The Case for Multilateral Treaties

[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.

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.

Well, I do believe we are soon entering an era where MROs will become representative of multiple regions. There will always be the unusual independent regions, of course, but I do think most regions will join a multiregional organization, making multilateral treaties irrelevant.

[Cerian Quilor]

There's different levels of MROs, however. CAIN is hardly the same thing as the FRA or the ADN and especially not the Commonwealth. And I suspect you're very wrong.

[Solorni]

Unibot has selective memory. Glen-Rhodes and TRR (along with Lazarus were/are FRA) if I recall correctly supported the PRL coup in Lazarus. At the very least, Glen-Rhodes pushed for a TSP treaty with the PRL despite the fact that it couped and purged Lazarus. The idea that one can legitimately complain about the NLO couping the PRL without also critiquing the PRL coup is simply fantasy. If the defenders in Lazarus had not decided to help coup and purge their political enemies, there would have been no NLO coup and Lazarus would have continued to have been a stable democracy.

Let's also not forget how you have sought to coup and subvert democratic regions in the GCRs Unibot. So the idea that Balder at least wants regime change in regions is not rooted in facts at all, particularly when we've talked in glowing terms about Europeian & TNPs democracies.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

There's different levels of MROs, however. CAIN is hardly the same thing as the FRA or the ADN and especially not the Commonwealth. And I suspect you're very wrong.

Of course there are different levels of MROs as of the moment. However, MROs are probably going to "merge" into one central set of MROs, which would be much like CAIN, but with even more complexity.

[Cerian Quilor]

There's different levels of MROs, however. CAIN is hardly the same thing as the FRA or the ADN and especially not the Commonwealth. And I suspect you're very wrong.

Of course there are different levels of MROs as of the moment. However, MROs are probably going to "merge" into one central set of MROs, which would be much like CAIN, but with even more complexity.

Where are you getting this assumption?

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

Of course there are different levels of MROs as of the moment. However, MROs are probably going to "merge" into one central set of MROs, which would be much like CAIN, but with even more complexity.

Where are you getting this assumption?

Predictions are almost always mostly assumptions. I can't perfectly predict the future, but a prediction can be refined.

[Cerian Quilor]

Where are you getting this assumption?

Predictions are almost always assumptions. I can't perfectly predict the future, but a prediction can be refined.

But people usually have *reasons* for their assumptions.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

Predictions are almost always assumptions. I can't perfectly predict the future, but a prediction can be refined.

But people usually have *reasons* for their assumptions.

Yes, and my reasons are the decrease in regionalism and the increase in cosmopolitanism, which tends to support MROs much more than regionalism, which is more focused on just one region.

EDIT: Regionalism supports multilateral treaties and hegemonies more, but we are slowly drifting away from those in the NationStates Regional Environment as Cosmopolitanism becomes more and more popular with new incoming NSers.

[Cerian Quilor]

But people usually have *reasons* for their assumptions.

Yes, and my reasons are the decrease in regionalism and the increase in cosmopolitanism, which tends to support MROs much more than regionalism, which is more focused on just one region.

There really needs to be a *pinching the bridge of your nose in silent frustration* emoticon.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

Yes, and my reasons are the decrease in regionalism and the increase in cosmopolitanism, which tends to support MROs much more than regionalism, which is more focused on just one region.

There really needs to be a *pinching the bridge of your nose in silent frustration* emoticon.

My point is, because of the increase of the popularity of cosmopolitanism, MROs are more likely to be made because participation in multiple regions shall become more important than the loyalty to just one region. As a result, MROs, which allow nations from regions to participate together interregionally, will become more and more popular as it aligns with cosmopolitanism in the participation in multiple regions, or in this case, the organization of multiple regions.

[Unibot III]

Unibot has selective memory. Glen-Rhodes and TRR (both were/are FRA) if I recall correctly supported the PRL coup in Lazarus. At the very least, Glen-Rhodes pushed for a TSP treaty with the PRL despite the fact that it couped and purged Lazarus. The idea that one can legitimately complain about the NLO couping the PRL without also critiquing the PRL coup is simply fantasy. If the defenders in Lazarus had not decided to help coup and purge their political enemies, there would have been no NLO coup and Lazarus would have continued to have been a stable democracy.

No extra-constitutional activity took place with the banning of the three imperialists in Lazarus. The people banned from Lazarus had had a role in couping TRR. Moreover, the creation of the PRL which occurred contemporaneously within the authority of a new Lazarus Mandate: Lazarus regularly revamps their themes.

[Guy]

Unibot has selective memory. Glen-Rhodes and TRR (both were/are FRA) if I recall correctly supported the PRL coup in Lazarus. At the very least, Glen-Rhodes pushed for a TSP treaty with the PRL despite the fact that it couped and purged Lazarus. The idea that one can legitimately complain about the NLO couping the PRL without also critiquing the PRL coup is simply fantasy. If the defenders in Lazarus had not decided to help coup and purge their political enemies, there would have been no NLO coup and Lazarus would have continued to have been a stable democracy.

Glen-Rhodes has a total of 4 posts in the FRA forum, and was last seen in June 2011.

We've discussed the PRL several times, and as I said in this thread, we could spend a very long time talking about it. It arose out of DYP and Harmoneia, hardly two "defender ideologues", discovering that a security threat is posed. It thus seems likely that had they not taken their actions, Laz would be far from a "stable democracy".

The legality of the move is contested. It went to a forum vote, so it was far from clear-cut illegal. In any case, it is no more nefarious than the various times factions in Osiris got rid of political enemies, suspended the Constitution, et cetera. You don't have such a great difficulty with those.

[Solorni]

Unibot has selective memory. Glen-Rhodes and TRR (both were/are FRA) if I recall correctly supported the PRL coup in Lazarus. At the very least, Glen-Rhodes pushed for a TSP treaty with the PRL despite the fact that it couped and purged Lazarus. The idea that one can legitimately complain about the NLO couping the PRL without also critiquing the PRL coup is simply fantasy. If the defenders in Lazarus had not decided to help coup and purge their political enemies, there would have been no NLO coup and Lazarus would have continued to have been a stable democracy.

Glen-Rhodes has a total of 4 posts in the FRA forum, and was last seen in June 2011.

We've discussed the PRL several times, and as I said in this thread, we could spend a very long time talking about it. It arose out of DYP and Harmoneia, hardly two "defender ideologues", discovering that a security threat is posed. It thus seems likely that had they not taken their actions, Laz would be far from a "stable democracy".

The legality of the move is contested. It went to a forum vote, so it was far from clear-cut illegal. In any case, it is no more nefarious than the various times factions in Osiris got rid of political enemies, suspended the Constitution, et cetera. You don't have such a great difficulty with those.

I think the idea that the five or so people were a threat is ridiculous, particularly when the only person with in-game experience in Griffin had been delegate before with no issues. It's pretty clear to me at least, that we do not know whether Lazarus would have continued to have been a stable democracy without the PRL coup. However what is clear is that with the PRL coup it was no longer a stable democracy and it normalized behaviour that a lot of people took exception to. Behaviour that I have heard rumoured to not be outside the realm of possibilities today.

But that is neither here nor there. The point is that many of the regions Unibot has listed as being morally superior when it comes to couping regions is completely bogus. If we want to go back further, let's not forget that Sedgistan with the approval or at least knowledge of other members higher up in TRR couped The South Pacific. This was something I and Europeia had taken great exception to. So I just find the viewpoint that Balder or Osiris to be less trustworthy than our fellow democratic GCRs to be completely false. Which I suspect you agree with me on.

Balder itself has not had any purges and only a single coup with a rogue delegate, yet Unibot is here extolling the virtues of coups and purges. Perhaps we should be asking him to write the guidebook for NS dictatorship. I'm sure every region which prefers the world of 1984 could learn from the doublethink he presents.

[Unibot III]

Besides Sedgistan & Crazygirl themselves, I can't think of any member who supported the coup who is actually still a TRRer - the TRR support came from Europeian ex-pats and Empire members who had joined TRR and subsequently left when Sedge beat Nai in the elections.

Since then TRR has elected delegates like myself who opposed the Devonitians coup and it's been on very good terms with the South Pacific.

I would be the first to say TRR couldn't be trusted as an actor if the Empire were to return to influence and prominence in TRR. That much should be obvious. However the Citizenship Council holds Empire members on a strict blacklist, if I recall correctly.

Edit: it should be said that the Devonitians coup predates Balder by several months.

[North East Somerset]

Besides Sedgistan & Crazygirl themselves, I can't think of any member who supported the coup who is actually still a TRRer - the TRR support came from Europeian ex-pats

Name them.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Unibot has selective memory. Glen-Rhodes and TRR (along with Lazarus were/are FRA) if I recall correctly supported the PRL coup in Lazarus. At the very least, Glen-Rhodes pushed for a TSP treaty with the PRL despite the fact that it couped and purged Lazarus. The idea that one can legitimately complain about the NLO couping the PRL without also critiquing the PRL coup is simply fantasy. If the defenders in Lazarus had not decided to help coup and purge their political enemies, there would have been no NLO coup and Lazarus would have continued to have been a stable democracy.

... woosh

That's the sound of point flying over your head. You cannot maintain on principle both these positions simultaneously:

1. I strongly oppose to PRL purge of imperialists in Lazarus.
2. I strongly support the Hileville coup in TSP.

Yet here you are...

I'm not the one claiming moral superiority here. I think Lazarus did the right thing by purging imperialists from their region. I gave up long ago on the Gameplay community's ability to oppose coups, purges, etc., with any sort of principled consistency. Imperialists are a scourge in whatever GCRs they insert themselves into. At least the PRL was honest about their reason. Hileville lied and continued lying, and you repeat his lies.

[Unibot III]

Besides Sedgistan & Crazygirl themselves, I can't think of any member who supported the coup who is actually still a TRRer - the TRR support came from Europeian ex-pats

Name them.

Euro Ex-Pats:
Oliver
Earth

(Both former heads of government...)

Empire members:
Whamabama
Biyah
Dalimbar

And Naivetry, who I'd consider an ally and friend of the Empire at least.

This thread is particularly amusing in retrospect. Crazygirl and the Empire stirring up a motion for an impeachment of me for banning Crazygirl and Empire members from #fra while we were organizing a liberation of the South Pacific from.. Crazygirl/Sedgistan and co.

They also threatened to force a departure of TRR from the FRA - again, based on the deliberate falsehood that Devonitians was some sort of humble native doing his or her duty to Fudge and country.

The Devonitians coup is complicated in relation to TRR because the Empire tried to snitch on Sedgistan and Crazygirl as a way of absolving themselves from the coup and put Sedgistan/Crazygirl on the defensive in TRR - and benefit from the weakening of Sedgistan/Crazygirl's standing in TRR. If TRR had reacted by not electing Sedgistan or trying to remove them both from key offices or dropping the RRA, we would have effectively have been playing to the hands of the Empire and their attempted powergrab. Instead, we forgave Sedgistan and Crazygirl, the Empire left in frustration and we've worked to repair relations with the South Pacific. Today's TRR members are a very different demographic - more defender roots. TRR in 2011 was not defender and in fact, came close to dropping the RRA altogether. The future delegates - Frattastan, myself, LR and Church - were players that got involved in TRR through the FRA or through defending or through the RRA, and are more familiar with TRR under Guy/Sedgistan than Naivetry or Kandarin.

[North East Somerset]

Name them.

Euro Ex-Pats:
Oliver
Earth

(Both former heads of government...)

And yet, less than 18 months later, you appointed Earth to be UDL Chief of Feeder and Sinker Affairs.

In your own words; "She was by far my first choice for this appointment".

The expression "when it suits", comes to mind.

[Unibot III]

Euro Ex-Pats:
Oliver
Earth

(Both former heads of government...)

And yet, less than 18 months later, you appointed Earth to be UDL Chief of Feeder and Sinker Affairs.

In your own words; "She was by far my first choice for this appointment".

The expression "when it suits", comes to mind.

I also brought in Oli too, at least briefly. And Dali and Biyah and NK.

Some of them had repented involvement in the Devonitians coup and were looking to get involved in defending more concretely. Earth and Oliver were both very talented and experienced players; I would have been stupid to have turned them away at the UDL's door. In the case of the Empire, I saw Wham as a mentor (he was actually the person who taught me the basics of defending - the only defending organizations I was a member of besides UDL were the E-Army* and the RRA - I was never a Ranger.) And I didn't recognize the threat that the Empire was at the time. I naively believed they had leaked the identities of Sedgistan and Crazygirl the year before to undermine the coup, rather than to undermine Sedgistan/Crazygirl politically in TRR.

But you've completely ignored the point: TRR that worked behind the scenes on Devonitians was not TRR that TRR is today. Its members would be properly horrified at the idea. TRR's voting public leaned far more heavily to unaffiliated invaders and Empire members - people looking to cause trouble in the GCRs. Today's TRR is pretty much the exact opposite.

*This is why when I'm asked I regard myself to be a distant grandson of the Benelux tradition of defending through Ostendt and Ballotonia, rather than the ADN or FRA. It was that tradition which E-Army was pretty much the last remaining product of, when I arrived to the game in 2008.

[Belschaft]

Why are we bothering to debate the blatant and obvious hypocrisy of Unibot and his supporters? We all know how this ends, with them maintaining that all the pro-defender coups they've supported or ignored over the years are aberrations and thus don't count. It's a coup when defenders or their allies are removed, a necessary security action when raiders or their allies are removed. This should surprise no one.

The only surprising thing about this whole farce is that there are still people in NS who don't recognise hypocrisy when it's staring them in the face, and fall for the old "I'm a defender and thus the good guy" line.

[Guy]

Why are we bothering to debate the blatant and obvious hypocrisy of Unibot and his supporters? We all know how this ends, with them maintaining that all the pro-defender coups they've supported or ignored over the years are aberrations and thus don't count. It's a coup when defenders or their allies are removed, a necessary security action when raiders or their allies are removed. This should surprise no one.

The only surprising thing about this whole farce is that there are still people in NS who don't recognise hypocrisy when it's staring them in the face, and fall for the old "I'm a defender and thus the good guy" line.

I can only think of one such (alleged) coup: The ejection of two nations from Lazarus.

If you want to have a go at defenders for Lazarus, go ahead. You have to contend with the facts that DYP and Harmoneia, hardly two defender ideologues, believed a security threat existed. You also have to contend with the fact that the actions were not as clearly illegal as you'd like to think - it's a borderline case at worst.

As has been well-established in this thread, there have been a fair few extralegal actions in GCRs. Most end up failing and being called "coups". Others are acquiesced to, or even supported. And much of it goes down to subjective interpretation of their merits.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that defenders are more likely to see invaders as security threats. If you do look at it objectively, I don't think defenders have been nearly as involved in coups as invaders, but no matter.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why are we bothering to debate the blatant and obvious hypocrisy of Unibot and his supporters? We all know how this ends, with them maintaining that all the pro-defender coups they've supported or ignored over the years are aberrations and thus don't count. It's a coup when defenders or their allies are removed, a necessary security action when raiders or their allies are removed. This should surprise no one.

The only surprising thing about this whole farce is that there are still people in NS who don't recognise hypocrisy when it's staring them in the face, and fall for the old "I'm a defender and thus the good guy" line.

Says the guy who encouraged Hileville to coup TSP, kept it secret, then turned himself into a savior by "reasoning with" Hileville to hand over his account to him when the plan was failing... Come on. That's too easy.

---

Anyways, to comment on the OP and Unibot's overall idea. I'm not sure how feasible it is to go treaty first, friends after. But the overall idea here is that Gameplay needs a conflict, and I actually do agree with that. If democracy vs non-democracy is the most available bloc a conflict can form around, it's probably worth exploring. It helps that Osiris, NPO, etc., have engaged in activities the past couple years that are reason enough to generate conflict without taking form of government into it at all.

Anti-imperialists won-without-winning the last conflict when UIAF dissolved. Raiders vs defenders is a fast dying breed of conflict. Internal regional politics can only sustain activity so much and for so long, before you have to start advocating the whole "coups generate activity" line. You can only coup so many times before your community dies altogether. While stability is great on the domestic front, because it discourages harmful coups, it's the death knell of Gameplay. The only people hurt when Gameplay's polarity is aligned for conflict are the cosmopolitans, anyways. Who cares about them??

[Cerian Quilor]

The only people hurt when Gameplay's polarity is aligned for conflict are the cosmopolitans, anyways. Who cares about them??

I honestly can't tell if sarcasm or genuine.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Anyways, to comment on the OP and Unibot's overall idea. I'm not sure how feasible it is to go treaty first, friends after. But the overall idea here is that Gameplay needs a conflict, and I actually do agree with that. If democracy vs non-democracy is the most available bloc a conflict can form around, it's probably worth exploring. It helps that Osiris, NPO, etc., have engaged in activities the past couple years that are reason enough to generate conflict without taking form of government into it at all.

Anti-imperialists won-without-winning the last conflict when UIAF dissolved. Raiders vs defenders is a fast dying breed of conflict. Internal regional politics can only sustain activity so much and for so long, before you have to start advocating the whole "coups generate activity" line. You can only coup so many times before your community dies altogether. While stability is great on the domestic front, because it discourages harmful coups, it's the death knell of Gameplay. The only people hurt when Gameplay's polarity is aligned for conflict are the cosmopolitans, anyways. Who cares about them??

With the sole exception of the brief war against Lazarus in 2015, which resulted in nothing more than heated Gameplay posts, Osiris has never encroached upon the sovereignty of another Feeder or Sinker, and has actively defended other Feeders and Sinkers -- including the South Pacific and Lazarus -- from coups d'etat. So unless Osiris' internal conflicts are enough to generate conflict, I'm not sure to what you are referring, and I really don't think it is at all appropriate to lump Osiris in with the NPO, which attempted to annex a Sinker.

Moving on to your broader point, I generally agree with you that gameplay needs conflict, but gameplay's needs also have to be balanced with our regions' interests. Is it really in the interests of our regions to essentially consciously decide to engage in conflict with each other to stimulate gameplay activity? Unlike with past conflicts like TNI and LKE against the FRA and the UDL, it is much more likely in a conflict between Feeders and Sinkers -- founderless regions, albeit very secure ones -- that someone will actually win, which also means someone will actually lose. I don't like the odds of the regions with Delegacies that change hands by democratic election every few months, versus the regions with Delegacies that change hands once a year or even less frequently based upon appointment by the outgoing Delegate.

TL;DR: Is it in the interests of any Feeder or Sinker to start a war they may lose, potentially resulting in the loss of their region, for the sake of gameplay activity? Let the user-created gameplay regions who talk a big game and strut their stuff while hiding behind their founders launch pointless wars, they're very good at it and it's really all they have to do.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Dude, Cormac, you closed embassies left and right

Is it really in the interests of our regions to essentially consciously decide to engage in conflict with each other to deliver conflict that will stimulate gameplay activity?

I mean, I can turn this question around, as well. Is it really in the interests of our regions to contribute to the heat death of Gameplay, but consciously avoiding conflict at all costs?

Something's gotta give. Like I said, though, it helps that the non-democratic GCRs (whether you agree with me on that or not!) have created plenty of other reasons to dislike them. And, of course, they have plenty of reasons to dislike TSP, TNP, TRR, Laz, etc.

Btw, Osiris lumped themselves in with the NPO!