NationStates

I find it interesting that elsewhere in Gameplay we have people bemoaning the lack of interregional diplomacy, yet here we have a well-written and appropriate diplomatic communique being lambasted for not threatening military action.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:So whatcha gonna do about it?

Most of the subsequent discussion seems to be about ongoing attitudes to RtL in general rather than their stance on Lazarus.


Agree or disagree, I welcome RtL's decision to make a diplomatic response, and I would like to see more focus here on discussion of that response rather than using this as an excuse to mud-sling at the region.

Almonaster Nuevo wrote:I find it interesting that elsewhere in Gameplay we have people bemoaning the lack of interregional diplomacy, yet here we have a well-written and appropriate diplomatic communique being lambasted for not threatening military action.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:So whatcha gonna do about it?

Most of the subsequent discussion seems to be about ongoing attitudes to RtL in general rather than their stance on Lazarus.


Agree or disagree, I welcome RtL's decision to make a diplomatic response, and I would like to see more focus here on discussion of that response rather than using this as an excuse to mud-sling at the region.

Well written and extremely odd to see, considering RtL lack of such previous statements in the past.

Well, for one, EWS wasn't one of the bemoaners, and RtL isn't a gameplay region and it has no military to speak of. It is a strange comment from the peanut gallery for them to interject.

Kylia Quilor wrote:Well, for one, EWS wasn't one of the bemoaners, and RtL isn't a gameplay region and it has no military to speak of. It is a strange comment from the peanut gallery for them to interject.

I mean, I obviously have a military-tilted interest, for starters. Now, when many regions express a political view on a situation with an ongoing military aspect, they get involved in those aspects to help push for their view. Onder likes the term "project power." Similarly, actions can be taken that is not military in nature, but that do increase your effect - including further diplomatic actions, perhaps an offer to act as a more neurtal mediator then Lazarus seems to think TSP would be, etc etc.

My philosophy, both in the game and in life, often revolves around taking positive action to make what you want to see happen, happen. I imagine a region that seems to consist of folks taking so much positive action on an issue that they named their group in a game after it is familiar with the concept.

So, as I put on fancier words a few posts later, I asked what they were actually going to *do* about it.

Edit: I realize now you may have meant RtL's statement was odd to interject, not my comment.

Kylia Quilor wrote:

Fauxia wrote:LMAO!!! Alt-rightists are pro-choice for eugenic purposes what the hell are you talking about? Also, abortion is a consensus right issue, not just the far-right "and the people called 'far-right' are generally pro-abortion, such as Marine Le Pen. And there are leftists in Right to Life Slavic Lechia, United Massachusetts, New Dolgaria to name a few. But whatever. On topic, I'm sure that Lazarene Exiles are glad to have whoever they get.

And, come on Solorni. Even Kylie Quilor isn't going this far.

Please don't call me Kylie.

Apologies, it was autocorrect.

Kylia Quilor wrote:Well, for one, EWS wasn't one of the bemoaners, and RtL isn't a gameplay region and it has no military to speak of. It is a strange comment from the peanut gallery for them to interject.

It does have a military, but I don't think they've had a unilateral mission since March.

Freien wrote:

Cormactopia Prime wrote:I don't see how Right to Life being involved with mainstream gameplay is anymore objectionable than Marxist-Leninist and other extremist involvement.

Because Marxist-Leninists aren't a bunch of misogynists? In fact, they support the directly opposite stance of that. Also, extremists? You make me laugh every time...

Protection of unborn life -- male or female -- is not misogynistic, and Marxism-Leninism literally supports the violent overthrow of Western society. The comparison might be valid if Right to Life were advocating abortion clinic bombings, but we're not. We're a peaceful group that pushes for legal recognition and protection of unborn life. We have more in common with democratic socialists than Marxist-Leninists.

Klaus Devestatorie wrote:If you're going to condemn Lazarus for having raiders in the government, don't bother asking Unknown for help when you next want to crusade against communist regions.

A defender wrote the first draft of Right to Life's statement; but the final statement, published above, doesn't condemn raiders. It condemns the Funkadelian administration's unequal treatment of raiders and defenders in violation of Lazarus's constitution. The statement is consistent with Right to Life's independent stance on military gameplay. We'd be equally concerned if TRR, for example, started purging raiders.

Mostly Benevolent Tyranny wrote:Well written and extremely odd to see, considering RtL lack of such previous statements in the past.

Right to Life doesn't maintain ties with many GCRs.

Our last major diplomatic statement, not published here, was a condemnation of the World Fair Committee's decision to deprive the Allied States, a treatied ally, of its hosting rights. That statement was published at the World Fair itself.

Kylia Quilor wrote:RtL isn't a gameplay region and it has no military to speak of. It is a strange comment from the peanut gallery for them to interject.

Right to Life has a military, but it's seldom used. Its most recent operation was in May.

Eluvatar wrote:

Fauxia wrote:Lol yeah.

P.S. No, it's a German Monarchist region, though it would probably help if a)they had more actual Germans and b)they weren't German, it makes them a target. But maybe we should cut this argument...

There have been times when the offsite forum background image for Kaiserreich was a Nazi flag, if I remember correctly. This may not be the hill to, ah, fight on.

Don't even try. They've been ignoring the evidence against them for months now.

Consular wrote:

Eluvatar wrote:
There have been times when the offsite forum background image for Kaiserreich was a Nazi flag, if I remember correctly. This may not be the hill to, ah, fight on.

Don't even try. They've been ignoring the evidence against them for months now.

Now now, worst frenemy, I never knew that one. The CAIN evidence was pretty vague. "Nazi imagery" what the heck does that mean? Anyway, I'm going to talk to them, investigate a bit myself.

Fauxia wrote:

Consular wrote:Don't even try. They've been ignoring the evidence against them for months now.

Now now, worst frenemy, I never knew that one. The CAIN evidence was pretty vague. "Nazi imagery" what the heck does that mean? Anyway, I'm going to talk to them, investigate a bit myself.

Telegram me as necessary.

Cresenthia wrote:

Fauxia wrote:Now now, worst frenemy, I never knew that one. The CAIN evidence was pretty vague. "Nazi imagery" what the heck does that mean? Anyway, I'm going to talk to them, investigate a bit myself.

Telegram me as necessary.

Didn't see this, I put it on the regional message board.

December 31, 2017 -- The Senate of Right to Life unanimously voted on Friday afternoon to dissolve the regional government and call a constitutional convention. The move is supported by President United Massachusetts and Founder Culture of Life (Christian Democrats), who recently returned to the region following three months of low activity. Many proponents of a new constitution see an opportunity for increased democratization. Founder Culture of Life said, "The Second Constitution of Right to Life has served the region well for the past six years, but I think we're very much in need of a change right now."

The dissolution of the government and the call for a convention, however, have not come without controversy. Onward Right to Life's party leader, Former Senator Stellonia, has raised concerns that the dissolution of the courts could pose a threat -- albeit temporary -- to civil rights and liberties. In addition, Roborian and other citizens have questioned President United Massachusetts' actions immediately preceding the Senate's vote. On Friday morning, the President unilaterally ousted Senator Distributist Republics and replaced him with a member of the pro-convention camp, citing a little-known and seldom-used provision in the second constitution, sometimes called the Inactivity Clause.

Open to all regional citizens, the constitutional convention is being held in a special forum not visible to outsiders. A new constitution will be unveiled when it is ratified by a simple majority vote and is approved by the Founder. Already, some citizens have expressed a desire to turn Right to Life into a direct democracy. At least one citizen, Former President Saint Peter, has voiced sympathies for a constitutional monarchy. The Founder himself plans to put forward a proposal to establish a government with four branches and a sophisticated system of checks and balances. The convention is expected to last several weeks, and it will almost certainly generate riveting debates. The convention forum will be made public once a new constitution is adopted.

Abortion is murder. Pro-life for life.

The Western Civilization wrote:Abortion is murder. Pro-life for life.

I didn't realize this was NS General.

Pro-Life wrote:

Constitutional Convention Called in Right to Life

December 31, 2017 -- [...] A new constitution will be unveiled when it is ratified by a simple majority vote and is approved by the Founder.

For those of us who haven't been in the loop for a good eight months, any results from the RtL ConCon as of yet?

Tinhampton wrote:

Pro-Life wrote:

Constitutional Convention Called in Right to Life

December 31, 2017 -- [...] A new constitution will be unveiled when it is ratified by a simple majority vote and is approved by the Founder.

For those of us who haven't been in the loop for a good eight months, any results from the RtL ConCon as of yet?

Yeah, we really haven't been good about keeping up with news releases. The convention finished in February with the ratification of the Third Constitution. You can find that constitution here, and the now-public Convention Hall here.

President Issues Statement on Right to Life / League of Conservative Nations Relations

I remember when I first encountered The League of Conservative Nations (the LCN), it was a fledgling region of four nations. I distinctly, among all of those early days of the LCN, recall one particular telegram conversation with Adawn (whose account has since been handed over to Quebecshire). As I recall it, he told me about how he hoped to one day have a region that would be a space for conservatives to gather. He especially noted the pro-life character of the LCN -- he proudly codified the region's pro-life stance into the World Factbook Entry, touted it on the RMB, and even pinned the Pro-Life International Dispatch long before we had formally admitted the LCN. In short, the League of Conservative Nations was founded as a profoundly pro-life alliance.

Fast forward to today. The regional delegate, San Carlos Islands, formally announced his support for an odious and evil resolution entitled "Access to Abortion." Designed for the purposes of spiting pro-lifers, the resolution sought to define the unborn out of their personhood and publicly fund abortion clinics. By some incredible mental gymnastics, San Carlos Islands claimed that the resolution "is actually the pro-life option." The region of Right to Life, first and foremost, calls this stance out for how ridiculous it truly is. A resolution that dehumanizes and devalues the lives of a whole class of people cannot be considered pro-life. Were this our only grievance, however, Right to Life would not be making a statement at this time. We partner and work with regions that do not share our pro-life stance all the time.

But, sadly, the situation is far worse. In that very post, San Carlos Islands called the pro-life operations of the Right to Life Army "undemocratic and degenerate" for taking direct action to prevent an evil resolution from making it to the voting floor. We are disappointed that the Director of Foreign Affairs for the League of Conservative Nations, a vital regional ally, would slander Right to Life for following through on our pledge to oppose anti-life World Assembly legislation. And it is, we should clarify, slander -- Right to Life was left with no other option, perhaps because a select group of powerful World Assembly legislators and superdelegates fought to push this resolution down our collective throats. We are eminently disappointed in San Carlos Islands' statement. It evinces a profound lack of respect (rooted in deliberate and obvious falsehoods) for the pro-life commitment that to which this region will always stand fast. Were these our only grievances, however, we still would probably not be making this statement.

When I attempted to respond San Carlos Islands' falsehoods about our region and the resolution at-vote, First Consul Quebecshire almost immediately suppressed my post and ordered me to delete it, supposedly in line with a policy on inter-regional advertisement. While Right to Life respects the rights of our allies to create their own RMB policies and interpret them as they please (though regional citizens have noted the strange legal justification Quebecshire offered), it seems clear that the policy was used unjustly in this case to suppress an important message from a regional ally. I expressed obvious discontent about the suppression, but Right to Life was given no ability to publicly defend ourselves -- when our region was directly attacked. Instead, I was asked to lodge my complaints privately to a diplomat. Right to Life was attacked publicly, not privately, so Right to Life was, needless to say, disappointed. But even then, we are not getting to the crux of the issue.

San Carlos Islands has a long history of deeply unsettling opinions and downright awful comments. Our region -- and several others -- offered him a chance to move past that era. And in some respects, he did, and we are proud of see some of the change he has gone through. Having said that, Right to Life still takes issue with some comments, sometimes intended as jokes, made by San Carlos Islands. For instance, on July 10, we have evidence of his making a crude, offensive, and insensitive joke regarding the Catholic Church's sexual abuse crisis. Some things are matters for jokes. The abuse of minors is not.

Similarly, Right to Life has evidence of several insensitive, childish, and downright awful jokes made by San Carlos Islands during the Access to Abortion fiasco. These jokes are well-known to our region by this point -- they included references to an "Abortion Doctor Goose" and memes that called for "cutting up babies." While we are certain these comments were made in jest, that goes not excuse them. Some things are matters for jokes. Abortion and the pain it causes -- both to preborn children and to their mothers -- are not.

Thirdly, Right to Life takes severe umbrage with some of the expressed real-life political views of San Carlos Islands, who has repeatedly denied that Muslims in China face any persecution. China's treatment of the Uyghurs is classified as a crime against humanity by the US Holocaust Museum and includes forced labour, indoctrination, and the separation of Uyghur children into "re-education camps." Right to Life does not normally take offence at the political beliefs of its allied government officials, but anyone who condones "re-education camps" run by a totalitarian anti-life regime bent on denying the religious freedom of Muslims cannot have our support.

Our fourth concern relating to San Carlos Islands' personal conduct concerns his use of the word "f-ggot" in his Discord status until recently. For context, "f-ggot" is an anti-gay slur referencing the bundle of sticks upon which gay people were burned at the stake. It is a term I have been called many times, mostly by people who bullied me on account of my own sexual orientation. It is a term that has no place in civil discourse -- regardless of your opinions on homosexuality. San Carlos Islands knows as much. When I and several other LGBT+ members of the Core of Catholics (a Catholic gathering place on Discord) told him to remove the word from his status, he did not listen to us. Instead, he left the server and didn't come back. Only after Quebecshire advised him to did San Carlos Islands remove the word from his status. That is not conduct becoming of a decent human being, let alone a Director of Foreign Affairs.

While Right to Life wants to give San Carlos Islands the benefit of the doubt, we frankly would not be surprised to find even more objectionable content upon a deeper dive. Again, this is not the behaviour of a Director of Foreign Affairs or a WA delegate. It represents a tremendous attack on civil discourse, on individual citizens of Right to Life, and on our region writ-large. His conduct cannot be tolerated, and we do not tolerate it. To that end, Right to Life is asking that San Carlos Islands be removed from his position as the Director of Foreign Affairs and as World Assembly Delegate.

We maintain relations with many regions, some of whom we vehemently disagree with. But we will not partner with regions led by unhinged individuals who use slurs, deny human rights abuses, joke about the abuse of minors, or joke about the killing of pre-born children. Similarly, we will not partner with regions governed by individuals who call us "degenerate" or who refer to us as a "gang," and we will not partner with regions who can't even afford us the courtesy of a public reply to lies spread about us. If the LCN will not change course, Right to Life may have to. Should the LCN refuse to remove San Carlos Islands, we will have to seriously evaluate our future diplomatic status, up to and including the status of our embassy. Right to Life will reiterate that we do not want to do this -- it is our firm hope that the LCN corrects course quickly.

United Massachusetts
President, Right to Life

OFFICE OF THE CONSULATE OF THE LEAGUE OF CONSERVATIVE NATIONS

We will respond to everything we feel is necessary to respond to. I've slept a total of eighty minutes in the past twenty-nine hours, so expect me to be blunt.

Response to Your Demands and Formal Allegations of Suppression

• Your post was suppressed because we disallow inter-regional advertisements. That is a longstanding policy of well over two years and it has been invoked many, many times. YOUR regional citizens complained, but our's did not because they understand the law. I told you last night you could respond in #diplomacy, which is public. Your post was also not geared as a defence of RTL, rather a campaign.
  
• San Carlos Islands is a capable Director. Following the promotion of Terranihil to Consul of the Republic and New Gandor's resignation as Director he was chosen from a pool of candidates. He has whipped the department into an effective shape, as it was struggling. We will not be dismissing him because your government is attempting to blackmail us with the threat of "re-evaluation." Our Consulate, and, as far as I am aware, Council of the Republic, are both unanimous in this. If you think you can demand the firing of an effective official because you dislike his vote (which is what this boils down to), I suggest you get a head start on your "serious" re-evaluation.
  
• It is our firm hope you cease your pathetic attempts at coercive blackmail and allow us to govern our own affairs.
  

OFFICE OF THE CONSULATE

Chief Consul Quebecshire
Consul Eminople
Consul Terranihil

So many things here are directly false (for instance, Quebecshire told me that I couldn't actually make my post in the #diplomacy channel, because the same standards apply everywhere under LCN law), that I don't even know where to begin responding.

EDIT: Of course, I will respond, however.

Pro-Life wrote:Should the LCN refuse to remove San Carlos Islands, we will have to seriously evaluate our future diplomatic status, up to and including the status of our embassy. Right to Life will reiterate that we do not want to do this -- it is our firm hope that the LCN corrects course quickly.

That didn't last long now did it

Can you link to the specific offense; without breaking site rules that is?

Grow up.

United Massachusetts wrote:So many things here are directly false (for instance, Quebecshire told me that I couldn't actually make my post in the #diplomacy channel, because the same standards apply everywhere under LCN law), that I don't even know where to begin responding.

EDIT: Of course, I will respond, however.

Now that's what I call a straight up lie!

Here's hoping this leads to LCN finding better partner regions to be honest. That UM fella can't really be trusted. A little birdy told me he cavorts with fascists and tries to coup regions his is allied with. Very sordid indeed.