The Case for Multilateral Treaties

[Unibot III]

What's even the point of alliances? Most of the GCRs are pretty stable. Most.

I don't want to lecture a Lazarene Guardian on regional security, but I remember 2015 quite well. And it was a desperate time. There was a point in time where it looked like Lazarus was gone, just gone, possibly forever with no hope of recovery. I remember lying to friends and telling them there was still a good chance of liberation, knowing full well from experience that there was only a slim chance of recovery - and those chances were mostly predicated on human error and resignation on the part of the occupiers.

During the rise of the NLO, over that period of two weeks there was a very real fear that the Lazarus Underground was losing its diplomatic advantage - that actors not consigned or obligated to Lazarus by treaties were going to swing to support NLO over the Underground so that they could "be on the victor's side." The various democratic GCR delegates had even gotten together in the heat of the moment to hash out an agreement over that two weeks which was more or less exactly what I'm proposing in this article - it was only dropped because NLO fell and subsequently deemed unnecessary. But of course, nothing about the circumstances of NLO's collapse suggests a coup of a democratic GCR is impossible - far from it, in fact. It's not hard for me to imagine that the NPO could still be in power to this day in Lazarus if mistakes hadn't been made and they hadn't picked a fight with Kazmr and Funkadelia: two people they grossly underestimated.

I wrote this article with those desperate times close in my memory. And I hope the essay serves as evidence that nothing about the diplomatic situation of the GCRs' democratic major powers should give them an overriding confidence that what happened in 2015 couldn't happen to them again (and with a far worse conclusion.)

EDIT: And with Regional Officers now, I can say confidently that NPO probably would still be occupying Lazarus if the same coup took place today. It was reckless for the administrators to have added that game feature without any support for it as an idea during the R/D conference. The last thing we needed was multiple invader leads.

[Onderkelkia]

The Queen was expressing a personal opinion. As she has explained, she has no authority over the conduct of Balder's foreign policy.

And yet you've marched right on in whenever I spoke any kind of word against Balder, TNI, or Euro, when I never held any office at all. (I wasn't MoFA from August 2015-June 2016!)

Could you cite specific examples of where, in the period where you held no office in TSP, I stated that your position in TSP made it inappropriate for you to make remarks critical of Balder, TNI or Europeia, and that these remarks should be held against TSP in the same way that you are seeking to hold Rach's remarks against the Government of Balder? If not, then you have no business making any claim that I "marched right on in" with this line of attack.

It's safe to say that a true ally doesn't attack their ally and subtly hint that the reason they're clinging to the alliance is that they're holding out for regime change and purges.

This is outrageous.

It is The South Pacific which has initiated hostile public exchanges with the Government of Balder, in July 2016, not the other way round.

As for your final remark, at no point has the Government of Balder hinted that it is holding out "for regime change and purges". We have expressed hope that TSP will behave in a different way - as any ally might when faced with the debacle created by the July 2016 statement of TSP's Cabinet.

TNI told us if we allied with defenders, and didn't raid more than we defended, they would have a big problem with it. Not a position worth respecting. We allied with TRR & Lazarus, so that alliance died. Good riddance-- Onder disrespected Geomania when he ran our military, and treated TSP as a junior partner in the alliance. It wasn't just me that felt that way. TSP has been better off without that ball and chain holding us down.

TNI advised TSP that we felt it was inconsistent for them to be allied to us when they were were engaged in cooperation with our enemies. That is not an alliance which is worth the paper which it is written on and so we judged that there were no prospects for a productive relationship. So we ended it.

At no point did TNI seek to influence TSP specifically about its proportion of raids and defences. We did discuss their intention to perform military operations with the FRA and UDL, and the risk that they would end up fighting TNI forces as a result of that, as opposed to working with us as an ally.

TNI took issue with Geomania giving the details of discussions with TNI military officials to a newspaper of a region with which TNI was at war. We also had wider concerns about the way in which TNI and TSP agreed to do a joint operation only for TSP to pull FRA forces into the mission at the last minute.

Balder is basically controlled by former UIAF imperialists, so that relationship was hostile the moment I was elected.

"Balder is basically controlled by former UIAF imperialists"? That is complete fiction and ignores the diverse range of individuals who have contributed to the Balder government over the period since your original ascension to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in TSP, as well as the present reality of Balder's government. Among members of Balder's executive and legislature, I am currently the only person who ever served in the UIAF. On the other hand, I was not even actively involved in Balder prior to May 2016, which was well after when you first became TSP MoFA. North East Somerset and Theoden Sebastian were the only members of UIAF command structure involved in Balder during that period, and both worked alongside others of different persuasions.

Frankly, it is your own prejudice against Balder while working for TSP, rather than Balder's prejudice against TSP, which has been in evidence.

[Rabin Israel]

This sounds like a waste of time. All of the GCRs should just go to war with each other.

[Cormactopia Prime]

The various democratic GCR delegates had even gotten together in the heat of the moment to hash out an agreement over that two weeks which was more or less exactly what I'm proposing in this article - it was only dropped because NLO fell and subsequently deemed unnecessary.

Just going to point out that this conference was held in Osiris and the agreement can still be found on Osiris' forum (though it is not visible to the public), and yet now you would exclude Osiris from such an alliance based on who Osiris' Delegate is.

This goes back to the flaw in your argument. Feeders and Sinkers shouldn't be divided based on arbitrary and oversimplified distinctions. It shouldn't be about "democratic" vs. "not democratic," it should be about which Feeders and Sinkers will respect each other's sovereignty, as it was during that conference. That the regions involved all happened to be democratic was incidental; they weren't there to commit to defending democracy, they were there to commit to defending each other.

There is another flaw in your argument, as well, which is the assumption that a multilateral treaty between five, or even all nine, of the Feeders and Sinkers would get the job done. The reality is that all of the Feeders and Sinkers combined don't have enough military forces to defeat a well executed coup. It would be impossible to liberate a Feeder or Sinker from a well executed coup without the help of prominent user-created regions.

[Unibot III]

The various democratic GCR delegates had even gotten together in the heat of the moment to hash out an agreement over that two weeks which was more or less exactly what I'm proposing in this article - it was only dropped because NLO fell and subsequently deemed unnecessary.

Just going to point out that this conference was held in Osiris and the agreement can still be found on Osiris' forum (though it is not visible to the public), and yet now you would exclude Osiris from such an alliance based on who Osiris' Delegate is.

This goes back to the flaw in your argument. Feeders and Sinkers shouldn't be divided based on arbitrary and oversimplified distinctions. It shouldn't be about "democratic" vs. "not democratic," it should be about which Feeders and Sinkers will respect each other's sovereignty, as it was during that conference. That the regions involved all happened to be democratic was incidental; they weren't there to commit to defending democracy, they were there to commit to defending each other.

No, this does not return to any "flaw in my argument." Osiris is a different region than it was in 2015. The Empire leading Osiris now is a major shift from the Osiris which banned the Empire (and considered them persona non grata.) Osiris would not have been invited to any sort of multilateral talk if the Empire would have represented them (they'd have been an intelligence risk for starters) - and Empire's Osiris would have supported NLO almost instantly anyways. I can assure you of that much since, although it was hosted by Osiris (my idea since I thought Osiris was the region least likely to sign the accord and mostly likely to support the NLO - the choice of host can be a political lubricant), I would have never have allowed the Empire to participate.

That's your mistake - you gave Osiris to the Empire. Don't spend your time berating me for your mistakes and your poor judgement.

Regions are only committed by sovereign terms to defending each other in the abstract. The idea that NS is a perfect calculation of realist interactions is laughable. Decisions are often made solely by ideological and personal associations without any regard for strategy. That's why a democratic alternative to the GCR Sovereignty Accords is a contemporary necessity.

[Cormactopia Prime]

No, this does not return to any "flaw in my argument." Osiris is a different region than it was in 2015. The Empire leading Osiris now is a major shift from the Osiris which banned the Empire (and considered them persona non grata.) Osiris would not have been invited to any sort of multilateral talk if the Empire would have represented them (they'd have been an intelligence risk for starters) - and Empire's Osiris would have supported NLO almost instantly anyways.

That's your mistake - you gave Osiris to the Empire. Don't spend your time berating me for your mistakes and your ridiculously poor judgement.

Regions are only committed by sovereign terms to defending each other in the abstract. The idea that NS is a perfect calculation of realist interactions is laughable. Decisions are often made solely by ideological and personal associations without any regard for strategy. That's why a democratic alternative to the GCR Sovereignty Accords is a contemporary necessity.

But only the regions Unibot considers "democratic," right? When were you declared the pope of democracy? Was it while I was on vacation?

Any agreement that would exclude Osiris based on your personal disdain for its Delegate is an agreement that isn't worth the proverbial paper it is written on. You are already working to undermine what would otherwise be a decent idea by injecting your biases into it, essentially ensuring that it will never get past this thread if anyone is foolish enough to try to pursue an agreement that excludes Osiris because you don't like Neo Kervoskia. Do you honestly believe you can successfully build a bloc against the region you have already admitted is better networked than any of the other Feeders and Sinkers? Do you think The East Pacific, a close, strong ally of Osiris, would agree to participate in such an alliance if Osiris is deliberately excluded? Do you think such an alliance could ever hope to successfully liberate any Feeder or Sinker from a well executed coup without the allies that only Osiris or Balder could bring to the table?

This divisive cold war you're pushing for your ideological agenda -- because it's always about your agenda, which is extremist political defenderism, not democracy -- is not in the best interests of any Feeder or Sinker. All of the Feeders and Sinkers would be better served by trust-building, cooperation, and mutual respect for each other's sovereignty, because in the event that any Feeder or Sinker is subjected to coup d'etat by someone who actually knows what they're doing, it will take the resources and allies all of the Feeders and Sinkers can bring to the table to have even the slightest hope of liberation. This cold war you're pushing would just make the Feeders and Sinkers you claim to want to help even less safe than they are now. If it comes to war, cold or hot, between the GCR Sovereignty Accords regions and their allies versus the so-called "democratic" Feeders and Sinkers, the former will win.

Fortunately, I think most people in at least two or three of the five Feeders and Sinkers you are so interested in helping understand that no one is well served by war. And I am certain no one in the GCR Sovereignty Accords regions are interested in war with their fellow Feeders and Sinkers. But you of all people, being such an NS history buff, should know that if war is brought to the GCR Sovereignty Accords regions, they won't back down from it either. So your rhetoric will be very dangerous if it's pursued by actually relevant figures in various Feeders and Sinkers. Hopefully no one will be that shortsighted.

[Tinhampton]

I thought that this was a thread about multilateral treaties, not relationships between TSP and Balder...

[Unibot III]

Cormac: I worked with Tim and Todd McCloud to make the Parthenon Treaty and we don't get on, to be blunt - that's me 'disliking' people (I'm sure the feeling is mutual.) I don't dislike NK; he's pretty fun to talk to. We usually would talk journalism and Sir Paul to fill the awkward pauses.

My resistance to the Empire is based solely on their past history as an unparalleled threat to the security and integrity of Game Created Regions. Nobody is safe trusting them.

It would have been sheer idiocy for us to have included a long-time regular couper, a full Empire member, into any discussions regarding a resistance effort; they were an intelligence leak and a political obstacle even in 2013 when it was their own bloody region that had been couped let alone Lazarus.

EDIT: And before you respond, do bear in mind that I don't have to go far back in history to find a Cormac Stark that agrees with me in these regards.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Cormac: I worked with Tim and Todd McCloud to make the Parthenon Treaty and we don't get on, to be blunt - that's me 'disliking' people (I'm sure the feeling is mutual.) I don't dislike NK; he's pretty fun to talk to. My resistance to the Empire is based solely on their past history as an unparalleled threat to the security and integrity of Game Created Regions. Nobody is safe trusting them.

It would have been sheer idiocy for us to have included a long-time regular couper into any discussions regarding a resistance effort; they were an intelligence leak and a political obstacle even in 2013 when it was their own bloody region that had been couped let alone Lazarus.

I'm not talking about then and that conference, I'm talking about right now and this idea.

Also, you are completely wrong in regard to the July 2013 coup of Osiris, but you being wrong about history is not exactly new.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This sounds like a waste of time. All of the GCRs should just go to war with each other.

That would be amusing, but nobody would win

[Guy]

What Cormac is saying is that we should all rally together in favour of democracy, sovereignty and cooperation. That's all good and all. Personally, I'd love that.

The issue is that the interregional community hasn't treated all coups as bad, and hasn't demanded a strict adherence to legal means to alter the governance of a region.

The current regime in Osiris, that you identify as deserving a seat at the table, is the product of multiple such non-legal transitions. If they had not been successful, it is quite likely that we would have called them 'coups'. For the sake of consistent terminology, I'm going to call any such extralegal event a "coup", but without necessarily condemning nor condoning it.

We've seen all sorts of 'coups', of course. They scatter the spectrum from JAL-style coups (that don't seek legitimacy at all) to ones that will purport to be the new lawful government. They also range from entirely internal to external.

Most GCRs could probably agree that "external" or "JAL-style" coups are bad. There are exceptions: I believe that TP and TWP believe in the absolute power of the gameside delegate, although I may be wrong there.

The issue is what happens when it's not one of those coups. That's where players, regions, and indeed the entire community has made judgment calls in the past. And where the interregional community split is where those alliances played a role. Essentially, if you think the current regime is democratic and/or worth supporting, you are likely to oppose coups to it. The more a coup becomes fait accompli, the more likely you are to acccept it. And if you have links to the preexisting regime, you are more likely to support it.

We could go on here for hours trying to dissect every such potential 'coup' and its merits. We could argue about the relative merits of the two sides to the recent TSP (forum) coup. We could talk about Lazarus, a lot. We could talk about whether OFO, or Tim's coup for you Cormac, were worthwhile.

Most of these more controversial coups occur when there are warring factions within a region. Sometimes one side regards the democratic institutions to have already failed. And when it is controversial, treaty terms, when they are honoured, can be powerful.

If you are truly interested in cross-GCR unity on this issue, we need to move to more objective standards. Opposition to any extra-legal transition ('coup') would perhaps make the game more boring, but introduce far greater stability for all GCRs. You would be right in suggesting it would also limit the flexibility of some regions to shed their constitutional constraints, so perhaps relaxing those constraints would help.

If we're not prepared to take that step, I think that alliances based on values are the only way forward.

[Unibot III]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Guy.

Cormac: I worked with Tim and Todd McCloud to make the Parthenon Treaty and we don't get on, to be blunt - that's me 'disliking' people (I'm sure the feeling is mutual.) I don't dislike NK; he's pretty fun to talk to. My resistance to the Empire is based solely on their past history as an unparalleled threat to the security and integrity of Game Created Regions. Nobody is safe trusting them.

It would have been sheer idiocy for us to have included a long-time regular couper into any discussions regarding a resistance effort; they were an intelligence leak and a political obstacle even in 2013 when it was their own bloody region that had been couped let alone Lazarus.

I'm not talking about then and that conference, I'm talking about right now and this idea.

Also, you are completely wrong in regard to the July 2013 coup of Osiris, but you being wrong about history is not exactly new.

Pure malarkey: The Empire was working against their own region's liberation. They were trying to score cheap political points against the UDL under Chief Mahaj. It was ridiculous. There they were, victims of a coup, writing statements about IRC channels and Glen-Rhodes etc.

Not incidentally, the subject of the Empire being allowed into liberation IRC channels was exactly the source of the controversy.

This issue first started when Biyah joined the UDL's IRC channel. He was originally let in due to the presence of other key Osiran figures in the channel. Eventually those figures left, but Biyah stayed. It has come to light that Osiris viewed Biyah as the liaison to the UDL, despite Biyah not applying to be a liaison in the UDL, nor Osiris ever asking for a liaison.

When the UDL politely asked Biyah to leave the channel and not idle in it, the government of Osiris informed us that the UDL would only work with Osiris if Biyah was permitted in the channel, despite the myriad of problems between Biyah and the UDL. Biyah is a security risk to the UDL, and cannot be permitted in the channel any longer. Indeed, permitting him in our channel in the first place was a mistake. Biyah has a negative history with the UDL that must be taken into account. [...] Biyah has leaked information from the UDL's channel and has used information from the channel to generate anti-UDL sentiment within our ranks. Biyah was also the man who worked to convince us to coup Osiris. He has proven time and time again why he cannot be trusted. For Osiris to demand that we accept a security risk simply because Osiris wants us to is outrageous, and a demand that the UDL cannot comply with. We politely asked them to assign another liaison, something that the Osiris government sadly balked at.

The UDL is also unclear as to why it is essential that Osiris has a liaison inside our channel. The liaison was not conducting any coordination efforts inside our channel: any of our soldiers who came online to help Osiris were directed to another channel which was controlled by the Osiran government. Osiris claims to have the support of a plethora of other regions and organizations, but there is no evidence that Osiris has a liaison in any of these regions. Yet in that case it is okay for Osiris to work with regions while not having a liaison implanted, but in only our case is it essential for Osiris to have a liaison. This double standard of action is mind-boggling and entirely unnecessary.

The Osiran government also has stated that they did not agree with the content of Glen-Rhodes's posts and are citing his comments as a cause for them terminating our relations. The UDL anticipates that Osiris will try to play up Glen-Rhodes's post of Advisor to the Chief of Foreign Affairs. However, Glen-Rhodes's advisory role solely consists of helping to ensure that the UDL's treaties are worded well, to avoid the pitfalls that numerous other treaties face. Additionally, Glen-Rhodes was explicit that his posts were his own views, and not the views of organizations he belongs to. The UDL is all the more unclear about why this is an issue because Glen-Rhodes was not the only one making these statements. Indeed, similar comments were also made by citizens of Osiris itself. The UDL does not see the Osiran attempting to punish its citizens for their comments, but has decided to punish the UDL for comments made by a member who's affiliation with the UDL was irrelevant to the issue. This double standard of action is once again troubling for us, and as a result, we believe that this should not be an issue. It is very unfortunate that the Osiran government views this as an issue.

[Cormactopia Prime]

If you are truly interested in cross-GCR unity on this issue, we need to move to more objective standards. Opposition to any extra-legal transition ('coup') would perhaps make the game more boring, but introduce far greater stability for all GCRs. You would be right in suggesting it would also limit the flexibility of some regions to shed their constitutional constraints, so perhaps relaxing those constraints would help.

If we're not prepared to take that step, I think that alliances based on values are the only way forward.

I actually agree with your conclusion here, and I think at least seven of the nine Feeders and Sinkers would be willing to agree to mutual defense against objectively defined coups. Maybe not right now, immediately, but after a real effort to build -- or restore, as the case may be -- mutual trust and cooperation. The Feeders and Sinkers are not as far apart as Unibot would have people believe. There is no firm division between the five he favors and the four he doesn't, though there are very clear ideological differences between the Pacific and the West Pacific on the one hand and the other seven on the other, and those differences may prove too significant to overcome.

The path forward, in my view, is for all of the Feeders and Sinkers to respect each other's differences. Let each have their respective ideologies, and let each respect the others' ideologies. Let TNP and TSP not insert themselves into what TP or TWP would consider an internal conflict, and let TP and TWP defend the constitutional governments of TNP and TSP regardless of how they feel about the supremacy of game mechanics over forum government. It should be possible for each Feeder or Sinker to apply their principles within their own regions, while respecting the principles of the other Feeders and Sinkers, and defending them based upon their own principles.

This isn't the easy path. The easy path is Unibot's cold war and all the destruction it would entail. But if you're actually looking to secure the Feeders and Sinkers against any threat, you need all of the Feeders and Sinkers at the table, and that begins with rebuilding trust and cooperation based on mutual respect for each other's principles. One does not need to share another community's principles in order to respect them. One does not need to agree with how a community defines and constitutes itself in order to defend that community based on its own self-determined constitutional framework (and all nine Feeders and Sinkers do have a constitutional framework, even if unwritten).

Also, you are completely wrong in regard to the July 2013 coup of Osiris, but you being wrong about history is not exactly new.

Pure malarkey: The Empire was working against their own region's liberation. They were trying to score cheap political points against the UDL under Chief Mahaj. It was ridiculous. There they were, victims of a coup, writing statements about IRC channels and Glen-Rhodes etc.

Not incidentally, the subject of the Empire being allowed into liberation IRC channels was exactly the source of the controversy.

The decisions you attribute to the Empire were made by the Pharaoh of Osiris. I would know, because they were my decisions.

The subject of the Empire not being allowed into liberation IRC channels was controversial because they were not simply the Empire, they were my government officers. They could not help me liberate Osiris if they could not fully participate in liberation efforts. The UDL refused to allow their participation, because the UDL was more interested in its political and personal agenda than in liberating Osiris, and when that became clear, I -- and I alone -- made the decision that we would be better off without the UDL and their drama. That turned out to be true, because Osiris was liberated not through Mahaj's ridiculous tactics like creating one thousand Cormac puppets so Moderation could delete them, but through negotiations made possible by imperialist stealth tactics. Actual strategy, not absurd spectacle.

You have always had trouble accepting that the organization you created was completely powerless to do anything to save Osiris from Douria, JAL, and a defunct zombie region back from the grave, and completely clueless in regard to how to even begin to do anything about it, but that was the case. It's a good thing I had the Empire and imperialists in 2013, because if I had only been able to rely on the UDL, JAL's Osiris Imperium may well still exist. I realize you've concocted this alternate reality in which the UDL was more than capable of liberating Osiris if only I had allowed them to do so, and that you've made up this fantastic conspiracy story of how I sold Osiris to imperialists for some kind of political gain when Osiris could otherwise have been liberated if I had just gotten out of the UDL's way. But we both know that isn't true. The UDL wouldn't have been able to liberate Osiris when you were running it, let alone when Mahaj was at the helm.

I suggest we take this side discussion elsewhere, if we're going to continue it, because it is only tangentially related to the thread's topic, at best.

[Sedgistan]

I thought that this was a thread about multilateral treaties, not relationships between TSP and Balder...

Quit mini-modding. You've posted once before in this thread, a one-liner in the first page. You've got no place telling others to get back on topic. Yes, the discussion has branched out on tangents at times, but those are relevant tangents.

I'd tell you that your backseat moderating is annoying rather than helpful, and that you've got absolutely no chance of ever being a mod, but myself and many of my colleagues have told you that numerous times already, and you don't seem to get it. Just cut it out.

[Unibot III]

Cormac: So, 7 GCRs in a pact against 2 authoritarian GCRs is a glorious path forward, but 5 GCRs in a pact against 4 GCRs is a "dangerous cold war."

I'm operating on two levels in my original thesis, one from a strict game theory perspective that observes minimum winning coalition theory (5/4 is a structurally more sound coalition than 7/2) and a realistic understanding that Balder and Osiris are far more like their GCR Sovereignty Accord signatories than not. Hence why they signed the bloody thing, duh.

Osiris is controlled by the Empire.

Balder has repeatedly ignored the tenets of their own treaty law when politics are at play; its Queen acts in a way that is uncharacteristic of a stable democratic ally (Case in point: this thread.)

It should also be said that in my plan forward, Osiris and Balder would not be the biggest losers (TWP, NPO would be.) But they would not benefit from it - and that's what bugs you. It bugs you that your decision to choose the Empire as your successor has threatened the stability of your region and its reputation. Osiris is being lumped into the same category of NPO/TWP because of a realistic and accurate understanding of what the Empire stands for, and what it is capable of.

[Cerian Quilor]

Lovely convenient little mental construct for you, the idea of "true allies". Really makes it easy for you.

It's safe to say that a true ally doesn't attack their ally and subtly hint that the reason they're clinging to the alliance is that they're holding out for regime change and purges.

Balder has demonstrated that it can be a solid ally to other regions, but it has not demonstrated such to the South Pacific, and certainly is demonstrating the opposite now.

What about Glen's comments about TNI? That's more what I was referring to. I mean, I know you like to pretend TNI was attaching strings to that alliance, but still. Let's at least focus on the right thing. PLUS, in general, Glen's conception of 'true allies' is a very convenient one for anyone to have - because it allows Glen to play that card as an excuse to be disrespectful to any region he doesn't like even while MoFA - he can just play the they're 'not a true ally' card. Boom. Even if he is right in this or that circumstance, it's a very problematic conception for a diplomat to have when being a Foreign Minister (which I'm aware he's not right now. Honestly, all things said and done, I don't Glen has been that bad in this thread, except in context to his general behavior patterns)

@Glen:

Euro, though few in TSP like to admit it, schemed to undermine our alliances with TRR & Lazarus with the asinine behavior over the Independence Conference and the Regional Sovereignty Conference. It was tacitly admitted by Euro at the time that this scheme was being pushed by their imperialist allies. Euro threatened TSP that they "[wouldn't] be held responsible for the actions of some of [their] allies" if TSP didn't snub our other alliances and disavow the Regional Sovereignty Conference.

Of course Europeia can't be held responsible for what its allies think. They're allies, not puppet states. I mean, it's nice to see that its Europeia being accused of controling TNI, The LKE, Albion, et al, rather than the other way around, but still. Europeia simply stated the obvious fact that several of its allies were not really going to be happy with TSP's proposed course of action.

Those aren't real alliances. Those are region that were hostile against a TSP that wasn't firmly in the Independent-imperialist sphere. Regions that sought to undermine TSP's foreign affairs at every available opportunity. There's a reason I didn't respect them, and it's because they didn't respect TSP. They only liked TSP when its FA was controlled by Belschaft, and any attempt to separate ourselves from the Independent-imperialist sphere led that trifecta of "allies" to behave more like enemies.

Whereas the allies you and your friends would like to push TSP towards, under your arguement, are only friendly with TSP when TSP is in the defender-sphere. If the arguement that Independent-Imperialist allies imposed strings onto TSP's foreign policy is true (the only strings it imposed were the ones on the page and the ones TSPers who liked the alliance wanted to impose on themselves to keep it), then the converse is just as true - the regions you've always sought to turn TSP towards are imposing the same kinds of strings - just in the other direction.

This is all ancient history. It's been re-litigated for the past 3 years. Can't we just admit by now that an "independent" TSP was never a thing, and the Independent-imperialist bloc is simply anti-defender? All of this is pretty easy to understand once you realize that. A defender-leaning TSP just won't be on good terms with the opposing sphere of Gameplay.

Indendent and Imperialist powers tend to be unfriendly with defenders because defenders tend to be unfriendly with them. Europeia, TNI, The LKE, etc, didn't start the hostilities. And again, sounds to me like you're just admitting that you simply wanted TSP to have different strings.

@Guy: You make some fine points, actually. Same with you Cormac. I'm just not sure I personall can see TWP really agreeing to it, given how often TWP's elites will issue diatribes or snide comments about the idea of forum-based democracies.

@Unibot: I thought the whole 'point' about the Empire was that they didn't stand for anything but their own power, not any sort of actual ideals? Isn't that what you've been saying?

[Unibot III]

@Unibot: I thought the whole 'point' about the Empire was that they didn't stand for anything but their own power, not any sort of actual ideals? Isn't that what you've been saying?

Not exactly, their "self-interest" is shorthand. The truth is their amusement is really the driving force behind their decisions.

It's just that tends to involve decisions that divide their actions from the interests of their own regions.

[North East Somerset]

No, this does not return to any "flaw in my argument." Osiris is a different region than it was in 2015. The Empire leading Osiris now is a major shift from the Osiris which banned the Empire (and considered them persona non grata.) Osiris would not have been invited to any sort of multilateral talk if the Empire would have represented them (they'd have been an intelligence risk for starters) - and Empire's Osiris would have supported NLO almost instantly anyways.

That's your mistake - you gave Osiris to the Empire. Don't spend your time berating me for your mistakes and your ridiculously poor judgement.

Regions are only committed by sovereign terms to defending each other in the abstract. The idea that NS is a perfect calculation of realist interactions is laughable. Decisions are often made solely by ideological and personal associations without any regard for strategy. That's why a democratic alternative to the GCR Sovereignty Accords is a contemporary necessity.

But only the regions Unibot considers "democratic," right? When were you declared the pope of democracy? Was it while I was on vacation?

Actually Unibot has been claiming the divine rights to determine "legitimacy" since at least April 2011, when his first act after being elected Arch Chancellor of the FRA, was to amend the FRA policy on Feeders, to allow the Cabinet to assess whether a feeder delegacy is rogue, and if it did, to intervene in the said region unilaterally. Of course, he was at that point Head of the Cabinet. Before then FRA has a general policy of non-intervention except in the case of member regions.

It's always been central to Unibot's modus operandi that he is best placed to determine the level of "legitimacy" - through whatever language he feels is politically the easiest sell. Back then it was all about "native" rights, now its all about "democracy" - but the upshot is the same - he and his defender cronies are the best people to determine matters of morality - like who is in power. Namely, someone favourable to him. Behind the facade, his policies are no different to any other kind of personal Empire, other than they are dressed up in a moral-technocratic dialogue which places him personally in the best position to decide such matters.

It's a good thing I had the Empire and imperialists in 2013, because if I had only been able to rely on the UDL, JAL's Osiris Imperium may well still exist.

I imagine it's a somewhat inconvenient truth for Unibot that Osiris's liberation was actually guaranteed by UIAF forces acting on a scheme put together by Major-General NES, and agreed beforehand with the elected Pharoah of Osiris (Cormac). Give him a chance, and he'll re-write that part of history to make himself out to be the Saviour of Osiris, for sure.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Cormac: So, 7 GCRs in a pact against 2 authoritarian GCRs is a glorious path forward, but 5 GCRs in a pact against 4 GCRs is a "dangerous cold war."

Why does it have to be against anyone? You're the one who is thinking in terms of against, because division is the only way you can pursue your agenda, which has nothing at all to do with democracy -- you proved you didn't care about that when you backed the People's Republic of Lazarus -- and everything to do with Radical Defenderist Extremism.

All I was saying is it may prove impossible to include the Pacific and the West Pacific in a mutual defense pact if they can't set aside their views on the supremacy of game mechanics over forum government to defend the other Feeders and Sinkers based on their own, alternative principles. That doesn't mean there should be some silly "cold war" between them and the other seven Feeders and Sinkers.

I'm operating on two levels in my original thesis, one from a strict game theory perspective that observes minimum winning coalition theory (5/4 is a structurally more sound coalition than 7/2) and a realistic understanding that Balder and Osiris are far more like their GCR Sovereignty Accord signatories than not. Hence why they signed the bloody thing, duh.

Why would it not be possible for regions to be signatories of both? Again, you're the one thinking of this in terms of "us vs. them," cold war theatrics. I'm explicitly saying, and have been saying all along, that such a path is silly and dangerous to all of the Feeders and Sinkers. The day that the Feeders and Sinkers allow you to divide and conquer them -- so you can move them around like pawns on a chess board in a game of chess that no one else is playing anymore -- will be a sad day indeed.

Osiris is controlled by the Empire.

Whatever my qualms with Neo Kervoskia and the Empire group, I won't stand for your reductive dismissal of Osiris' community as if they don't matter and the only people in Osiris are the Empire four. Osiris has a vibrant community comprised of individuals with bright minds, strong views, and stubborn -- sometimes maddeningly stubborn -- tenacity. They are the best community Osiris has ever had. They are not Empire drones. They are not the easily manipulated sheep of Osiris past. If you don't believe me, here's your proof: They stood up to me, firmly, when I tried to tell them how they should be governing, and not only have I not overthrown and replaced their government as I normally would, I actually finally shut up, listened to them, and decided I should let them do their thing without my meddling.

I thought Empire controlled Osiris now too. I'm sure you can easily find me saying so, and I'm not denying that I said it, and adamantly believed it. What I've learned since then is that no one will ever have an easy time controlling Osiris while its community passively looks on, ever again. Glory, hallelujah, it's only what I've been working toward for almost five years, a community that won't just take my -- or their -- crap. The community controls Osiris, and it's going to be a hilarious failure for Empire if they ever try to seize control again, because this community will not be controlled.

It should also be said that in my plan forward, Osiris and Balder would not be the biggest losers (TWP, NPO would be.) But they would not benefit from it - and that's what bugs you. It bugs you that your decision to choose the Empire as your successor has threatened the stability of your region and its reputation. Osiris is being lumped into the same category of NPO/TWP because of a realistic and accurate understanding of what the Empire stands for, and what it is capable of.

You're advocating for the five Feeders and Sinkers you favor to band together to reignite a cold war against the other four. I'm fairly sure all of the other four are the losers in that scenario.

But what really bugs me, as you put it, is that everyone loses in your divide-and-conquer strategy. You probably even lose, though clearly you believe you stand to gain something. No Feeder or Sinker wins if another cold war is initiated.

In regard to Osiris' reputation, it speaks for itself, in that by your own admission, Osiris has the strongest diplomatic network among the Feeders and Sinkers. Your own data contradicts the judgment you've rendered.

[Canton Empire]

What's even the point of alliances? Most of the GCRs are pretty stable. Most.

I don't want to lecture a Lazarene Guardian on regional security, but I remember 2015 quite well. And it was a desperate time. There was a point in time where it looked like Lazarus was gone, just gone, possibly forever with no hope of recovery. I remember lying to friends and telling them there was still a good chance of liberation, knowing full well from experience that there was only a slim chance of recovery - and those chances were mostly predicated on human error and resignation on the part of the occupiers.

During the rise of the NLO, over that period of two weeks there was a very real fear that the Lazarus Underground was losing its diplomatic advantage - that actors not consigned or obligated to Lazarus by treaties were going to swing to support NLO over the Underground so that they could "be on the victor's side." The various democratic GCR delegates had even gotten together in the heat of the moment to hash out an agreement over that two weeks which was more or less exactly what I'm proposing in this article - it was only dropped because NLO fell and subsequently deemed unnecessary. But of course, nothing about the circumstances of NLO's collapse suggests a coup of a democratic GCR is impossible - far from it, in fact. It's not hard for me to imagine that the NPO could still be in power to this day in Lazarus if mistakes hadn't been made and they hadn't picked a fight with Kazmr and Funkadelia: two people they grossly underestimated.

I wrote this article with those desperate times close in my memory. And I hope the essay serves as evidence that nothing about the diplomatic situation of the GCRs' democratic major powers should give them an overriding confidence that what happened in 2015 couldn't happen to them again (and with a far worse conclusion.)

EDIT: And with Regional Officers now, I can say confidently that NPO probably would still be occupying Lazarus if the same coup took place today. It was reckless for the administrators to have added that game feature without any support for it as an idea during the R/D conference. The last thing we needed was multiple invader leads.

That is why I said most. And I don't think that the addition of RO's was reckless in anyway, just saying

[Unibot III]

I imagine it's a somewhat inconvenient truth for Unibot that Osiris's liberation was actually guaranteed by UIAF forces acting on a scheme put together by Major-General NES, and agreed beforehand with the elected Pharoah of Osiris (Cormac). Give him a chance, and he'll re-write that part of history to make himself out to be the Saviour of Osiris, for sure.

The only 'narrative' here is that poppycock: UIAF was on the fence and double-dealed between the Empire and Gatesville to make sure they were on the winning side.

I cannot claim to be Osiris' saviour. I did, however, support the removal of the Empire from Osiris and the OFO coup, despite OFO clearly being an invader coup and OFO having zero material association with my military and world view. That's because I've recognized the extent of their treachery (as Cormac Stark once did apparently in one of his nine lives.)

Actually Unibot has been claiming the divine rights to determine "legitimacy" since at least April 2011, when his first act after being elected Arch Chancellor of the FRA, was to amend the FRA policy on Feeders, to allow the Cabinet to assess whether a feeder delegacy is rogue, and if it did, to intervene in the said region unilaterally. Of course, he was at that point Head of the Cabinet. Before then FRA has a general policy of non-intervention except in the case of member regions.

The Rogue Delegacy policy was a response to the Durk II crisis. It gave us the freedom to act and try to liberate TSP when Sedgistan/Crazygirl couped TSP - without the Rogue Delegacy policy, FRA would have been tied up in the RA with TRR's representatives (The Empire - yes, them again - or Devonitians themselves) arguing FRA should refrain from intervening for bullshit reasons.

Although it didn't matter because Devonitians-Empire was still able to pressure the FRA through TRR's activation of an impeachment charge.

Absolutely none of this is helping your case, NES.

Why does it have to be against anyone? You're the one who is thinking in terms of against [..]

Because they are against. Given the right chance, NPO, TWP, Balder and Osiris would all like to see different parties in government in at least 4/5 of the remaining GCRs (give or take which GCR we're talking about) even at the expense of an extra-constitutional coup or crisis.

Osiris has a vibrant community comprised of individuals with bright minds, strong views, and stubborn -- sometimes maddeningly stubborn -- tenacity. They are the best community Osiris has ever had. They are not Empire drones. They are not the easily manipulated sheep of Osiris past.

You have a lot of good people who are not in the delegacy - and that's ultimately what matters to a large extent.

Moreover, volunteering your region to the Empire does conjure the image of "easily manipulated sheep" and "Empire drones" of olde. I'm not impressed with your "bright minds, strong views and stubborn 'tenacity'" when it involves giving the region back to the same people you couped to stop only three years before.

And it's going to be a hilarious failure for Empire if they ever try to seize control again, because this community will not be controlled.

I hope for your sake that's true but I'm fairly certain that bridge has already been crossed, mate.

I'm fairly sure all of the other four are the losers in that scenario.

No, because the democratic GCRs are not aggressors. They wouldn't use their self-security to defend an invasion against the other GCRs, that's partly why they're fit for association in the first place. Rather, post-association, Osiris and Balder would both have strategic reasons to consider dropping the GCR Sovereignty Accord in the future.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Why does it have to be against anyone? You're the one who is thinking in terms of against [..]

Because they are against. Given the right chance, NPO, TWP, Balder and Osiris would all like to see different parties in government in at least 4/5 of the remaining GCRs (give or take which GCR we're talking about) even at the expense of an extra-constitutional coup or crisis.

Citation needed. Seriously. You're spouting conspiracy theory like it's gospel.

You have a lot of good people who are not in the delegacy - and that's ultimately what matters to a large extent.

Unibot, a TWP true believer in the supremacy of game mechanics, at last! I never thought I would see the day.

Moreover, volunteering your region to the Empire does conjure the image of "easily manipulated sheep" and "Empire drones" of olde. I'm not impressed with your "bright minds, strong views and stubborn 'tenacity'" when it involves giving the region back to the same people you couped to stop only three years before.

Only three years before? Jesus, man, you act like it was last Tuesday. While I continue to be skeptical toward the Empire folks as well, has it never occurred to you that they -- or at least any one of them -- might have changed, at least a little? Maybe they haven't. But maybe they have! You don't know. You just like to pretend you know everything.

Regardless, I didn't say I had a bright mind, strong views, and stubborn tenacity, I said the community of Osiris does. I was the one who selected Neo Kervoskia as my successor, and however that turns out is on me. How they respond as a community, to whatever comes their way, is on them. And I'm telling you, they will not respond as past Osiris communities have responded.

No, because the democratic GCRs are not aggressors. They wouldn't use their self-security to defend an invasion against the other GCRs, that's partly why they're fit for association in the first place. Rather, post-association, Osiris and Balder would both have strategic reasons to consider dropping the GCR Sovereignty Accord in the future.

They would? But if Balder and Osiris have to be excluded from these democracy accords because they're untrustworthy, wouldn't dropping the GCR Sovereignty Accords just leave Balder and Osiris on their own like little isolated islands? No alliance at all. Sitting ducks, basically. While I'm sure you would enjoy that -- the better to defenderize democratize them like defenderists democrats did in Lazarus -- that doesn't seem like smart security policy.

Someone should really tell the "democratic GCRs" that they aren't aggressors. I seem to recall TNP and Lazarus aggression all up in my grill in April 2016. Probably the biggest reason the GCR Sovereignty Accords exist was the increasingly belligerent attitude of some of your "democratic GCRs" toward the Feeders and Sinkers that did not share their worldview, rather than the other way around.

[Guy]

Cormac: So, 7 GCRs in a pact against 2 authoritarian GCRs is a glorious path forward, but 5 GCRs in a pact against 4 GCRs is a "dangerous cold war."

Why does it have to be against anyone? You're the one who is thinking in terms of against, because division is the only way you can pursue your agenda, which has nothing at all to do with democracy -- you proved you didn't care about that when you backed the People's Republic of Lazarus -- and everything to do with Radical Defenderist Extremism.

All I was saying is it may prove impossible to include the Pacific and the West Pacific in a mutual defense pact if they can't set aside their views on the supremacy of game mechanics over forum government to defend the other Feeders and Sinkers based on their own, alternative principles. That doesn't mean there should be some silly "cold war" between them and the other seven Feeders and Sinkers.

To be fair, I think that any 'sphere' that includes most GCRs will undoubtedly cause some level of polarisation, even if purely intended as a defensive measure. It's how NS tends to work.

I'm glad you agreed with me before. If we are talking about a treaty that will see proscribing such "objectively-defined" coups, then I would agree with you that we should strive to include as many GCRs as possible. If the scope of the discussion is essentially over the inclusion of Balder and Osiris, I would say it could pose challenges, but perhaps not insurmountable ones. Osiris would have failed any "objectively-defined" criteria for a coup a lot, and Balder would perhaps have to agree to those principles vis-a-vis regions that it does not like that much.

[Unibot III]

While I continue to be skeptical toward the Empire folks as well, has it never occurred to you that they -- or at least any one of them -- might have changed, at least a little? Maybe they haven't.

No, they haven't changed and won't change. Good lord no. To think otherwise is demonstrably naive.

Citation needed. Seriously. You're spouting conspiracy theory like it's gospel.

Balder has already sat out the NLO and a TSP coup hoping for a different result. They dropped out of the PSSP because they wanted to protect the membership of imperialists who couped TRR during the 'FRA-TNI' war, as did Osiris. They were openly hostile to Lazarus in its PRL days.

NPO and TWP have supported coups militarily and politically against Lazarus, TSP and TNP. (See: NLO, PRSP, Hileville's Coup, Pixiedance, etc. etc. etc.)

Osiris is currently led by the brain-trust behind attempted/successful coups of TEP, TWP, TNP, TSP and Osiris. (I've probably missed a GCR. They certainly wanted control of TRR in '11.) Openly hostile to Lazarus during the brief Osiran-Lazarene war.

Would you like me to go on? Because this gospel's a real belter.

[Cormactopia Prime]

While I continue to be skeptical toward the Empire folks as well, has it never occurred to you that they -- or at least any one of them -- might have changed, at least a little? Maybe they haven't.

No, they haven't changed and won't change. Good lord no. To think otherwise is demonstrably naive.

So it is your assertion that no one can change, or only these four people?

Citation needed. Seriously. You're spouting conspiracy theory like it's gospel.

Balder has already sat out the NLO and a TSP coup hoping for a different result.

NPO and TWP have supported coups militarily and politically against Lazarus, TSP and TNP. (See: NLO, PRSP, Hileville's Coup, Pixiedance, etc. etc. etc.)

Osiris is currently led by the brain-trust behind attempted/successful coups of TEP, TWP, TNP, TSP and Osiris. (I've probably missed a GCR. They certainly wanted control of TRR in '11.)

None of that is anything resembling proof of your claim, that now, in 2017, these four regions want regime change in at least four of the five other Feeders and Sinkers. That's what you said. If you can't back that up, it's just fake news. Don't Kellyanne Conway us with your alternative facts and your Bowling Green Massacres and sell it as the New York Times.