Embassy of The North Pacific

[Consular]

I noticed TNP was conspicuously absent from the peacekeeper agreement. Why was that?

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

I noticed TNP was conspicuously absent from the peacekeeper agreement. Why was that?

If I remember correctly, NR told me that there was a missed deadline.

[New Rogernomics]

I noticed TNP was conspicuously absent from the peacekeeper agreement. Why was that?

If I remember correctly, NR told me that there was a missed deadline.

I think you got that statement from someone else MM. I just checked my Discord logs.

[Pallaith]

I noticed TNP was conspicuously absent from the peacekeeper agreement. Why was that?

We had concerns about the agreement and chose not to sign because of them. We fully support Lazarene independence and self-rule, and hope that the constitutional convention will result in a free, democratic government. After so much turmoil, Lazarus deserves some peace.

[Consular]

I noticed TNP was conspicuously absent from the peacekeeper agreement. Why was that?

We had concerns about the agreement and chose not to sign because of them. We fully support Lazarene independence and self-rule, and hope that the constitutional convention will result in a free, democratic government. After so much turmoil, Lazarus deserves some peace.

I guess I just find your support, from over there on the sidelines, without actually doing anything real to help, to be kinda empty. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sure it's good to hear but I'm not sure why these folks are praising you for your inaction.

[Roavin]

We had concerns about the agreement and chose not to sign because of them. We fully support Lazarene independence and self-rule, and hope that the constitutional convention will result in a free, democratic government. After so much turmoil, Lazarus deserves some peace.

I guess I just find your support, from over there on the sidelines, without actually doing anything real to help, to be kinda empty. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sure it's good to hear but I'm not sure why these folks are praising you for your inaction.

They've offered diplomatic and material support, and implicitly offered a recognition of legitimacy for the resulting governance. The North Pacific is also indisputably the largest region, with an accordingly large capacity for providing resources. Just because pilers haven't deployed at this time doesn't mean this is nothing - quite the contrary!

7 of 8 GCRs (not counting Lazarus itself of course) are now either directly supporting or offering support for Lazarus in its rebuilding effort as a Lazarus by Lazarenes for Lazarenes. That is great news for Lazarus.

[Consular]

You always see the positive side of things Roavin.

[Lord Dominator]

You always see the positive side of things Roavin.

Life just seems better that way

[Eluvatar]

You always see the positive side of things Roavin.

Life just seems better that way

I agree. Always look on the bright side of life.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I know there’s chatter about developing this peacekeeping thing into a general model for fighting GCR coups. In that context, what were the issues that TNP had with the agreement as presented? A disparate group of GCRs all signed on, so it’s safe to assume the agreement was broad enough for the spectrum of TSP to Osiris to sign on. Addressing the concerns TNP had could really help make this into a useful tool to combat coups. I think everybody would want to have TNP on board with the idea in the future!

[Lord Dominator]

I know there’s chatter about developing this peacekeeping thing into a general model for fighting GCR coups. In that context, what were the issues that TNP had with the agreement as presented? A disparate group of GCRs all signed on, so it’s safe to assume the agreement was broad enough for the spectrum of TSP to Osiris to sign on. Addressing the concerns TNP had could really help make this into a useful tool to combat coups. I think everybody would want to have TNP on board with the idea in the future!

Personally I think a problem that could arise on that is disagreement on what qualifies as a coup, or who should be supported in the instance of one happening more critically.

[Unibot III]

I know there’s chatter about developing this peacekeeping thing into a general model for fighting GCR coups. In that context, what were the issues that TNP had with the agreement as presented? A disparate group of GCRs all signed on, so it’s safe to assume the agreement was broad enough for the spectrum of TSP to Osiris to sign on. Addressing the concerns TNP had could really help make this into a useful tool to combat coups. I think everybody would want to have TNP on board with the idea in the future!

That reminds me of the 'Parthenon' arrangement that we got fairly close to launching between TNP, TEP, TSP, TRR, Osiris, and the Lazarus Underground. The problem is today's TNP is far more influenced by the Manifesto than its old pro-democratic principles. When NPO couped Lazarus, TNP was on board from the start to liberate Lazarus. Now, when it's invaders couping Lazarus, TNP voluntarily benched itself (presumably to please independentists/imperialists that were supporting and piling the Khanate.) It's unfathomable that TNP five years ago would have stayed on the sidelines to a coup like the Khanate of a democratic GCR - the Manifesto has normalized the privileging of geopolitical intrigue over traditional notions of feeder solidarity and a general commitment to the rule of law and local representation and sovereignty.

In that sense what the partners of this peacekeeping agreement are doing is something distinctly more romantic than their contemporaries, recalling a pre-Manifesto time in GCR politics that runs counter to recent trends. The GCRs/UCRs most committed to the Manifesto have either stayed as neutral as possible or have assisted the coup. I doubt TNP could sign onto a Parthenon-esque arrangement or even act in good faith in a United Nations -esque organization, they haven't shown that kind of global leadership in a long time. Their presence, if they even agreed to join, would be as internally disruptive as Balder if they were to join.

[Pallaith]

I know there’s chatter about developing this peacekeeping thing into a general model for fighting GCR coups. In that context, what were the issues that TNP had with the agreement as presented? A disparate group of GCRs all signed on, so it’s safe to assume the agreement was broad enough for the spectrum of TSP to Osiris to sign on. Addressing the concerns TNP had could really help make this into a useful tool to combat coups. I think everybody would want to have TNP on board with the idea in the future!

We would prefer to be on board as well, and definitely want to be included in the drafting of any future such agreements. As for the specifics of our concerns, it's too late at this point for any changes we might suggest to be adopted, and we don't want to distract from the ongoing convention. We have communicated them to the peacekeepers, and would be happy to talk in private with any other concerned parties.

[Canton Empire]

I know there’s chatter about developing this peacekeeping thing into a general model for fighting GCR coups. In that context, what were the issues that TNP had with the agreement as presented? A disparate group of GCRs all signed on, so it’s safe to assume the agreement was broad enough for the spectrum of TSP to Osiris to sign on. Addressing the concerns TNP had could really help make this into a useful tool to combat coups. I think everybody would want to have TNP on board with the idea in the future!

That reminds me of the 'Parthenon' arrangement that we got fairly close to launching between TNP, TEP, TSP, TRR, Osiris, and the Lazarus Underground. The problem is today's TNP is far more influenced by the Manifesto than its old pro-democratic principles. When NPO couped Lazarus, TNP was on board from the start to liberate Lazarus. Now, when it's invaders couping Lazarus, TNP voluntarily benched itself (presumably to please independentists/imperialists that were supporting and piling the Khanate.) It's unfathomable that TNP five years ago would have stayed on the sidelines to a coup like the Khanate of a democratic GCR - the Manifesto has normalized the privileging of geopolitical intrigue over traditional notions of feeder solidarity and a general commitment to the rule of law and local representation and sovereignty.

In that sense what the partners of this peacekeeping agreement are doing is something distinctly more romantic than their contemporaries, recalling a pre-Manifesto time in GCR politics that runs counter to recent trends. The GCRs/UCRs most committed to the Manifesto have either stayed as neutral as possible or have assisted the coup. I doubt TNP could sign onto a Parthenon-esque arrangement or even act in good faith in a United Nations -esque organization, they haven't shown that kind of global leadership in a long time. Their presence, if they even agreed to join, would be as internally disruptive as Balder if they were to join.

And now, why would they sign on to an agreement when people like you would constantly question their ability to act in good faith when they haven't done to show that they won't. It's a good thing that your words aren't worth the page they're rendered on, because now we might be able to have greater GCR cooperation.

[Consular]

I know there’s chatter about developing this peacekeeping thing into a general model for fighting GCR coups. In that context, what were the issues that TNP had with the agreement as presented? A disparate group of GCRs all signed on, so it’s safe to assume the agreement was broad enough for the spectrum of TSP to Osiris to sign on. Addressing the concerns TNP had could really help make this into a useful tool to combat coups. I think everybody would want to have TNP on board with the idea in the future!

We would prefer to be on board as well, and definitely want to be included in the drafting of any future such agreements. As for the specifics of our concerns, it's too late at this point for any changes we might suggest to be adopted, and we don't want to distract from the ongoing convention. We have communicated them to the peacekeepers, and would be happy to talk in private with any other concerned parties.

Don't want to talk about it in public?

Not a fan of transparency?

[The Church of Satan]

Don't want to talk about it in public?

Not a fan of transparency?

TNP's politics are no concern of the general public. If you're a fan of such extreme transparency then why not start a thread for your next treaty negotiations here in the GP forum?

[Consular]

Don't want to talk about it in public?

Not a fan of transparency?

TNP's politics are no concern of the general public. If you're a fan of such extreme transparency then why not start a thread for your next treaty negotiations here in the GP forum?

What a predictably boring response.

[The Church of Satan]

I don't exist to entertain you and I won't apologize for that.

[Malphe]

TNP's politics are no concern of the general public. If you're a fan of such extreme transparency then why not start a thread for your next treaty negotiations here in the GP forum?

What a predictably boring response.

Will you be satisfied with anything short of TNP conducting the entirety of it's FA on the GP forums?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I know there’s chatter about developing this peacekeeping thing into a general model for fighting GCR coups. In that context, what were the issues that TNP had with the agreement as presented? A disparate group of GCRs all signed on, so it’s safe to assume the agreement was broad enough for the spectrum of TSP to Osiris to sign on. Addressing the concerns TNP had could really help make this into a useful tool to combat coups. I think everybody would want to have TNP on board with the idea in the future!

We would prefer to be on board as well, and definitely want to be included in the drafting of any future such agreements. As for the specifics of our concerns, it's too late at this point for any changes we might suggest to be adopted, and we don't want to distract from the ongoing convention. We have communicated them to the peacekeepers, and would be happy to talk in private with any other concerned parties.

That’s good, thank you for the response. Hopefully the parties can work together with TNP on a broad framework for peacekeeping in the future. It’s naive to expect all GCRs to sign on to a system that would end all coups, due to personal and GP politics being a corrupting factor in supporting sovereignty. But a broad framework that can be used when possible would be a net positive for GCRs.

[Syberis]

I know there’s chatter about developing this peacekeeping thing into a general model for fighting GCR coups. In that context, what were the issues that TNP had with the agreement as presented? A disparate group of GCRs all signed on, so it’s safe to assume the agreement was broad enough for the spectrum of TSP to Osiris to sign on. Addressing the concerns TNP had could really help make this into a useful tool to combat coups. I think everybody would want to have TNP on board with the idea in the future!

We would prefer to be on board as well, and definitely want to be included in the drafting of any future such agreements. As for the specifics of our concerns, it's too late at this point for any changes we might suggest to be adopted, and we don't want to distract from the ongoing convention. We have communicated them to the peacekeepers, and would be happy to talk in private with any other concerned parties.

I am immensely glad that TNP has moved on from the concerns that plagued the NSWF and are willing to move forward to assist an individual they have wronged with stabilizing a sister region.

It takes a certain level of maturity to admit ones mistakes, and to move forward bravely to work with that individual for the betterment of the game.

[Darcania]

I am immensely glad that TNP has moved on from the concerns that plagued the NSWF and are willing to move forward to assist an individual they have wronged with stabilizing a sister region.

It takes a certain level of maturity to admit ones mistakes, and to move forward bravely to work with that individual for the betterment of the game.

This has been noted several times, but I'll note it again for those third parties reading this thread - the NSWF concerns were an administrative concern, not a gameplay concern. TNP's gameplay government had nothing to do with the NSWF incident; it was purely TNP's administration team, who are an OOC body and entirely seperate from TNP's IC GP government.

As this is an IC GP thread that's all I will say on the matter here - just noting that here since it was brought up.

[Syberis]

I am immensely glad that TNP has moved on from the concerns that plagued the NSWF and are willing to move forward to assist an individual they have wronged with stabilizing a sister region.

It takes a certain level of maturity to admit ones mistakes, and to move forward bravely to work with that individual for the betterment of the game.

This has been noted several times, but I'll note it again for those third parties reading this thread - the NSWF concerns were an administrative concern, not a gameplay concern. TNP's gameplay government had nothing to do with the NSWF incident; it was purely TNP's administration team, who are an OOC body and entirely seperate from TNP's IC GP government.

As this is an IC GP thread that's all I will say on the matter here - just noting that here since it was brought up.

Did I say that it wasn't? I'm proud of TNP for, IC, ignoring the drama that existed OOC and moving forward for the good of the game. It would have been much easier to blur the lines, and they acted in a way that showed that their administrators did not influence their policies. Good on the government for taking a difficult stance. It's never easy to operate separately of the people running the off-site material you operate on.

To the administration team, I am still awaiting the evidence requested for the security of my own region, and potentially for the good of the Lazarene community moving forward.

[Scardino]

To the administration team, I am still awaiting the evidence requested for the security of my own region, and potentially for the good of the Lazarene community moving forward.

With all due respect, Syberis, you are completely out of line here. The TNP administration does not answer to you and, if they choose to continue the esteemed tradition of making embarrassing mistakes and following them up with obfuscation, that is none of your business. Besides, Lazarus is an entity related to TNP strictly on an IC basis in that they are both regions in NationStates. The OOC forum administration has no relation or interest in the OOC forum administration of Lazarus or any other regions.

[Unibot III]

That reminds me of the 'Parthenon' arrangement that we got fairly close to launching between TNP, TEP, TSP, TRR, Osiris, and the Lazarus Underground. The problem is today's TNP is far more influenced by the Manifesto than its old pro-democratic principles. When NPO couped Lazarus, TNP was on board from the start to liberate Lazarus. Now, when it's invaders couping Lazarus, TNP voluntarily benched itself (presumably to please independentists/imperialists that were supporting and piling the Khanate.) It's unfathomable that TNP five years ago would have stayed on the sidelines to a coup like the Khanate of a democratic GCR - the Manifesto has normalized the privileging of geopolitical intrigue over traditional notions of feeder solidarity and a general commitment to the rule of law and local representation and sovereignty.

In that sense what the partners of this peacekeeping agreement are doing is something distinctly more romantic than their contemporaries, recalling a pre-Manifesto time in GCR politics that runs counter to recent trends. The GCRs/UCRs most committed to the Manifesto have either stayed as neutral as possible or have assisted the coup. I doubt TNP could sign onto a Parthenon-esque arrangement or even act in good faith in a United Nations -esque organization, they haven't shown that kind of global leadership in a long time. Their presence, if they even agreed to join, would be as internally disruptive as Balder if they were to join.

And now, why would they sign on to an agreement when people like you would constantly question their ability to act in good faith when they haven't done to show that they won't. It's a good thing that your words aren't worth the page they're rendered on, because now we might be able to have greater GCR cooperation.

TNP wasn't the holdout for the Parthenon treaty and I was one of its major drafters and one of the facilitators of the discussion: it was a different time, which is exactly the point that I was making. It's unthinkable that TNP would get involved as an equal participant in a pro-democratic / feeder solidarity cause these days without a political motive.

Good faith my ass, these are the same guys who tried to support a coup in TSP under the guise of 'legal obligations.'