having a government in Osiris, because there really are no opposing viewpoints within it, despite what you claim. There was no dissent from the legislative or judicial branches when you were pardoned for using Osiris as your plaything. The refrain of government is "Hail the Pharaoh!" The Sepatarchy is just an unnecessary institution, if all it's going to do is rubber-stamp whatever elite members of Osiris' upper echelon propose. I think this is probably an endemic problem of GCRs, but I've only been involved in Osiris, and I'm sorry if you're offended that I didn't like what I saw.

I'm not oblivious to the fact that I was disliked there, because you all are used to only minor disagreements that end in, yet again, "Hail Pharaoh" refrains. Because I made more noise than normally, none of you considered me a member of the region, even though I had been there for six or seven months. It's a simple truth that to be a member of Osiris, you cannot argue against its institutions or against its leaders. Even the meager changes that were proposed as a result of your coup were limited within the confines of the existing power structures.

Nobody wanted to change anything because there's a systemic power-seeking problem in Osiris, which again probably exists in all the other GCRs as well. The Sepatarchy never created a Citizens Assembly, and whatever plans there were to create one were yet again limited by the confines of the existing Sepatarchy power. In other words, even a Citizens Assembly would need the assent of the Sepatarchy to pass a law. This happened with the Council of Ma'at, too. The Sepatarchy saw no reason to limit the most egregious abuse of power you threatened to use: that the Council itself was the final court of appeals; it was judge and jury, and would never execute itself. They saw no reason to change that, because Osiris is too conservative for its own good, too unwilling to challenge power structures.

I think this organization is simply an attempt by a select few players to secure more and more power for themselves. That you were part of the Committee is telling. The incestuous nature of GCR governance isn't enough; an inter-regional organization needs to be created, so that an Executive Council can rise above individual regional governments, and one of the drafters can be the helm. It's incredibly ironic that an organization dedicated to "national and regional sovereignty" would find it a good idea to create a sprawling bureaucracy. It's ironic that regional leaders supposedly concerned with protecting their region's sovereignty would let an Executive Council declare war on their behalf. It's dumbfounding that these leaders think protecting other region's sovereignty is any valid expression of sovereignty.

No, SovCon has nothing to do with regional sovereignty. The Charter you guys wrote is essentially the framework for a federal state. Part of the name is "Confederation." The name of the organization is literally an oxymoron. Not one of the people listed in the Committee is concerned with regional sovereignty. Rather, a group of elites and old mainstays got together and devised a way to amass even more power in NationStates. SovCon is the product of narrow self-interest.

[Cormac Stark]

Not one of the people listed in the Committee is concerned with regional sovereignty. Rather, a group of elites and old mainstays got together and devised a way to amass even more power in NationStates. SovCon is the product of narrow self-interest.

Well, thank you for that. I don't know what I would do without UDL members to tell me what I'm thinking, what my motives are, and whether or not what I'm doing at any given time meets their rigorous standards of in-game morality. Clearly we are all terrible, power hungry people; I have seen the error of my ways and recant this sovereignty nonsense in favor of UDL imperialism cosmopolitanism.

[Unibot III]

Not one of the people listed in the Committee is concerned with regional sovereignty. Rather, a group of elites and old mainstays got together and devised a way to amass even more power in NationStates. SovCon is the product of narrow self-interest.

Well, thank you for that. I don't know what I would do without UDL members to tell me what I'm thinking, what my motives are, and whether or not what I'm doing at any given time meets their rigorous standards of in-game morality. Clearly we are all terrible, power hungry people; I have seen the error of my ways and recant this sovereignty nonsense in favor of UDL imperialism cosmopolitanism.

UDL has no formal position over cosmopolitanism or regionalism -- we're not a regional organization thus it would be inappropriate and beyond our scope to discuss ideal regional politics, attitudes and structures.

I think you're confusing the UDL with me. I've written an essay that argues regionalism when combined with a conception of positive nativeness logically leads to oppression and collective fear to express individualism. I did not take a stand against regionalism overall, only one component. In a future essay that I may write, I'll propose an Enlightened Regionalism as being the ideal form of Regional Governance -- a government that recognizes the negative conception of nativeness, but formulates and emphasizes a coherent regional identity, since in the upcoming essay I'm writing, I propose (contrary to your organization's leak doctrine) that activity is largely identity-driven not chaos-driven. It doesn't make any sense for me to propose Pure Cosmopolitanism as being the ideal region, if it isn't going to facilitate activity.

But thanks for the avoidance: It is in fact, your organization that is taking a stance against a political alignment.

[Cormac Stark]

UDL has no formal position over cosmopolitanism or regionalism -- we're not a regional organization thus it would be inappropriate and beyond our scope to discuss ideal regional politics, attitudes and structures.

Well, thank you for the clarification. You can see how I might be confused given that UDL members who were never or are no longer active in any of our anticipated member regions are coming out of the woodwork to oppose their involvement in Sovereign Confederation -- both here in this thread and in those regions. But I'm encouraged to hear that you believe such interference in regional politics and structures is inappropriate and beyond UDL's scope. I agree.

But thanks for the avoidance: It is in fact, your organization that is taking a stance against a political alignment.

Oh? Which political alignment would that be? I seem to have missed a memo.

[Punk Daddy]

Not one of the people listed in the Committee is concerned with regional sovereignty. Rather, a group of elites and old mainstays got together and devised a way to amass even more power in NationStates. SovCon is the product of narrow self-interest.

Well, thank you for that. I don't know what I would do without UDL members to tell me what I'm thinking, what my motives are, and whether or not what I'm doing at any given time meets their rigorous standards of in-game morality. Clearly we are all terrible, power hungry people; I have seen the error of my ways and recant this sovereignty nonsense in favor of UDL imperialism cosmopolitanism.

I never thought you were a UDL'er at heart. I starting to think my gut instincts were wrong...glad you have rejoined the light side of the force.

[Unibot III]

But thanks for the avoidance: It is in fact, your organization that is taking a stance against a political alignment.

Oh? Which political alignment would that be? I seem to have missed a memo.

I believe you have missed the memo. You're taking a stance against Cosmopolitanism. That's a political alignment.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Isn't it amazing how shitty we all get with each other when we make up our own ideologies?

[The Blaatschapen]

Isn't it amazing how shitty we all get with each other when we make up our own ideologies?

Thanks for summarising mine.

[Feux]

Isn't it amazing how shitty we all get with each other when we make up our own ideologies?

May I quote that?

[Milograd]

Isn't it amazing how shitty we all get with each other when we make up our own ideologies?

May I quote that?

You already did.

[Whamabama]

Oh? Which political alignment would that be? I seem to have missed a memo.

I believe you have missed the memo. You're taking a stance against Cosmopolitanism. That's a political alignment.

Actually we aren't. read what it actually says.

6: We will defend the right of GCRs to oppose the insidious creep of cosmopolitanism

Does not say we will oppose the insidious creep of cosmopolitanism, just that we will defend the right of a GCR to do so. If the GCR does not wish to fight this, or doesn't even acknowledge that such a thing as cosmopolitanism even can exist. That's fine too. It's their explicit right to determine these things for themselves. What ever they decide, we will defend their choice.

[Unibot III]

6: We will defend the right of GCRs to oppose the insidious creep of cosmopolitanism

Does not say we will oppose the insidious creep of cosmopolitanism, just that we will defend the right of a GCR to do so. If the GCR does not wish to fight this, or doesn't even acknowledge that such a thing as cosmopolitanism even can exist. That's fine too. It's their explicit right to determine these things for themselves. What ever they decide, we will defend their choice.

Do you defend the right of GCRs to oppose the insidious creep of Regionalism?

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Isn't it amazing how shitty we all get with each other when we make up our own ideologies?

May I quote that?

You may. ^_^

[Antariel]

Just a quick comment on Bels TSP-TRR comments. As a TSP member who helped restore embassies after the coup, and former TSP ambassador to TRR, I'd like to think we aren't *quite* as against TRR as m'learned colleague implies.

[Biyah]

Does not say we will oppose the insidious creep of cosmopolitanism, just that we will defend the right of a GCR to do so. If the GCR does not wish to fight this, or doesn't even acknowledge that such a thing as cosmopolitanism even can exist. That's fine too. It's their explicit right to determine these things for themselves. What ever they decide, we will defend their choice.

Do you defend the right of GCRs to oppose the insidious creep of Regionalism?

*chuckles*

If you actually read what we wrote, you'd see the answer is yes.

We're not a R/D Cosmo/Regionalistic entity. The idea is to defend the right of regions to choose, their sovereignty. You can spin that into whatever dogma your heart desires, and you can keep asking the same questions and making the same dull points, it won’t change the facts.

As it happens, though, we don't have to defend against 'creeping regionalism', because it's a contradiction in terms. Even by your own UDL definitions. Actually, here, let me provide them for those who didn’t take your little test.

What is cosmopolitanism?
From the UDL: Cosmopolitanism dictates that gameplayers are their own individuals and should not reserve themselves for one regional community or conform to the values of their regional peers. At its extreme, Cosmopolitanism can obliterate one's conception of a "regional community" altogether and leave cosmopolitans without a specific regional "home" in NationStates.

What is regionalism?
From the UDL: Regionalism dictates that regions should have strong and concrete regional identities and value systems, in addition to maintaining these political systems with patriotism, conformity, controlled immigration as well as strictly reserving political power for those who demonstrate regional loyalty. At its extreme, Regionalism can descend into an "us v. them" mentality that isolates one interregionally.

A region rampant with regionalism is a locked down fortress with no outside communication, and no threat to anyone. I suppose you could argue that said regionalistic regions could be willing to go on the warpath, but those would be mid-level regionalists with an imperial bend. True ultra-regionalists simply build walls.

Whereas, rampant Cosmopolitanists are people who don't recognize or respect regional borders - and take people from wherever they get them, regardless of a region's rights.

Between the two, I don't think SovCon has to worry overly much about the region pulled into its turtle shell. And if that's what said region wants, we'll defend that right.

So, Uni, do you respect a region’s free will and right of self-determination?

~B

[Unibot III]

So, Uni, do you respect a region’s free will and right of self-determination?

Yes.*


_{* Note: a free will requires the restrictions of others (like yourself) from dominating and inferring in regions or else "freedom" as a concept collapses inward. Anarchy is not free, it is a brutish and shallow existence.}

[Punk Reloaded]

So, Uni, do you respect a region’s free will and right of self-determination?

Yes.*


_{* Note: a free will requires the restrictions of others (like yourself) from dominating and inferring in regions or else "freedom" as a concept collapses inward. Anarchy is not free, it is a brutish and shallow existence.}

...so says the alpha and omega of freedom theory??

:rolls eyes a lot:

Unibot - where I think you err consistently is believing that your paradigms are the only possible paradigms. One day you're going to run into a situation that does not fit your paradigm and I do not think you will be well equipped to handle the situation. But, you need to meet that day in order to expand your thinking which is as narrow as it is opinionated.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Not one of the people listed in the Committee is concerned with regional sovereignty. Rather, a group of elites and old mainstays got together and devised a way to amass even more power in NationStates. SovCon is the product of narrow self-interest.

Well, thank you for that. I don't know what I would do without UDL members to tell me what I'm thinking, what my motives are, and whether or not what I'm doing at any given time meets their rigorous standards of in-game morality. Clearly we are all terrible, power hungry people; I have seen the error of my ways and recant this sovereignty nonsense in favor of UDL imperialism cosmopolitanism.

I'm not really a UDL member. Please don't attempt to group me with some monolithic identity you can use as a way to dismiss people en mass.

[Cerian Quilor]

If you aren't a member of the UDL, take it out of your signature.

[Mahaj]

If you aren't a member of the UDL, take it out of your signature.

For GR to do it, its fine.

[The Blaatschapen]

If you aren't a member of the UDL, take it out of your signature.

As someone who has rented out his signature on occasion: I don't see the problem if someone is promoting something that they're not a part of.

[Cerian Quilor]

If you aren't a member of the UDL, take it out of your signature.

For GR to do it, its fine.

He tried to use the fact that he was not a member of the the UDL as a point in discussion with Cormac. My point ws that if you don't want people to treat you like a UDLer, don't put it in your sig.

[Lyanna Stark]

For GR to do it, its fine.

He tried to use the fact that he was not a member of the the UDL as a point in discussion with Cormac. My point ws that if you don't want people to treat you like a UDLer, don't put it in your sig.

I think the bigger point is that you can't lump us all in this shitty bucket just to dismiss actual points. Instead of yelling "oh he's UDL, just ignore him", I think GR would prefer for Cormac to actually address his points.

But then again, Cormac's a huge hypocrite in saying such as an ex-UDL member who used to complain about said "grouping". Clearly when he does it to other people it's okay these days.

[Frattastan II]

Please don't attempt to group me with some monolithic identity you can use as a way to dismiss people en mass.

Userite!