Unibot III wrote:Cormactopia Prime wrote: 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: