NationStates

Unibot III wrote:

Biyah wrote:Unibot, tell us how our own organization is organized. Please, you're the knowledgeable one here

No, just the honest one here.

You have no information with which to be honest about. You're spewing a theory, not facts.

So has this actually passed anywhere anyways or is this just another startup attempt at something amongst a bunch of regions?

I'm sure Uni would be thrilled to consider me a UDL puppet, given our history

Antariel wrote:I'm sure Uni would be thrilled to consider me a UDL puppet, given our history

Just another cog in the conspiracy wheel.

Unibot III wrote:

Whamabama wrote:

In other words, you didn't read the actual charter, you didn't read our actual releases.

You didn't quote what I said, you only quoted the snarky emoticon. >_< Which obscures the fact that you haven't responded to my argument attached to the emoticon. Oh well.

I responded to 4 points, and asked a simple question on each. I never received an answer, and that's ok. I wasn't really expecting one. I knew despite the fact it was released. Also the fact you could have read it. The actual documents would not be the talking point, it somehow isn't as dramatic, as this bogus document. Once I saw that, I had my answer.

As far as disscussing what isn't, there really is no point. The whole point of that was to test trust. It was hoped everyone would pass. Failing that, it was hoped that they would jump on this, and not become a future problem. While unfortunatly things did not go as we had hoped. The test worked as designed.

Wham, you've been more active in this thread than you've been as TRR's Delegate in months.

Also, can someone just clarify what is this 'Gatesville' being talked about now with regards to this? Cause the region seems to only have five nations in it..

Lyanna Stark wrote:Wham, you've been more active in this thread than you've been as TRR's Delegate in months.

I would respond to this, but apparently I am too lazy.

Lyanna Stark wrote:So has this actually passed anywhere anyways or is this just another startup attempt at something amongst a bunch of regions?

SovCon was rolled out officially less than 24 hours ago - naturally, we have no signatories as of yet. However, several charter members are expected to ratify it quickly, and we have a number of others who have expressed interest in joining once SovCon is officially established.

Lyanna Stark wrote:Also, can someone just clarify what is this 'Gatesville' being talked about now with regards to this? Cause the region seems to only have five nations in it..

Gatesville is being used to refer to a particular community of people - it is an invitation to their community, and of course, their charter membership shall be afforded to the name they choose to settle on.

Unibot III wrote:

Cromarty wrote:That's twice you've mentioned Biyah as the titular head or spiritual driving force behind this. You seem to have a serious hangup on him, Uni. He is not the head of this project, it's a group effort organized by Wham and Asta.

Odd, the player who leaked the information said Biyah was the driving force. Interesting to see what facts are being contradicted here. "OH, these documents that make us look really bad aren't real, they just... fake documents.. that we passed onto someone.. to make us look bad! OH, the guy who just couped a sinker isn't our leader... it's the two people in the organization who haven't been involved in coups yet as far as we know!"

I would like to note, at the time I was brought on board last year, this idea had a grand total of two people involved - myself and Wham. Biyah was not driving this project forward, nor even involved - heck, he and I were not even on speaking terms at that point. He only became involved within the last... oh... month or two?

This is not an organization in favor of couping, that intends on couping every coupable coup at the first coup it coups. We defend regional sovereignty - the right of sovereign regions to be free of coups.

Unibot III wrote:Very good investigative journalism, McMasterdonia.

Don't get me wrong, I think the piece is hilarious... but let's not pretend it's anything but a tabloid.

Ahha, the old "only a tabloid" drift from Astarial.

He only became involved within the last... oh... month or two?

Just when the ball got rolling on the organization (after it had been stalled for a year). Right. -_-

Unibot III wrote:Ahha, the old "only a tabloid" drift from Astarial.

It's hardly unbiased journalism if the journalist urges the reader to be skeptical.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:National Sovereignty is a cause that is very near and dear to my heart. I'm assuming most of what's being said about this organization is based on the original post, which doesn't apparently tell the whole story. That said, I think we can all agree that NatSov deserves an organization that is in support of it, and I can get behind such an organization 100%.

Whatever happened to Osiris not becoming NatSov? Literally days after the Osiris-Antarctic Oasis treaty, in which you and Madjack and others vehemently denied that Osiris would become NatSov, the region enters into an organization that claims, "We will not allow the World Assembly to dilute national and regional sovereignty." (Also, whatever happened to Madjack's proclamation that Osiris was "independent?" So much for being a principled delegate.)

I don't know how anybody in Osiris can still support Madjack as Pharaoh, or really any other member of government. You guys blatantly lied about in what direction you were planning to take Osiris. I hope the people who were skeptical of the treaty, but gave you guys the benefit of the doubt anyways, wake up and realize that Osiris is turning into NatSov voting bloc.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

The Dourian Embassy wrote:National Sovereignty is a cause that is very near and dear to my heart. I'm assuming most of what's being said about this organization is based on the original post, which doesn't apparently tell the whole story. That said, I think we can all agree that NatSov deserves an organization that is in support of it, and I can get behind such an organization 100%.

Whatever happened to Osiris not becoming NatSov? Literally days after the Osiris-Antarctic Oasis treaty, in which you and Madjack and others vehemently denied that Osiris would become NatSov, the region enters into an organization that claims, "We will not allow the World Assembly to dilute national and regional sovereignty." (Also, whatever happened to Madjack's proclamation that Osiris was "independent?" So much for being a principled delegate.)

I don't know how anybody in Osiris can still support Madjack as Pharaoh, or really any other member of government. You guys blatantly lied about in what direction you were planning to take Osiris. I hope the people who were skeptical of the treaty, but gave you guys the benefit of the doubt anyways, wake up and realize that Osiris is turning into NatSov voting bloc.

NatSov is not regional sovreignty and vice-versa. Dourian got it wrong, and you compound his error.

Cerian Quilor wrote:NatSov is not regional sovreignty and vice-versa. Dourian got it wrong, and you compound his error.

The Charter explicitly mentions national sovereignty.

Statement of Intent, Article 3: We will not allow the World Assembly to dilute national and regional sovereignty.

It's very clear that this organization has plans with the World Assembly. It showed up in the "leaked" draft, and their own FAQ states that there will be a "space for discussing and planning WA proposals." While the organization doesn't dictate how its charter regions vote, my criticism of Madjack and the Osiris government is that it's one more step in a clear trend of turning Osiris into a NatSov voting bloc.

The World Assembly has seen this before. Voting blocs were not fun and they were not conducive to a functioning game. This organization needs to drop whatever intentions it has on meddling with the General Assembly.

Glen-Rhodes wrote: This organization needs to drop whatever intentions it has on meddling with the General Assembly.

What intentions?

Whamabama wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote: This organization needs to drop whatever intentions it has on meddling with the General Assembly.

What intentions?

Oh, please, don't even try this with me. There are very clear overtones here of this "confederation" wanting to be a voting bloc. "National sovereignty" isn't even a concept used in R/D. It's a dog-whistle to GA politics, and anybody involved in the NatSov/IntFed environment knows exactly what that clause is trying to say.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Oh, please, don't even try this with me. There are very clear overtones here of this "confederation" wanting to be a voting bloc. "National sovereignty" isn't even a concept used in R/D. It's a dog-whistle to GA politics, and anybody involved in the NatSov/IntFed environment knows exactly what that clause is trying to say.

Well rest assured we aren't into GA politics, much less aware of any dog whistles. I do know that SovCon is against manipulating any region in regards to their voting, or the choices made in regards to their own policies regarding voting in the WA.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Cerian Quilor wrote:NatSov is not regional sovreignty and vice-versa. Dourian got it wrong, and you compound his error.

The Charter explicitly mentions national sovereignty.

Statement of Intent, Article 3: We will not allow the World Assembly to dilute national and regional sovereignty.

It's very clear that this organization has plans with the World Assembly. It showed up in the "leaked" draft, and their own FAQ states that there will be a "space for discussing and planning WA proposals." While the organization doesn't dictate how its charter regions vote, my criticism of Madjack and the Osiris government is that it's one more step in a clear trend of turning Osiris into a NatSov voting bloc.

The World Assembly has seen this before. Voting blocs were not fun and they were not conducive to a functioning game. This organization needs to drop whatever intentions it has on meddling with the General Assembly.

A: Voting Blocs are called Politics, which is part and parcel of nationstates, and B: The organization provides no power to endorse GA resolutions or repeals.

We have a WA forum - our focus is not the WA. There is quite a difference.

We can't force member regions to vote, so your idea of forming a massive bloc is... quite interesting. In either case, we'll see how much is made of the WA by the regions, it's not something we can predict.

Keep em flying, GR.

Thanks to everyone for reading and commenting. It will be interesting to see how this goes, particularly in the five regions that intend to ratify it.

The next article from the Wire should be out soon

Well, this is very interesting indeed.

The only thing that's disappointing is that there's no focus on destroying the WA.

...and Unibot's revisionist history and/or only citing figures that fall within his framework would be comical if it weren't redundant.

Whamabama wrote:Well rest assured we aren't into GA politics, much less aware of any dog whistles. I do know that SovCon is against manipulating any region in regards to their voting, or the choices made in regards to their own policies regarding voting in the WA.

Cerian Quilor wrote:A: Voting Blocs are called Politics, which is part and parcel of nationstates, and B: The organization provides no power to endorse GA resolutions or repeals.

Biyah wrote:We have a WA forum - our focus is not the WA. There is quite a difference.

None of this will let me "rest assured." The charter specifically mentions a GA-specific idea of "national sovereignty" in the context of NationStates. It doesn't matter if the organization can't dictate how its members vote. There is a clear message being sent, and I don't believe for a second that the crafters of the charter are totally oblivious to how that clause would be perceived by GA regulars.

If SovCon has no intent on meddling where they don't belong, then make it explicitly clear that the organization is not to interfere in any way with the activities of the General Assembly.

I didn't realize that regions and organizations couldn't involve themselves in whatever parts of NS they wanted, Glen. Are you the Gatekeeper of the GA now?

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Whamabama wrote:What intentions?

Oh, please, don't even try this with me. There are very clear overtones here of this "confederation" wanting to be a voting bloc. "National sovereignty" isn't even a concept used in R/D. It's a dog-whistle to GA politics, and anybody involved in the NatSov/IntFed environment knows exactly what that clause is trying to say.

Are you suggestion that people in gameplay actually care about the General Assembly enough to "form a voting bloc" other than you? Because after 4 years of roaming gameplay with hundreds of different nations, I'm afraid that I can count the number of gameplayers that I've met that care about the General Assembly internal politics on one hand. Besides, The Pacific, if memory serves me correctly, tends to vote towards business and military interests, while Equilism is the exact opposite. Any attempt at a united GA policy would fall over pretty quickly.

Cerian Quilor wrote:I didn't realize that regions and organizations couldn't involve themselves in whatever parts of NS they wanted, Glen. Are the Gatekeeper of the GA now?

Once you guys actually bother to participate, you'll have all the right in the world to form a voting bloc. Until then, I'm tried of non-participants meddling in a game they don't play. We're already subservient to the massive vote piling of the GCRs and regions like 10KI, due to game mechanics. The last thing the GA wants or needs is for a bunch of old gameplayers to try and encroach on our game under the guise of "sovereignty." Douria might be ecstatic, but he forgets how unhealthy it was the last time the World Assembly balkanized.

If you guys have no intent on doing that, then make it clear in your charter. As of now, a interregional organization united around "national and regional sovereignty" -- and specifically combating attempts in the World Assembly to violate those -- sounds like a pretty big threat to me and others. Despite what the poster above thinks, GCRs are starting to be more connected to GA politics. (Though they still aren't participating.) Osiris' WA department is run by Douria, and is being bolstered up by Antarctic Oasis. Many prominent GA authors are intermingled with gameplay, and many of them with GCR governments. So, Klaus Devestatorie, the relationship and power interests are more complex than what you think them to be.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
None of this will let me "rest assured." The charter specifically mentions a GA-specific idea of "national sovereignty" in the context of NationStates. It doesn't matter if the organization can't dictate how its members vote. There is a clear message being sent, and I don't believe for a second that the crafters of the charter are totally oblivious to how that clause would be perceived by GA regulars.

If SovCon has no intent on meddling where they don't belong, then make it explicitly clear that the organization is not to interfere in any way with the activities of the General Assembly.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding a GA specific idea of national sovereignty. I am not involved in the GA as you should be aware. I understand the charter, I understand we certaintly didn't spend all this time trying to find a way in GA politics. If that was the goal, well we would state as such. It would be easier to get people involved in the task, if those who wanted such knew that was the goal. I find it kinda puzzling that anyone would go for a certian idea, and then try to promote it by denying it, and promoting something else.

and don't worry, if you continue to think that's our plan despite everything said here. Please don't let it bug you too much. It's still not going to happen. I guess in time you will have to realize that. However keep reading the charter all you like. nowhere is there any power to make a voter block, or even make an influence on it.