The Case for Multilateral Treaties

[Unibot III]

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.

Haha, the only way you can know what regions are capable of is to look to their history. Resorting to comparing me to "Kellyanne Conway" for repeating really quite basic facts of NS History just demonstrates: (1) your current political position in Osiris is predicated on turning a blind eye to just about everything that's happened before 2017, (2) how embarrassingly devoid of counter-evidence you are in your defense of NPO, TWP, Balder, Osiris' political record.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Openly hostile to Lazarus during the brief Osiran-Lazarene war.

Umm, what? Neo Kervoskia and Dalimbar were both in Lazarus -- in their government, in fact -- during the Osiran-Lazarene war. Their presence in the government of Lazarus was at least 50% of the reason we declared war on Lazarus.

Dude, just stop.

[Unibot III]

Openly hostile to Lazarus during the brief Osiran-Lazarene war.

Umm, what? Neo Kervoskia and Dalimbar were both in Lazarus -- in their government, in fact -- during the Osiran-Lazarene war. Their presence in the government of Lazarus was at least 50% of the reason we declared war on Lazarus.

That's exactly my bloody point. You're not helping your case at all. They enjoy stirring up interregional conflict. It's their MO.

[Guy]

Openly hostile to Lazarus during the brief Osiran-Lazarene war.

Umm, what? Neo Kervoskia and Dalimbar were both in Lazarus -- in their government, in fact -- during the Osiran-Lazarene war. Their presence in the government of Lazarus was at least 50% of the reason we declared war on Lazarus.

Dude, just stop.

He was talking about Balder there, not the Empire.

[Unibot III]

Umm, what? Neo Kervoskia and Dalimbar were both in Lazarus -- in their government, in fact -- during the Osiran-Lazarene war. Their presence in the government of Lazarus was at least 50% of the reason we declared war on Lazarus.

Dude, just stop.

He was talking about Balder there, not the Empire.

I was talking about both. And Cormac himself.

And the beautiful thing is his selective debate of only one of about two dozen instances between NPO/TWP/Balder/Empire/Osiris when they've acted against other GCRs or threatened to act against other GCRs or sat out a resistance effort hoping the coupers might be victorious. It's repeated patterns of history for them.

[Cormactopia Prime]

That's exactly my bloody point. You're not helping your case at all. They enjoy stirring up interregional conflict. It's their MO.

I don't think you get it. They didn't do anything to stir up conflict other than exist. Along with Karpathos' and Funkadelia's threatening tone and behavior, their mere presence in the government of Lazarus made me want to declare war. There are plenty of things that are their fault, but I can safely say that wasn't one of them. They did nothing other than exist in Lazarus.

I'm going to move on from this thread. It's become a joke at this point, and certainly not the basis for any sound gameplay foreign policy.

[Unibot III]

It's become a joke at this point, and certainly not the basis for any sound gameplay foreign policy.

The only joke presented in this thread is your disbelief that the Empire might not have good intentions and Osiris may be party to their delegate's ambitions. Your failure to acknowledge even basic events that have transpired over the past fourteen years is itself alone worth laughing you out of this thread.

The observation that the democratic GCRs would be better off in a diplomatic association of sorts remains very much in tact. I stand by the mathematical model and the soft power index as presented as a very sound basis for innovative and groundbreaking gameplay foreign policy.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

It's become a joke at this point, and certainly not the basis for any sound gameplay foreign policy.

The only joke presented in this thread is your disbelief that the Empire might not have good intentions and Osiris may be party to their delegate's ambitions. Your failure to acknowledge even basic events that have transpired over the past fourteen years is itself alone worth laughing you out of this thread.

The observation that the democratic GCRs would be better off in a diplomatic association of sorts remains very much in tact. I stand by the mathematical model and the soft power index as presented as a very sound basis for innovative and groundbreaking gameplay foreign policy.

Though your mathematical representation of the various alliances and treaties between various major regions of NationStates and your Soft Power Index may be factually correct, using those facts to warp the truth by saying (basically) that *successful* regional multilateral treaties can only be accomplished through democracy and the elimination of certain nations opposed to your defenderist agenda isn’t right.

My point is, we do not need to alter other’s regional governments to make them more ”open” to regional relations and stability; many different political systems, though controversial, are perfectly good for making regional relations with as long as the general populace agrees with the system, and that though regions may have different views on a variety of topics, coups and “regional upsets” don’t matter as long as if they are the will of the people/nations.

However, in the Feeder and Sinker GCRs, politicians should not normally be looking for or sponsoring a drastic change in regional government without approval from the people/nations and should instead try to reform the current system of government in their region to a more perfect government.

Furthermore, the biggest reason why coups of Feeder and Sinker regions is the rapid expansion in popularity of Cosmopolitanism and the decrease in popularity of Regionalism. This has caused an increase of apathy towards individual regions and a decrease in apathy of the NationStates community as a whole, which is appears, possibly, to have stopped the proposed Knot’s Cyclical Theory of Regional Hegemonies, which basically states that Regional Hegemonies rise and fall over periods of years, with a stage of two major Hegemonies and a recovery stage.

At this point, since Regional Hegemonies depend on Regionalism, which is decreasing in popularity, nations are more likely to focus on multiple regions, which is basically making Regional events, such as a regional coup, not exactly big events. At the same time, however, the expansion of Cosmopolitanism is also causing a decrease in the importance of Bilateral Regional Treaties and is causing for Multi-Regional Organizations, such as CAIN, to rise in popularity and power, as they spread across multiple regions.

Multi-Regional Organizations, however, pull regions together more strongly, while multilateral treaties aren’t as “pulling”, you could say, which is why Multilateral Organizations that do things now are more favored over Multilateral Treaties that prepare for the future.

EDIT: Additionally, Treaties are made mostly because the sharing of common values between regions. Multi-Regional Organizations don't necessarily need those.

I would *like* to liken it to a slow-moving revolution of decentralization and an increase of the value of community - the Communist Revolution. q:

[Unibot III]

I'm not sure the suggestion that regionalism ---> bilateralism, and cosmopolitanism --> multilateralism is at all accurate, to be honest. That's been a common assumption but I don't think it's true. Multilateral treaties can be derived from very regionalist members. The GCR Sovereignty Accords is a clear and recent example of that.

I also don't believe cosmopolitianism is a factor in NationStates' decline in activity. There's too many counter-examples available.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

I'm not sure the suggestion that regionalism ---> bilateralism, and cosmopolitanism --> multilateralism is at all accurate, to be honest. That's been a common assumption but I don't think it's true. Multilateral treaties can be derived from very regionalist members. The GCR Sovereignty Accords is a clear and recent example of that.

I also don't believe cosmopolitianism is a factor in NationStates' decline in activity. There's too many counter-examples available.

Cosmopolitanism is not a factor in NationStates' decline in activity at all; it simply is giving more importance to the general NS community rather than individual regions to the average NSer.

Additionally, Multilateralism is technically more connected to regionalism and bilateralism, as it depends on regionalism and the importance of the region as itself. Cosmopolitanism is basically just NationStates Communism: a stateless society where the people rule supreme. "Superiors" in NS regions will be of less and less importance as regionalism decreases in popularity, as regions won't focus on just one region, but rather multiple regions. The connections between regions rather then the regions themselves will (eventually) become more and more important, which is why Multi-Regional Organizations, which will probably have even more power than the regions themselves, will increase in popularity; in Multilateral Treaties, the connections between regions are less important than the regions themselves.

A prime example of a MRO displaying its power is CAIN as a whole voting AGAINST for "Condemn The CAIN" rather then its individual regions voting on the basis of their region; member regions of CAIN most likely voted on the basis of their participation in their MRO.

[Sygian II]

Cosmopolitanism is not a factor in NationStates' decline in activity at all; it simply is giving more importance to the general NS community rather than individual regions to the average NSer.

Are you listening to yourself, or just talking out of your ass?

A prime example of a MRO displaying its power is CAIN as a whole voting AGAINST for "Condemn The CAIN" rather then its individual regions voting on the basis of their region; member regions of CAIN most likely voted on the basis of their participation in their MRO.

Osiris, a member region of CAIN, still held the vote in their region, and as far as I know, TWP did as well. I don't pay attention nor do I care enough to check the other regions, but you should probably fact check yourself before you keep talking because those two prime examples prove what you said wrong. Maybe they voted AGAINST because they are literally a member region of CAIN, you said it yourself? Why would they want to get themselves condemned? Please.

From my experiences, WA Delegates vote on GA resolutions according to a vote held in the region. WA Delegates vote on SC resolutions with what they believe is better for the region.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

Cosmopolitanism is not a factor in NationStates' decline in activity at all; it simply is giving more importance to the general NS community rather than individual regions to the average NSer.

Are you listening to yourself, or just talking out of your ass?

Cosmopolitanism isn't causing a decrease in NationStates overall, but may cause a decrease of regional activity and an increase of interregional activity.

A prime example of a MRO displaying its power is CAIN as a whole voting AGAINST for "Condemn The CAIN" rather then its individual regions voting on the basis of their region; member regions of CAIN most likely voted on the basis of their participation in their MRO.

Osiris, a member region of CAIN, still held the vote in their region, and as far as I know, TWP did as well. I don't pay attention nor do I care enough to check the other regions, but you should probably fact check yourself before you keep talking because those two prime examples prove what you said wrong. Maybe they voted AGAINST because they are literally a member region of CAIN, you said it yourself? Why would they want to get themselves condemned? Please.

From my experiences, WA Delegates vote on GA resolutions according to a vote held in the region. WA Delegates vote on SC resolutions with what they believe is better for the region.

member regions of CAIN most likely voted on the basis of their participation in their MRO.

Of course not all member regions of CAIN voted AGAINST; there are always some, most likely due to their dissatisfaction of their participation in the MRO, who will not entirely support the MRO they participate in.

[Cerian Quilor]

Europeia and TNP also held votes, fwiw. And obviously, they weren't going to vote for it when they were members - else they'd have withdrawn as members, because they disagreed with it.

I think I was the only vote in Europeia that wasn't Aye (I was Abstain, IIRC), unless I hadn't been citizen masked yet at the time the forum vote was well. Can't remember. Because Europeia and citizens of it, as a whole, like CAIN and what it does.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

Europeia and TNP also held votes, fwiw. And obviously, they weren't going to vote for it when they were members - else they'd have withdrawn as members, because they disagreed with it.

I think I was the only vote in Europeia that wasn't Aye (I was Abstain, IIRC), unless I hadn't been citizen masked yet at the time the forum vote was well. Can't remember. Because Europeia and citizens of it, as a whole, like CAIN and what it does.

Well, that just depends on how the Multiregional Organization affects the nations in the participating regions and the regions themselves. That is based mostly on the quality of the participation of the region in the Multiregional Organization, however.

If Multilateral Treaties aren't active in the way that they execute actions, they won't be very valued. However, a Multilateral Treaty that is active in how it executes actions is effectively the Constitution of a Multiregional Organization, with few exceptions.

[Sygian II]

Cosmopolitanism isn't causing a decrease in NationStates overall, but may cause a decrease of regional activity and an increase of interregional activity.

Okay, apologies, I misunderstood. But my point practically still stands..

So you're saying to have NationStates activity... you don't need (regional) activity?

The latter part of your statement is not only profoundly false but also exceedingly extraneous.

Of course not all member regions of CAIN voted AGAINST; there are always some, most likely due to their dissatisfaction of their participation in the MRO, who will not entirely support the MRO they participate in.

A majority of the regions in CAIN are there because their legislature ratified the treaty. Why wouldn't they vote against? They weren't forced to vote against, but they did because they are in CAIN. You said it yourself.

Now I am curious as to which regions' delegates voted FOR the resolution to condemn CAIN. Please, enlighten me!

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

Cosmopolitanism isn't causing a decrease in NationStates overall, but may cause a decrease of regional activity and an increase of interregional activity.

Okay, apologies, I misunderstood. But my point practically still stands..

So you're saying to have NationStates activity... you don't need (regional) activity?

The latter part of your statement is not only profoundly false but also exceedingly extraneous.

You can have NationStates activity on an off-site forum or a Discord server for an Interregional Organization. That forum/Discord could just be where military operations and multiregional organization operations could be conducted. The regions would just be where the nations reside, while the multiregional organization would be where all the action is. Boom.

Of course not all member regions of CAIN voted AGAINST; there are always some, most likely due to their dissatisfaction of their participation in the MRO, who will not entirely support the MRO they participate in.

A majority of the regions in CAIN are there because their legislature ratified the treaty. Why wouldn't they vote against? They weren't forced to vote against, but they did because they are in CAIN. You said it yourself.

Now I am curious as to which regions' delegates voted FOR the resolution to condemn CAIN. Please, enlighten me!

I already said that some regions wouldn't necessarily vote AGAINST that resolution depending on how they feel on their participation in CAIN. Yes, their legislatures ratified the treaty, but that was before they actually had the experience of participating in CAIN, in where regional opinion may change somewhat.

[Galiantus VII]

I think forum/chat activity counts as regional activity. Activity in NS at large is an outgrowth of regional activity, as the activities within regions are what pull new players in to become active, whether it is in their region or in the world.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

I think forum/chat activity counts as regional activity. Activity in NS at large is an outgrowth of regional activity, as the activities within regions are what pull new players in to become active, whether it is in their region or in the world.

But not all forum/chat activity is regional activity; there is also forum/chat activity solely from Multiregional Organizations.

[Galiantus VII]

Of course. What I'm getting at is that activity outside of regions is stronger as a result of activity within regions. Regions make players active, and those active players go on to the world stage to be active.

[Cerian Quilor]

Yes, but if the constituent regions populace ignore the physical region for one single interregional thing, then the pyhysical regions will slowly die off.

[Galiantus VII]

Could you give me a concrete example? In my experience, regions are built around an idea which tends to intersect with the rest of the world in some way. Whether we are talking about generalites, RPers or Gameplayers, the relation between the player and their region can be important in how the player interacts with the rest of the world. As far as I can tell, the only way players ever really do what you are talking about is if they just stay in the Feeder or Sinker they started in, don't participate in any regional activities in that region, and hang around on the NS forums.

[Cerian Quilor]

Multiple Multiregional Orgs have had the effect of attention being drawn away from the constituent regions and towards the org to the detriment of the constituent regions, sometimes leaving them very inactive - the Commonwealth, the FRA (at times), the ADN. MROs are less common in recent years for that reason.

[Galiantus VII]

So you are saying that interregional activity kills or replaces regional activity. I would agree. I was arguing that, in order for interregional activity to exist, regional activity must predate the interregional activity, because any activity independent of a region must initially be created in a region somehow. Regional activity in smaller regions is almost always doomed to go interregional at some point because the active members of said region eventually realize they can achieve better results by moving into larger regions or to organizations with similar goals. The overall activity is not lost via the process, but rather transferred to a more central location.

The reason Gatesville did so well was that they were able to concentrate all the activity centered around a common goal into one region. If there are ten small raiding regions, they are much less effective than a raiding region of their combined size because the centralization of activity allows for coordination and further multiplication of activity.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

So you are saying that interregional activity kills or replaces regional activity. I would agree. I was arguing that, in order for interregional activity to exist, regional activity must predate the interregional activity, because any activity independent of a region must initially be created in a region somehow. Regional activity in smaller regions is almost always doomed to go interregional at some point because the active members of said region eventually realize they can achieve better results by moving into larger regions or to organizations with similar goals. The overall activity is not lost via the process, but rather transferred to a more central location.

The reason Gatesville did so well was that they were able to concentrate all the activity centered around a common goal into one region. If there are ten small raiding regions, they are much less effective than a raiding region of their combined size because the centralization of activity allows for coordination and further multiplication of activity.

However, the "transferrance" of activity to a more central location isn't happening as often as cosmopolitanism becomes favored over regionalism.

Activity will still be present in regions, though I predict it will slowly become less and less relevant, and/or that it'll become more and more interconnected with other regions.

[Cerian Quilor]

So you are saying that interregional activity kills or replaces regional activity. I would agree. I was arguing that, in order for interregional activity to exist, regional activity must predate the interregional activity, because any activity independent of a region must initially be created in a region somehow. Regional activity in smaller regions is almost always doomed to go interregional at some point because the active members of said region eventually realize they can achieve better results by moving into larger regions or to organizations with similar goals. The overall activity is not lost via the process, but rather transferred to a more central location.

The reason Gatesville did so well was that they were able to concentrate all the activity centered around a common goal into one region. If there are ten small raiding regions, they are much less effective than a raiding region of their combined size because the centralization of activity allows for coordination and further multiplication of activity.

Gatesville was successful for a time, yeah but only for a time. Plus, an Empire or similar centralized institutions isn't the same thing as a true MRO.