Official Embassy of The South Pacific

[Solorni]

I'm surprised this hilarious level of dysfunction is still occurring after it was noted last time. You'd think it'd be quite easy to read a treaty.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Except of course when there's a coup on.

On the contrary, Balder has always upheld its obligations, including when our allies have suffered a coup. If you are maintaining to the contrary, please specify how we fall short of our treaty obligations so we can discuss that. The last time we had this discussion, you demurred from answering my post.

As I have already noted, Balder failed to uphold its treaty obligations to the South Pacific during Hileville's coup and to the original Osiris Fraternal Order, as uncomfortable as the latter is for me to bring up. Your defense of Balder's actions was so laughable that I decided to let that defense stand on its own, supportive of my argument in the minds of most reasonable people, which is what I intend to continue doing.

The collapse of the alliance between Balder and the South Pacific was entirely Balder's fault, and your refusal to take any responsibility is laughable, but typical. I hope your other allies are taking note of what they can expect from an alliance with Balder.

When TSP originally tried to rescind the treaty in July 2016, you attributed the alliance's failure to Glen-Rhodes and argued that TSP's foreign affairs agenda amounted only to antagonism. Now, your position is that the situation is "entirely Balder's fault". Your new view simply reflects your change of affiliation.

You're ignoring that there was a long stretch between the Cabinet's attempt to rescind the treaty, which was ultimately overruled, and the actual repeal of the treaty. During that interim period, Balder did everything it could to make clear that an alliance was no longer tenable, and absolutely nothing of substance to try to preserve the alliance. That interim period resulted in several people changing their minds in regard to who is now at fault for the collapse of the alliance, which is why rescinding the treaty -- which was controversial when the Cabinet first attempted it -- sailed through the Assembly without any disagreement now.

[Solorni]

I miss objective Cormac. We get it, you're a defender again.

[Unibot III]

I'm surprised this hilarious level of dysfunction is still occurring after it was noted last time. You'd think it'd be quite easy to read a treaty.

It's a different government and a different FA staff. This treaty has existed in legal limbo for a long time.

[Onderkelkia]

Here is the contested clause, Article 7:

7) This treaty shall be considered void if a signatory region makes a post to that effect in their embassy on the other signatories forums. If this is done, the treaty shall cease to be in effect 5 days after a signatory has declared their intent to leave the treaty. This shall not be considered an act of hostility.

Note, this clause does not require prior notification before an announcement is made for TSP's intentions to leave the alliance. Rather, it's saying that five days after the treaty is announced to be voided, the void shall take effect. So quite literally the only thing Balder is complaining about in this statement is that Balder was cut out of five more days of the treaty-in-effect.

TSP expressly announced "‘The treaty is no longer in effect as of yesterday." As of that point, no notice had been delivered by either signatory to the other party's embassy, so the five-day notice period required before the treaty ceases to be effect had not even begun. Balder has now delivered that notice.

If TSP believes that the five-day notice period, and the requirement to make the announcement in their embassy on Balder's forum, are formalities which can be overlooked, then they should not have entered into a treaty with this language. The treaty is designed to prevent walking out without notice.

Balder's complaint is that TSP has broken the treaty. Upholding treaties is a serious matter.

In theory, TSP could just clarify that the treaty will remain in effect till March 06 as per Article 7 - and condemn Balder for once again using every available opportunity for catty politics.

TSP ought to indeed retract their previous position, but they have already breached the treaty by seeking to end it without following this process.

On its own terms, the treaty will now remain in effect until the requisite time on 9th March, five days after Balder gave notice in our TSP embassy.

This behaviour, along with its complete lack of following through on the terms of this alliance, is precisely why TSP is leaving TSP-Balder alliance.

Balder has upheld the terms of the alliance and the assertion to the contrary is unfounded.

As I have already noted, Balder failed to uphold its treaty obligations to the South Pacific during Hileville's coup and to the original Osiris Fraternal Order, as uncomfortable as the latter is for me to bring up. Your defense of Balder's actions was so laughable that I decided to let that defense stand on its own, supportive of my argument in the minds of most reasonable people, which is what I intend to continue doing.

Balder performed no action in breach of any treaty during Hileville's coup. We did not recognise Hileville's government, we did not provide military support to Hileville and we did not deny any request for support from the legitimate government. The terms of the treaty were fully upheld. If you and others want to pretend otherwise, that is your choice, but repeating unspecific suggestions that we broke the treaty - over and over again - does not make them true.

As for our position on Osiris, we accepted your case that your government was the Osiris Fraternal Order. Our treaty with Osiris is with the Osiris Fraternal Order. We were obliged to determine which group constituted the Osiris Fraternal Order and we deemed that it was yours. As such, we were bound to support you.

You're ignoring that there was a long stretch between the Cabinet's attempt to rescind the treaty, which was ultimately overruled, and the actual repeal of the treaty. During that interim period, Balder did everything it could to make clear that an alliance was no longer tenable, and absolutely nothing of substance to try to preserve the alliance. That interim period resulted in several people changing their minds in regard to who is now at fault for the collapse of the alliance, which is why rescinding the treaty -- which was controversial when the Cabinet first attempted it -- sailed through the Assembly without any disagreement now.

Balder was waiting for TSP to clarify what it wanted after TSP issued a public statement attacking us and attempting to terminate the treaty. Nor did Balder take any action in the interim period which was in breach of the treaty. You acknowledged then that all we had faced from TSP was antagonism. With Glen-Rhodes's 18th July statement added to that record, why on earth would Balder have launched an initiative to preserve relations with TSP?

The onus in that situation was for TSP to make amends and clear up their mess.

Balder's complaint here is not about the end of the treaty so much as about the treaty violation and the unsubstantiated accusations in TSP's statement.

I'm surprised this hilarious level of dysfunction is still occurring after it was noted last time. You'd think it'd be quite easy to read a treaty.

It's a different government and a different FA staff. This treaty has existed in legal limbo for a long time.

If they were doing their jobs, they should have been fully aware that this was a major issue when TSP issued its previous insulting statement.

A change of government does not wipe the slate clean in foreign affairs.

[Unibot III]

Balder has upheld the terms of the alliance and the assertion to the contrary is unfounded.

Bullshit. I'll give you the five day thing.

Balder quite obviously violated both of these terms during the last coup -

3) Neither signatory shall harbour an individual who attempts to overthrow the regime of the other signatory.

4) Both signatories agree to provide diplomatic and military support to one another if requested, in the event of an invasion or attempted coup against a signatory region if requested.

[Solorni]

Could you quite obviously show us the proof of this?

[Onderkelkia]

Balder has upheld the terms of the alliance and the assertion to the contrary is unfounded.

Bullshit. I'll give you the five day thing.

Balder quite obviously violated both of these terms during the last coup -

3) Neither signatory shall harbour an individual who attempts to overthrow the regime of the other signatory.

4) Both signatories agree to provide diplomatic and military support to one another if requested, in the event of an invasion or attempted coup against a signatory region if requested.

To which individuals attempting to overthrow the TSP regime did we grant sanctuary? What action are you suggesting that we should taken against them?

As for your second point, Balder never received any formal request to provide diplomatic or military support.

[Escade]

Update: http://w11.zetaboards.com/Balder/topic/30174451/1/

[Ikania]

To be honest, I don't see why our regions can't get along. This seems to be dissolution for the sake of dissolution, and both sides saying there's no value in the treaty while simultaneously blaming the other. Is there truly anything we cannot reconcile so Balder and TSP can be friends again, instead of wasting all this time arguing whose fault it was?

[Consular]

Update: http://w11.zetaboards.com/Balder/topic/30174451/1/

I really don't want to bother logging into Balder. Could whatever that is not be posted here?

[Ikania]

Update: http://w11.zetaboards.com/Balder/topic/30174451/1/

I really don't want to bother logging into Balder. Could whatever that is not be posted here?

"The Assembly of the Coalition of the South Pacific has, through extended discussion and a clear supermajority vote, elected to dissolve the TSP-Balder Treaty. The treaty is no longer in effect as of yesterday.

The treaty has been dissolved in light of an increasing distance between the regions that led to a breakdown in communications and a strained relationship between TSP and Balder. We cannot ally with regions that do not support the sovereignty of the Coalition or the terms of a treaty. We are open to discussions in the future, should our values and ideals realign."

[Cormactopia Prime]

To be honest, I don't see why our regions can't get along. This seems to be dissolution for the sake of dissolution, and both sides saying there's no value in the treaty while simultaneously blaming the other. Is there truly anything we cannot reconcile so Balder and TSP can be friends again, instead of wasting all this time arguing whose fault it was?

My best advice would be to elect a new Statsminister, for starters, and then look toward (legally, in case there's any doubt) replacing your Queen.

Not that I represent any region or can guarantee that would work, but it sure wouldn't hurt.

[Onderkelkia]

TSP has acted to dissolve the treaty on two separate occasions. On each occasion, they have advanced comically weak claims that Balder breached our treaty, while indisputably breaching the treaty in the process themselves. After their previous statement, despite having good cause to terminate, Balder left the door open and gave TSP a choice, as we believed a more positive relationship was possible if TSP took a more constructive approach. Predictably, TSP has rejected the chance to repair relations, as is their prerogative. However, Balder is not going to sit back while a false narrative that we mistreated TSP or broke our treaty is repeated as gospel by members of TSP and opportunistic opponents of Balder. The reality is actually the other way round.

[Onderkelkia]

TSP has acted to dissolve the treaty on two separate occasions. On each occasion, they have advanced comically weak claims that Balder breached our treaty, while indisputably breaching the treaty in the process themselves. After their previous statement, despite having good cause to terminate, Balder left the door open and gave TSP a choice, as we believed a more positive relationship was possible if TSP took a more constructive approach. Predictably, TSP has rejected the chance to repair relations, as is their prerogative. However, Balder is not going to sit back while a false narrative that we mistreated TSP or broke our treaty is repeated as gospel by members of TSP and opportunistic opponents of Balder. The reality is actually the other way round.

Just like you didn't collude with the NPO during the Lazarus coup? Balder's credibility is being stretched mighty thin here, and you aren't helping it much.

This coming from an anonymous puppet that declines to engage in any of the specifics of the discussion of the matter at hand.

Your sole purpose here is to undermine Balder, presumably over some historic dispute that you would prefer people didn't know about. I say 'historic' because your state of understanding above was such that you suggested that TNI, which is no longer a gameplay region, is somehow pulling Balder's strings.

As for Lazarus, whether you are talking about the coup in September 2013 or in April 2015, the answer is no. The first coup we ardently opposed. Our stance on the second coup was more nuanced, due to the PRL's prior illegitimacy, but we provided no support to the coup and voted for Condemn Stujenske.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Hey, that's neat. Two gameplay regions arguing over the technical specifics of how they aren't going to have anything to do with each other anymore. Maybe you lot shouldn't all be talking with each other at all?

[Consular]

Maybe you lot shouldn't all be talking with each other at all?

But then they wouldn't have anything to be petty over.

[Kitzerland]

Hey, that's neat. Two gameplay regions arguing over the technical specifics of how they aren't going to have anything to do with each other anymore. Maybe you lot shouldn't all be talking with each other at all?

Hey! Stop that! This is Gameplay, you aren't allowed to have common sense!

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Hey, that's neat. Two gameplay regions arguing over the technical specifics of how they aren't going to have anything to do with each other anymore. Maybe you lot shouldn't all be talking with each other at all?

Hey! Stop that! This is Gameplay, you aren't allowed to have common sense!

Actually, I've analysed this really closely over the last hour. If one side really digs in deep and prepares to debate for the long haul, they've got a real shot at winning the argument. I don't want to name names on which side that is, but I'll give you a hint: it's the one with the better system of government.

[Solorni]

Farengeto - Yesterday at 6:26 PM
This was at the point where I laughing about Gameplay politics of all things. XD
@Belschaft Good f***ing riddance to Balder.
Farengeto - Today at 12:52 AM
Oh god Onder's new reply. I have to hold in the laughter or I'd wake my roomamtes up.

The maturity and professionalism of TSP's justice's is an amazing sight to behold. Where do they find such goons?

[Cormactopia Prime]

Farengeto - Yesterday at 6:26 PM
This was at the point where I laughing about Gameplay politics of all things. XD
@Belschaft Good f***ing riddance to Balder.
Farengeto - Today at 12:52 AM
Oh god Onder's new reply. I have to hold in the laughter or I'd wake my roomamtes up.

The maturity and professionalism of TSP's justice's is an amazing sight to behold. Where do they find such goons?

Solorni - Today at 8:46 AM
pretty sure TSP is inactive
Sam111 - Today at 8:48 AM
Pretty sure you're wrong
Solorni - Today at 8:50 AM
just saying how it is
Sam111 - Today at 8:50 AM
I'm just confirming that you're wrong
Solorni - Today at 8:57 AM
okay lol
Cormac [TSP] - Today at 8:57 AM
This doesn't seem like the place for sniping about each other's regions.
Solorni - Today at 9:01 AM
not really sniping
Sam111 - Today at 9:01 AM
Just like you didn't really fail to fulfil your end of the treaty
Anyway Cormac's right, there are better places to take this
Solorni - Today at 9:03 AM
lol
Sam111 - Today at 9:03 AM
That's a pretty accurate way to describe my reaction to what's been happening

This happened completely out of the blue on the CAIN server, where signatory regions are supposed to look past differences and work together, of all places. You have no room to talk about maturity and professionalism, Your Majesty.

[Solorni]

Cormac [TSP] - Today at 2:25 AM
No kidding? I don't even have Osiris listed next to my name. And TSP is only listed because I'm in their military so it's useful to list that for military ops, I don't represent them in any way either.(edited)
Dali - Today at 2:25 AM
I'm merely stating, ignoring the sass :stuck_out_tongue:
Cormac [TSP] - Today at 2:26 AM
Okay.
Dali - Today at 2:26 AM
I have more policy role in TEP, but whatever
:stuck_out_tongue:
Solorni - Today at 8:46 AM
pretty sure TSP is inactive

Simply commentating on how things are with reference to your military comment, I was not throwing a temper tantrum like their justice was. By that logic, my critiques & general commentary of Europeia & Balder would also be out of the blue and unprofessional...

Like I said, we get it that you're not objective anymore and that you're a defender now. Don't worry, we believe you honestly. No need to prove it to us.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Simply commentating on how things are with reference to your military comment, I was not throwing a temper tantrum like their justice was. By that logic, my critiques of Europeia & Balder would also be out of the blue and unprofessional...

A couple things:

1. Does laughter generally indicate temper tantrums in Balder?
2. You clearly were taking a baseless cheap shot at the South Pacific via CAIN's server. Everyone knows it. Why deny it?

[Solorni]

Simply commentating on how things are with reference to your military comment, I was not throwing a temper tantrum like their justice was. By that logic, my critiques of Europeia & Balder would also be out of the blue and unprofessional...

A couple things:

1. Does laughter generally indicate temper tantrums in Balder?
2. You clearly were taking a baseless cheap shot at the South Pacific via CAIN's server. Everyone knows it. Why deny it?

I generally view swearing at a video game as a loss of control. It's like when my brother loses to a boss in Dark Souls and then will start swearing at the TV.

Could you phrase number 2 any more like Donald Trump? "Trump: ‘I call my own shots … and everyone knows it’". It reminds me of this article on Trumps use of believe me. I just can't believe you believe what are saying currently. When I point out that Europeia has had uncontested elections and how unfortunate it is, is that a cheap shot at Europeia? Or when I point out how I believe that FA training is useless, is that also a cheap shot against Euro? When I posted that TCB has surpassed Euro in endorsements??

Is it a cheap shot against Balder when I wrote a whole speech in 2014 called Activity Concerns? I will commentate on things that I feel are true, I will have observations that I will post both as comments and sometimes as articles or speeches. You can disagree with the assertions, but that does not make them 'cheap shots'. Else I should apologize for every speech, comment and article that made any sort of critique.

[Cormactopia Prime]

<snip>

Yes, you were probably taking cheap shots in most of those cases as well. It's openly acknowledged in Europeia that you have a thoughtful, positive side that makes substantive contributions, and a less productive side that engages in sniping and bickering. Most of us have those two sides, it's just a matter of which is more prevalent. I'm fairly sure it was Skizzy Grey who was usually encouraging you to be more the former and less the latter in Europeia. I would like to offer the same advice for your dealings with other regions, both here and in other venues, because you are not putting forward a positive image for either Balder or yourself with this conduct. I know you can do better, because I've seen it.

Best of luck to Balder, in any case. I don't really feel like pursuing this inane argument any further. Honestly, why not just let Balder and the South Pacific go their separate ways at this point, without more bickering? Both sides would do well to just let it go and move on.