NationStates

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Funny, integration and acceptance of offsite government legitimacy has been a goal of TSP-TWP relations for years

Small heads-up here, no it hasn't. TWP has always been happy with its system of government. TSP always seemed to be getting its knickers in a twist about it. More recently its evolved into live and let live.

TSP never had a problem with TWP's form of governance and always respected the right of a sovereign-region to self determination. The problem was TWP's unwillingness to acknowledge that same right as applying to TSP, and its appalling habit of recognizing and supporting coupers in TSP on that basis.

TSP and TWP both have their own systems of government, both dating back more than a decade. TSP has never tried to impose its system on TWP though.

Belschaft wrote:TSP and TWP both have their own systems of government, both dating back more than a decade. TSP has never tried to impose its system on TWP though.

TWP's current system doesn't date back more than a decade. I couldn't tell you exactly how old it is without some digging, but TWP used to have off-site forum governments that governed the in-game region. Eli introduced the current system, if you can even call it a system, with tweaks made by subsequent Delegates.

Cormac Stark wrote:

Belschaft wrote:TSP and TWP both have their own systems of government, both dating back more than a decade. TSP has never tried to impose its system on TWP though.

TWP's current system doesn't date back more than a decade. I couldn't tell you exactly how old it is without some digging, but TWP used to have off-site forum governments that governed the in-game region. Eli introduced the current system, if you can even call it a system, with tweaks made by subsequent Delegates.

If memory serves, would have been around 08/09.

Alustrian wrote:If memory serves, would have been around 08/09.

That sounds about right. Certainly no later than 09.

The Miniluv Messenger wrote:...despite the absence of any substantive change in the regime that would indicate relations would improve or the regime would be anymore respectful of the sovereignty of other Feeders and Sinkers...

...One thing is for certain: The NPO under Pierconium is no longer the chaotic and inept circus that it was under his predecessor, Krulltopia...

Pick one.

So melodramatic.

Belschaft wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Small heads-up here, no it hasn't. TWP has always been happy with its system of government. TSP always seemed to be getting its knickers in a twist about it. More recently its evolved into live and let live.

TSP never had a problem with TWP's form of governance and always respected the right of a sovereign-region to self determination. The problem was TWP's unwillingness to acknowledge that same right as applying to TSP, and its appalling habit of recognizing and supporting coupers in TSP on that basis.

TSP and TWP both have their own systems of government, both dating back more than a decade. TSP has never tried to impose its system on TWP though.

I would take issue with this. My memory tells me that TSP refused to recognize TWP's form of governance, specifically placing supremacy of the delegate over the offsite.

As for Vlagh.....
Vlagh has been a member of TWP for a long time. I respect his contributions and while we don't always agree, we definitely agree that we need to link the offsite and onsite if the offsite is to be successful in any way. Right now, TWP is trying to figure this out as we've recently created a divergence between the on and offsite through Cormac's drafted current charter.

I do not believe Vlagh's position has substantially changed during his time in TWP with respect to offsite and onsite. As for my concerns about NPO extending its reach into TWP, I still harbor concerns, but I am old and ornery...it's my job to be paranoid.

Punk Daddy wrote:I would take issue with this. My memory tells me that TSP refused to recognize TWP's form of governance, specifically placing supremacy of the delegate over the offsite.

That is not true.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Funny, integration and acceptance of offsite government legitimacy has been a goal of TSP-TWP relations for years

Small heads-up here, no it hasn't. TWP has always been happy with its system of government. TSP always seemed to be getting its knickers in a twist about it. More recently its evolved into live and let live.

As one of the longest-serving heads of TSP's foreign affairs, I can guarantee that relations with TWP were always precluded for the simple fact that TWP didn't recognize the legitimate connection between forum government and the in-game region. How could we sign a treaty when TWP didn't recognize the full legitimacy of the Coalition? "Live and let live" was the policy I encouraged. TWP having a system focused on the game-side would've been fine, if that didn't come with the belief that forum-based government was fundamentally illegitimate and couldn't be supreme over the game-side Delegate. We need to be reassured that TWP would support the forum-based government over a rogue or invading Delegate, which is the entire point of security treaties.

Having the Delegate be directly involved and inseparably connected to TWP's forum government would have, under my tenure, opened the possibility of exploring relations. Not taking into account other factors that have developed, of course. What Hileville would do is anybody's guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Having the Delegate be directly involved and inseparably connected to TWP's forum government would have, under my tenure, opened the possibility of exploring relations.

This condition seems to be more about getting TWP to conform to TSP's preferred system rather than TSP just wanting TWP to recognise TSP's system.

Onderkelkia wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Having the Delegate be directly involved and inseparably connected to TWP's forum government would have, under my tenure, opened the possibility of exploring relations.

This condition seems to be more about getting TWP to conform to TSP's preferred system rather than TSP just wanting TWP to recognise TSP's system.

If they connect the two, it's a possible sign of changing ideas about delegate legitimacy. TSP has never demanded a region change its governing system for an alliance. We've only demanded that they recognize the supremacy of our forum government, so we can be reasonably confident they would come to our aid after a coup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Onderkelkia wrote:This condition seems to be more about getting TWP to conform to TSP's preferred system rather than TSP just wanting TWP to recognise TSP's system.

If they connect the two, it's a possible sign of changing ideas about delegate legitimacy. TSP has never demanded a region change its governing system for an alliance. We've only demanded that they recognize the supremacy of our forum government, so we can be reasonably confident they would come to our aid after a coup

I'll echo this. When I was Delegate and then MoFA we were unable to come to an understanding on this. I can recall at least two times where we set out to do this and could not work past the recognition of our Government issue.

Currently, a part of our Foreign Policy is to begin to repair the relationships with other GCR'S. While it will take longer for some relationships to redevelop I would certainly welcome better relations with TWP.

redacted.

Onderkelkia wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Having the Delegate be directly involved and inseparably connected to TWP's forum government would have, under my tenure, opened the possibility of exploring relations.

This condition seems to be more about getting TWP to conform to TSP's preferred system rather than TSP just wanting TWP to recognise TSP's system.

The distinction is that TSP has always recognized TWP's system as applying to TWP. All TSP has ever wanted was for TWP to make an identical recognition that TSP's system applies to TSP.

As fascinating at this complete divergence from the topic is, it's still a complete divergence from the topic.

Cormac Stark wrote:As fascinating at this complete divergence from the topic is, it's still a complete divergence from the topic.

Really? This is about TWP's Government - and how it is regarded currently, and the topic is about a potential change in Government style from the old one, and how the new change will be regarded.

What he means is that it isn't the part of the topic he wanted to dramatise. Namely that Vlagh has an opinion.

Belschaft wrote:

Onderkelkia wrote:This condition seems to be more about getting TWP to conform to TSP's preferred system rather than TSP just wanting TWP to recognise TSP's system.

The distinction is that TSP has always recognized TWP's system as applying to TWP. All TSP has ever wanted was for TWP to make an identical recognition that TSP's system applies to TSP.

I cannot claim any particular knowledge of TSP-TWP interactions on the matter, so I was not speaking to those discussions (nor was I actually addressing the current prospects for TSP-TWP relations). My comment was only directed to the statement of Glen-Rhodes above that a change in TWP's governing structure would have "opened up the possibility of exploring relations" during his tenure as foreign minister of TSP. On the face of it, adopting a criterion based on a change of system in TWP seems inconsistent with your claim that TSP had no interest in TWP's system and just sought TWP recognition of TSP's system.

Glen-Rhodes has responded by arguing that the criterion was appropriate because TWP linked their own system to their stance on TSP's system, so that that the two things were necessarily linked. That is not something which I know about, but the focus he had on whether there was a change in TWP's system, to judge whether TWP was prepared to recognise TSP's system, rather than looking at the latter directly, seems like an unusual, contorted choice of emphasis.

Onderkelkia wrote:I cannot claim any particular knowledge of TSP-TWP interactions on the matter, so I was not speaking to those discussions (nor was I actually addressing the current prospects for TSP-TWP relations). My comment was only directed to the statement of Glen-Rhodes above that a change in TWP's governing structure would have "opened up the possibility of exploring relations" during his tenure as foreign minister of TSP. On the face of it, adopting a criterion based on a change of system in TWP seems inconsistent with your claim that TSP had no interest in TWP's system and just sought TWP recognition of TSP's system.

You're mistakenly believing that's a criterion. It's merely an observable change that would trigger looking at TWP from a new angle.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Onderkelkia wrote:I cannot claim any particular knowledge of TSP-TWP interactions on the matter, so I was not speaking to those discussions (nor was I actually addressing the current prospects for TSP-TWP relations). My comment was only directed to the statement of Glen-Rhodes above that a change in TWP's governing structure would have "opened up the possibility of exploring relations" during his tenure as foreign minister of TSP. On the face of it, adopting a criterion based on a change of system in TWP seems inconsistent with your claim that TSP had no interest in TWP's system and just sought TWP recognition of TSP's system.

You're mistakenly believing that's a criterion. It's merely an observable change that would trigger looking at TWP from a new angle.

This is pure quibbling.

The reason that an "observable change" would "trigger" a change in policy is because it is being used as an indicator against some standard (i.e. a criterion).

No, Onder. It's the difference between having a list of things TWP must do before TSP considers an alliance, and simply observing a change you never expected and figuring out what that might mean to the bigger picture. Not sure what's so difficult about that. TSP doesn't have a list of changes TWP must make to their government. (Our FA isn't that organized!) That doesn't mean Hileville and our government aren't paying attention to what changes might be made and how that could impact TSP-TWP relations.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:No, Onder. It's the difference between having a list of things TWP must do before TSP considers an alliance, and simply observing a change you never expected and figuring out what that might mean to the bigger picture. Not sure what's so difficult about that. TSP doesn't have a list of changes TWP must make to their government. (Our FA isn't that organized!) That doesn't mean Hileville and our government aren't paying attention to what changes might be made and how that could impact TSP-TWP relations.

1. Your claim, that your comment was about reacting to a change which you never imagined, rather contradicts your opening statement in this thread:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Funny, integration and acceptance of offsite government legitimacy has been a goal of TSP-TWP relations for years.

You posted this in response to the news of TWP's internal developments. That rather suggests that, from your personal perspective at least, a change in TWP's political system was on your mind far earlier, given that you describe such an integration has having been "a goal of TSP-TWP relations for years."

2. A "list of things TWP must do" before TSP considers an alliance would not just be criteria; it would be a collection of requirements. A criterion does not have to be a requirement which "must" be satisfied ; it can merely be some factor which you are assessing together with some other criteria.

3. As has been repeatedly made clear, I am not discussing TSP's current stance. My query concerned your statement: "Having the Delegate be directly involved and inseparably connected to TWP's forum government would have, under my tenure, opened the possibility of exploring relations." Your statement was solely concerned with the policy position under your tenure and, accordingly, it is that historical issue which my question relates to.

1. I'm not even TSP's MoFA anymore.

2. While I normally cherish our drawn-out arguments over nonsense, this time I just really don't care. You've been told the same thing from the 3 people who have controlled TSP's foreign affairs for the past several years. Accept it or don't, whatever. TSP and OnderKelkia burned our bridges for a good reason a while ago.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:1. I'm not even TSP's MoFA anymore.

Where exactly did I make any comment indicating that I thought you were?

To repeat the third point of my previous post:

3. As has been repeatedly made clear, I am not discussing TSP's current stance. My query concerned your statement: "Having the Delegate be directly involved and inseparably connected to TWP's forum government would have, under my tenure, opened the possibility of exploring relations." Your statement was solely concerned with the policy position under your tenure and, accordingly, it is that historical issue which my question relates to.

If you don't think your historical tenure as TSP foreign minister is relevant to the matter at hand, then why precisely did you mention it?

Glen-Rhodes wrote:2. While I normally cherish our drawn-out arguments over nonsense, this time I just really don't care. You've been told the same thing from the 3 people who have controlled TSP's foreign affairs for the past several years. Accept it or it don't, whatever.

On the contrary, the implication of what you stated before my intervention was inconsistent with TSP's general message, in that you stated that, in your tenure, changes in TWP's system would have resulted in changes to TSP-TWP relations - which is different from TSP just seeking recognition for its system.

I have no knowledge as to the reality of TSP-TWP interactions, but my point was about the impression of the historical situation given in your statements.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:TSP and OnderKelkia burned our bridges for a good reason a while ago.

Insofar as this addition to your post goes, my concern here is about a comment you made on a historical matter; it's not about current TSP foreign policy.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:1. I'm not even TSP's MoFA anymore.

2. While I normally cherish our drawn-out arguments over nonsense, this time I just really don't care. You've been told the same thing from the 3 people who have controlled TSP's foreign affairs for the past several years. Accept it or don't, whatever. TSP and OnderKelkia burned our bridges for a good reason a while ago.

Out of curiosity, how long have the same 3 people controlled TSPs foreign affairs?