Official Embassy of The South Pacific

[Escade]

Nope.

Yeah, sometimes love is used sarcastically. I guess you have to hear it.

[Tsunamy]

What is primarily evident here is TSP's failure to take responsibility for the implications of their unwarranted accusations in the 18th July statement. Instead, they place responsibility on Balder without officially specifying our alleged misdeeds, while unofficially offering confused and flawed criticisms. TSP is attempting to approach this entire discussion with two faces as it suits them and neither one of those faces is talking any sense.

Hold up, here, for a minute. Are you all seriously having an argument about something that happened ... nearly nine months ago? And, more than a year ago, in any mention of Hileville?

Now, as someone in much the same situation as the Queen of Balder, I don't have an official stake in the matter.

However, like others have pointed out, the treaty at this point was barely noted by both sides and I think we all would be surprised if it was ever used. This shouldn't been seen as an attack on one side or the other, but a long deterioration of the treaty. It seems silly to continue to fight over the reasons why this happened, but I think we can all acknowledge that it did.

I, for one, took Balder at their word that the repeal of the treaty would not be seen as a hostility, as long as it was done properly. While, I'll admit that the protocol of the treaty should have been followed, the fact that this vote happened and the repeal was in the works should surprise no one. After some haranguing, I believe the repeal notification was posted in TSP Embassy on the Balder forums, so everything should be set up properly for a proper repeal, yes?

If so, I think it would be wise for all involved to acknowledge that the two regions simply grew apart, allow everyone to part ways amicably and, if so desired, attempt to reconnect in social ways. Bickering here is really achieving nothing, but raising blood pressure.

[Onderkelkia]

Hold up, here, for a minute. Are you all seriously having an argument about something that happened ... nearly nine months ago? And, more than a year ago, in any mention of Hileville?

Now, as someone in much the same situation as the Queen of Balder, I don't have an official stake in the matter.

However, like others have pointed out, the treaty at this point was barely noted by both sides and I think we all would be surprised if it was ever used. This shouldn't been seen as an attack on one side or the other, but a long deterioration of the treaty. It seems silly to continue to fight over the reasons why this happened, but I think we can all acknowledge that it did.

On its own, the revocation of the treaty purely on the grounds that TSP felt that the relationship had broken down would have led to a different response from Balder. Instead, TSP revoked the treaty while casting doubt on Balder's fidelity to its treaty obligations and on Balder's support for TSP's sovereignty, as well as suggesting the values of Balder and TSP were unaligned in some unspecified way. Such unspecific attacks on Balder required rebuttal, particularly when responsibility for the breakdown of the relationship lies largely with the way TSP handled the failed July 2016 attempt to revoke the treaty.

I appreciate your frustration that we are going over historical details, but that is the inevitable and unfortunate result of how TSP framed the issue.

I, for one, took Balder at their word that the repeal of the treaty would not be seen as a hostility, as long as it was done properly. While, I'll admit that the protocol of the treaty should have been followed, the fact that this vote happened and the repeal was in the works should surprise no one. After some haranguing, I believe the repeal notification was posted in TSP Embassy on the Balder forums, so everything should be set up properly for a proper repeal, yes?

Indeed, on its own, the revocation of the treaty is not an act of hostility. The problems are the criticisms of Balder included in TSP's statement and the violation of Section 7 of the Treaty, in failing to give five days' notice in TSP's embassy in Balder before declaring that the treaty had no effect.

After Balder had already delivered notification of termination to our embassy in TSP and our official response was posted in this forum, we received a copy of TSP's statement in the Embassy Applications section of our forum. It was pointed out that this late notice was superfluous as Balder had delivered the requisite termination notice to TSP and that, in any case, it had not been posted in TSP's embassy in Balder as required by the treaty. TSP's Minister of Foreign Affairs then stated that this was because they understood Balder's statement as indicating that TSP's embassy had been closed down. This suggests that they failed to read our response to their statement, because we made clear it would only be closed once the treaty ceased to have effect in 5 days:

The in-game and off-site embassy closures will take effect from five days after a notice we have now posted in our embassy in The South Pacific terminating our treaty. Closing them immediately would be a breach of the treaty and Balder diligently upholds its treaty obligations. With TSP seemingly incapable of adhering to our treaty's termination clause, as the final act of a good ally we have done this for them.

[Escade]

It's simple, when I try to post on the TSP Embassy thread on the Balder forum this is the message I get:

"You do not have permission to start a topic in this forum.
Error Code: 13002:1815250"

So, I posted here:
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Balder/topic/30174451/1/#new


Here is a super blunt question, Onder. Do you still want a relationship with TSP after all of this?

[Onderkelkia]

It's simple, when I try to post on the TSP Embassy thread on the Balder forum this is the message I get:

"You do not have permission to start a topic in this forum.
Error Code: 13002:1815250"

So, I posted here:
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Balder/topic/30174451/1/#new

Following the release of Balder's statement and the delivery of the termination notice to our embassy in TSP on 2nd March, you did indeed register an account in Balder on 3rd March. However, you did not apply for diplomatic status, and thus you do not have full posting privileges. If you obtained diplomatic status, you would then be able to post in TSP's embassy in Balder - though Balder has already triggered Section 7 of the Treaty in any case.

Furthermore, the explanation for you are providing here for your failure to post in the embassy differs from the explanation which you provided in the thread to which you link, which was as follows: "I believe that according to the NS GP post made by the aforementioned, the Embassy has been shut down."

Here is a super blunt question, Onder. Do you still want a relationship with TSP after all of this? Or do you no longer want to pursue a relationship based on the statement made on the thread I did make on the forums?

Our response, composed in light of the statement issued by TSP's cabinet, made clear our position on future relations with TSP:

In announcing their fresh decision to dissolve the treaty above, TSP added that they ‘are open to discussions in the future, should our values and ideals realign.’ They neglected to specify in what way that the ideals and values of Balder and TSP are presently unaligned. Balder is a liberal democracy and is committed to upholding the sovereignty of its treaty allies. Perhaps they mean that Balder does not accept the tenets of defender moralism. Indeed, a faction within The South Pacific has been committed to undermining its relationships with a number of its non-defender allies for several years. In any case, although TSP says that they are open to further discussions, Balder is not. They had an opportunity to rectify their actions from July of last year. Instead, they have continued towards the same destination, albeit going through political and legal turmoil to get there. In light of this, we see no realistic prospect for positive relations. Forces within TSP have been doggedly determined to deprive TSP of Balder's support as an ally. They shall now have their wish.

There must be consequences for TSP wilfully violating our treaty and launching unsubstantiated attacks against Balder. There could have been legitimate dispute about TSP’s collective intentions in July 2016, when they may have overlooked Section 7 of our treaty before acting and they were riven by internal political disagreement, but there can be no question over their collective intent now. While we appreciate that treaties sometimes come to an end for benign reasons, and we have have enjoyed fruitful relations with other parties following the end of bilateral treaties in the past, in this case it is evident that TSP has not acted in good faith. Ignoring such unprofessional behaviour would be a mistake. As such, Balder will be closing our in-game embassy with TSP and ending all diplomatic relations.

In light of the behaviour that TSP has exhibited both in July 2016 and in relation to this incident, we do not desire further relations with your region. Even in the distant future, it would be hard to see how we could be sure that TSP would not act in the same needlessly destructive way again.

If TSP wanted to maintain or develop a relationship, neither repealing the treaty nor insulting Balder in the process were especially good ideas.

[Sedgistan]

Yeah, sometimes love is used sarcastically. I guess you have to hear it.

It's one that doesn't translate well online, and tends to come across as more baity. I'd recommend avoiding it in future, particularly with people who aren't familiar with your style of speech.

(Just a suggestion, not a mod warning or anything like that.)

[Escade]

Yeah, sometimes love is used sarcastically. I guess you have to hear it.

It's one that doesn't translate well online, and tends to come across as more baity. I'd recommend avoiding it in future, particularly with people who aren't familiar with your style of speech.

(Just a suggestion, not a mod warning or anything like that.)

Thanks, its kind of like "I hate you" where it doesn't mean that literally.

"love" - annoying me right now but I like you enough to try to de-escalate things
"love" - put the scissors down and back away from the ledge please
"love" - I'm feeling British today

[Solorni]

I want to also point out an incident that ocurred when a player of another region recently behaved rudely to our delegate on Discord. We let the Delegate of the region know our surprise and displeasure and the delegate personally and publically apologized as did the player in question. It actually strengthened our feelings towards the region and made me want to get to know their people more. I hope that TSP will also act the same way and encourage this kind of positive behavior.

Does this mean TSP will apologize for Glen-Rhodes and his behaviour? Particularly given his abuses of power that were extremely hostile in and of themselves towards Balder and her members (this does not even include his various other posts).

[Escade]

I would gladly apologize for the past inappropriate behavior of my colleagues, if the other side was willing to acknowledge and apologize for the inappropriate behavior of their own.

[Solorni]

I would gladly apologize for the past inappropriate behavior of my colleagues, if the other side was willing to acknowledge and apologize for the inappropriate behavior of their own.

I have no issue apologizing for my comments in response to GRs actions if an official apology for his conduct towards Balder as TSPs Minister of Foreign Affairs was made.

[Belschaft]

*sighs*

How is it that I'm the grownup and reasonable person in this thread? How did that happen?

Balder: Honestly, if you don't get why TSP doesn't like you anymore, read the last couple of pages again and look for the number of times you acknowledged that any part of this might be your fault. Whilst you're at it, look for the number of times you escalated the argument and converted "TSP doesn't want to be allied to us anymore" into "TSP is hostile to Balder and insulting us".

Some of my fellow TSPers: FFS guys, yes, I get it. You don't like Rach and/or Onder. You don't get to rewrite history to make this into something more than a personal dislike. Balder didn't do anything during the Constitutional Crisis/Hileville Coup that our other Allies didn't. Any basic timeline of the facts shows that there were no Balder Jomsvikings in TSP endorsing Hileville during the time period where TSP itself considers it to have been a coup. It doesn't matter how many indignant and accusatory posts you make, this fact isn't going to change.

TLDR: This is why we can't have nice things.

[Sygian Supremum]

Does this mean you will apologize for supporting the NPO during it's imperalist coup of Lazarus as well?

I don't think anybody wants to respond to a puppet acting all big and bad.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Any basic timeline of the facts shows that there were no Balder Jomsvikings in TSP endorsing Hileville during the time period where TSP itself considers it to have been a coup. It doesn't matter how many indignant and accusatory posts you make, this fact isn't going to change.

Some of us have seen the stay order ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Onderkelkia]

Balder: Honestly, if you don't get why TSP doesn't like you anymore, read the last couple of pages again and look for the number of times you acknowledged that any part of this might be your fault.

What kind of argument is this? Balder should take responsibility for TSP's failings to make TSP feel better about Balder?

The debate in TSP may take place within a warped perspective which sees Balder as the culprit, but we aren't going to accommodate that narrative.

The complete breakdown in the relationship stems from TSP releasing a statement in July 2016 which falsely alleged that Balder had violated our treaty, when TSP itself was violating our treaty by failing to comply with its termination provisions. TSP's most recent statement, while not as egregious, compounded their earlier error. As for the situation before July 2016, I would refer you to the relevant portion of the answer that I gave you previously.

Whilst you're at it, look for the number of times you escalated the argument and converted "TSP doesn't want to be allied to us anymore" into "TSP is hostile to Balder and insulting us".

TSP has insulted us by questioning our fidelity to our treaty obligations and our support for their sovereignty in their official statement. Since then, we have had the Foreign Minister repeat the same claims that you yourself have acknowledged as rewriting history to suggest that Balder violated the treaty.

Any basic timeline of the facts shows that there were no Balder Jomsvikings in TSP endorsing Hileville during the time period where TSP itself considers it to have been a coup. It doesn't matter how many indignant and accusatory posts you make, this fact isn't going to change.

Some of us have seen the stay order ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Some of you have indeed been engaged in improperly accessing classified Balder military information.

The holding order was given before the coup happened. By time of the coup, Balder forces had re-deployed to support the ERN occupation of Asia.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I have receipts suggesting otherwise. Feel free to show your own.

[Onderkelkia]

I have receipts suggesting otherwise. Feel free to show your own.

It's a matter of public record on these forums, linked above, that the Jomsvikings deployed as part of the update raid on Asia, which occurred before Hileville's coup, and that we reinforced that occupation. I recall the Jomsvikings' participation myself, as I was present as part of the raid party on behalf of the LKE on the update. The Balder Jomsvikings and the NPA which had both been in TSP, moved to support Europeia's occupation prior to the coup.

If you have "receipts" suggesting that Balder did not re-deploy to Asia, then you are either misrepresenting them or they are fabricated.

[Glen-Rhodes]

*shrug* There was an order to stay in TSP, despite the clear fact that Hileville had gone rogue. Debate that point all you want. Everybody knows it true.

[Onderkelkia]

*shrug* There was an order to stay in TSP, despite the clear fact that Hileville had gone rogue. Debate that point all you want. Everybody knows it true.

I guess those "receipts" must have gone missing.

As you are already aware, the holding order to which you refer was given before the coup occurred. By the time the coup occurred, we had re-deployed.

That Hileville had some decisions overturned in court did not mean that he became an illegal delegate or that it was wrong to continue endorsing him.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That Hileville had some decisions overturned in court did not mean that he became an illegal delegate or that it was wrong to continue endorsing him.

So when a Delegate refuses an order of a high court, it's ok? Nothing to see here, folks? Again, this is why Balder isn't a good ally

[Onderkelkia]

That Hileville had some decisions overturned in court did not mean that he became an illegal delegate or that it was wrong to continue endorsing him.

So when a Delegate refuses an order of a high court, it's ok? Nothing to see here, folks? Again, this is why Balder isn't a good ally

Of course it is unacceptable for any persons, including the executive branch of a region, to defy court orders. If TSP wanted to remove Hileville for his behaviour, whether through some process of its legislature or its judiciary, it would have been within its rights to do so. That is an entirely different matter.

If TSP's courts had removed Hileville or ordered the forces of The North Pacific Army and the Jomsvikings out of the region, then I am sure that all allied forces would have left or transferred support to the new legal delegate. However, Hileville was not removed. He remained the legal delegate. He retained the right to conduct foreign relations on behalf of TSP. Endorsing the legal delegate does not constitute supporting an attempt to overthrow the government; in fact, it is the opposite. Once Hileville actually dissolved the government, that was different, but our forces had re-deployed by that point.

[Drop Your Pants]

Does this mean you will apologize for supporting the NPO during it's imperalist coup of Lazarus as well?

Rach won't apologize for anything so good luck on that. Lazarus more or less gave up on it.

[Solorni]

Does this mean you will apologize for supporting the NPO during it's imperalist coup of Lazarus as well?

Rach won't apologize for anything so good luck on that. Lazarus more or less gave up on it.

Too tired to find the links of me apologizing or offering to apologize for various things but very classy as always. However, not supporting the extremist PRL which had couped Lazarus is not the same as supporting the NLO coup over the PRL. I'm not sure why anyone would hold the PRL coup to a different standard than the NLO coup. Neither regime had the interests of Lazarus in mind. If anything, those people who supported the PRL coup but then cried foul at the NLO coup are the ones who should apologize for legitimizing such behaviour in Lazarus. It's the same in real life; how many times has a government been couped and it becomes unstable or extremist after?

I'm still waiting to see those people who supported and helped purge and coup Lazarus via the PRL apologize. If people like yourself do not care about Lazarus, why should anyone else?

[Solorni]

I can see why you'd hide behind a puppet, if I had ridiculous beliefs I would as well. Of course it is much easier to say things along the lines of Donald Trumps "wrong" or "nasty woman" than come up with rational arguments. You were unable to provide a single argument stating why I was wrong or any proof. But it's much easier to just hide behind a puppet and I don't think even you believe what you were saying else you would come up with even a slightly credible response.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I can see why you'd hide behind a puppet, if I had ridiculous beliefs I would as well. Of course it is much easier to say things along the lines of Donald Trumps "wrong" or "nasty woman" than come up with rational arguments. You were unable to provide a single argument stating why I was wrong or any proof. But it's much easier to just hide behind a puppet and I don't think even you believe what you were saying else you would come up with even a slightly credible response.

Why does it matter what nation I post on? Is the point any less valid if I post on another nation? Is truth based upon a name? I know Balder has zero intentions of apoligizing for it's part on the NLO coup, but you can't shake it off considering it just happens to be immortaized in a SC resolution.

Your unwillingness to identify yourself does imply a lack of credibility, yes.

[Hileville]

Anyone claiming that I ceased to be the Legal Delegate of TSP when the Court ruled that switching forums was illegal should go back and read the Charter from that time again. A few hours prior to the ejections I had met with Euro and Balder reps and advised we were working on a solution with Tsu that would see GR removed from the admin team. When we moved forward with ejections almost all if not all of Balder forces had in fact re-deployed. In fact TNP was the only region who still had forces endorsing me and that was because a couple members had signed in to get the new orders.

It is sad to see TSP lose yet another long-term ally primarily due to the fact that people can't get together and talk. This argument is kind of silly though.