NationStates

Consular wrote:What does the line between Albion and TNP represent?

The North Pacific and Albion Security Treaty? Or was that voided in Albion's semi-recent FA change. It's still hosted on TNP's forum as active...

Cerian Quilor wrote:Tl;dr: Osiris has a lot of treaties, treaties increase security, multilateral treaties make the game more interesting, there should be more GCR multilateral treaties.

Yes, and more specifically, multilateral treaties can work where bilateral treaties fail. When X and Y don't like each and Z and A hate each other, a functional multi-agreement between X,Y, Z and A is a more pragmatic and political solution than trying to make bilateral treaties work between the quarrelsome X and Y, or Z and A.

In the past, a lot of people have always thought the 'proper' evolution for relations was Niceties --> NAP ---> Agreements ---> Treaties ---> Multilateral Pacts. I'm saying the reverse can be more effective and pragmatic when parties in this context really need to get along (for their own interest): Hostility --> Multilateral Pacts ---> Treaties ---> Agreements ---> NAP ---> Niceties.

It's a way of seeing multilateral pacts, instead of as a 'gift' to be earned through friendship, as a functional arrangement to keep regions associated even if only with the safety of other partners in the relationship. It's pretty much the opposite of the traditional school of thought but I believe it's salient and appropriate in this context.

(I'm bad at this 'Tl;dr:' stuff...)

Unibot III wrote:

Consular wrote:What does the line between Albion and TNP represent?

The North Pacific and Albion Security Treaty? Or was that voided in Albion's semi-recent FA change. It's still hosted on TNP's forum as active...

Cerian Quilor wrote:Tl;dr: Osiris has a lot of treaties, treaties increase security, multilateral treaties make the game more interesting, there should be more GCR multilateral treaties.

Yes, and more specifically, multilateral treaties can work where bilateral treaties fail. When X and Y don't like each and Z and A hate each other, a functional multi-agreement between X,Y, Z and A is a more pragmatic and political solution than trying to make bilateral treaties work between the quarrelsome X and Y, or Z and A.

In the past, a lot of people have always thought the 'proper' evolution for relations was Niceties --> NAP ---> Agreements ---> Treaties ---> Multilateral Pacts. I'm saying the reverse can be more effective and pragmatic when parties in this context really need to get along (for their own interest): Hostility --> Multilateral Pacts ---> Treaties ---> Agreements ---> NAP ---> Niceties.

It's a way of seeing multilateral pacts, instead of as a 'gift' to be earned through friendship, as a functional arrangement to keep regions associated even if only with the safety of other partners in the relationship. It's pretty much the opposite of the traditional school of thought but I believe it's salient and appropriate in this context.

(I'm bad at this 'Tl;dr:' stuff...)

I was about to say... you just un-tl;dr'd the tl;dr, with your quote above clocking in as between a fifth and a quarter of the length of your original post!

TL/DR: Something something Multilateral Treaties!!!!!

Interesting. Yes, I can agree that multilateral treaties between democratic GCRs are beneficial. I think they could increase co-operation and security between democracies, especially against coups.

Unibot, stop ripping off my material

I would strongly echo Solorni's comments regarding your perspective on Balder. We are a free and open democracy.

Incidentally, insofar as bilateral treaties are concerned, your diagram overlooks the LKE's treaties with Osiris, Albion, UK and Equilism, and TNI is no longer allied with Europeia or Balder.

Belschaft wrote:Unibot, stop ripping off my material

Ha, busted!

Onderkelkia wrote:Incidentally, insofar as bilateral treaties are concerned, your diagram overlooks the LKE's treaties with Osiris, Albion, UK and Equilism, and TNI is no longer allied with Europeia or Balder.

Oops, not sure why I missed the LKE-Osiris treaty. I'll rack the others up to not having access to them. I believe Europeia still has TNI's treaty hosted in its index.

Belschaft wrote:Unibot, stop ripping off my material

Hah, you were advocating an independentist bloc of sorts. I don't see that in the interests of the GCRs nowadays, particularly TSP, since it's a democratic alliance that's needed to counter the GCR Sovereignty Accord. We're both realists, but the point of the article was to show I had a different view of when to alliance - I was not expecting a plagiarism accusation.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:I was about to say... you just un-tl;dr'd the tl;dr, with your quote above clocking in as between a fifth and a quarter of the length of your original post!

Yes, that was.... unfortunate.

Unibot III wrote:I believe Europeia still has TNI's treaty hosted in its index.

There are copies of several past Europeia-TNI treaties in the Void Treaties section, but none appears in the main Treaty Law section of the index.

Onderkelkia wrote:

Unibot III wrote:I believe Europeia still has TNI's treaty hosted in its index.

There are copies of several past Europeia-TNI treaties in the Void Treaties section, but none appears in the main Treaty Law section of the index.

Ah, I was counting the "The Bealtaine Accord (2013)" between TNI and Euro - but now that I'm looking into its content, it's not a traditional treaty, I see.

Unibot III wrote:

Onderkelkia wrote:There are copies of several past Europeia-TNI treaties in the Void Treaties section, but none appears in the main Treaty Law section of the index.

Ah, I was counting the "The Bealtaine Accord (2013)" between TNI and Euro - but now that I'm looking into its content, it's not a traditional treaty, I see.

That is a TNI-led multilateral cultural treaty with several other participating regions - though in practical terms it has been dormant for some time.

Ryccia wrote:Interesting. Yes, I can agree that multilateral treaties between democratic GCRs are beneficial. I think they could increase co-operation and security between democracies, especially against coups.

Hey Ryccia, it's been ages! I agree, that's my basic point. I was really worried about TSP's last coup and the lack of a diplomatic response. It's my belief that unless the democratic GCRs alliance more, fill in the fissures between them with a multilateral pact, that some democratic GCRs are at risk of having their coupers receive more diplomatic support than them.

And none of this normal. In the past, when a democratic GCR was couped, the coupers were widely condemned.

Onderkelkia wrote:Incidentally, insofar as bilateral treaties are concerned, your diagram overlooks the LKE's treaties with Osiris, Albion, UK and Equilism, and TNI is no longer allied with Europeia or Balder.

Here's the updated map, thanks for spotting the corrections:

Are the circles supposed to be spheres of influence?

Unibot III wrote:

Ryccia wrote:Interesting. Yes, I can agree that multilateral treaties between democratic GCRs are beneficial. I think they could increase co-operation and security between democracies, especially against coups.

Hey Ryccia, it's been ages! I agree, that's my basic point. I was really worried about TSP's last coup and the lack of a diplomatic response. It's my belief that unless the democratic GCRs alliance more, fill in the fissures between them with a multilateral pact, that some democratic GCRs are at risk of having their coupers receive more diplomatic support than them.

And none of this normal. In the past, when a democratic GCR was couped, the coupers were widely condemned.

And the reason behind that was simple; our 2016 constitutional crisis was a complicated and messy event, and not easily or accurately described as a coup. TSP itself very intentionally didn't refer to it as such in the Assembly Resolution we adopted to resolve the crisis, though some citizens and legislators do choose to call it a coup. There was a diplomatic response, it simply wasn't a universal declaration against the Cabinet and in support of the CSS members calling it a coup. It has to be noted that those allies of TSP who took a nuanced position, rather than issuing such a declaration, were the ones who helped resolve the dispute.

Also, if we're making map corrections; there is no question about the legal status of the TSP-Balder alliance. It remains in force.

Unibot III wrote:

Ryccia wrote:Interesting. Yes, I can agree that multilateral treaties between democratic GCRs are beneficial. I think they could increase co-operation and security between democracies, especially against coups.

Hey Ryccia, it's been ages! I agree, that's my basic point. I was really worried about TSP's last coup and the lack of a diplomatic response. It's my belief that unless the democratic GCRs alliance more, fill in the fissures between them with a multilateral pact, that some democratic GCRs are at risk of having their coupers receive more diplomatic support than them.

And none of this normal. In the past, when a democratic GCR was couped, the coupers were widely condemned.

Exactly! I had a similar idea a few days ago, just an idea in my head, but it's nice to see there are people who think similar to me. Your article was very detailed, at least to me, I think. I agree with you. My reaction to this was: finally, someone talks about this! And in a detailed way!

Yes, it is dissapointing when democratic GCRs stay neutral or indifferent to a coup in a fellow democratic GCR. If they care about democracy, they would help other fellow GCRs in need. I think that regions don't seem to care anymore, from my viewpoint. Or at least self-absorbed. I'm not the best person for politics nor foreign affairs, or even a person of this at all, so my thoughts might be completely wrong (which I probably am).

Is there a gameplay thread that talks about this recent TSP-affair anywhere?

Canton Empire wrote:Are the circles supposed to be spheres of influence?

"Red - COPS. Yellow - CAIN. Green - Arnhelm."

They are looser multilateral treaties. The Convention on Offsite Property Security (COPS) is a treaty against forum destruction, and the Arnhelm Declaration regulates recruitment.

Frattastan II wrote:

Canton Empire wrote:Are the circles supposed to be spheres of influence?

"Red - COPS. Yellow - CAIN. Green - Arnhelm."

They are looser multilateral treaties. The Convention on Offsite Property Security (COPS) is a treaty against forum destruction, and the Arnhelm Declaration regulates recruitment.

Ahhh ok, I thought I was colorblind for a second

You missed a treaty ally of Albion btw. Albion was Kingdom of Alexandria's first and only, full treaty ally. From what I remember being told by an Alexandrian friend, Europeia's document is a cultural accord between them rather than the full on nine-yards bilateral treaty that was the Silverpine-Sapphire document even though it was written entirely in roleplay style.

Belschaft wrote:Also, if we're making map corrections; there is no question about the legal status of the TSP-Balder alliance. It remains in force.

I've heard about four different answers to that question depending on who you ask. And given Balder didn't intervene in the last coup, I can't see why for the purposes of this analysis they would count as a treatied ally - it's clear that the treaty in practice is not in force and its legal status is also widely contested.

Lord Duran Aeducan wrote:You missed a treaty ally of Albion btw. Albion was Kingdom of Alexandria's first and only, full treaty ally. From what I remember being told by an Alexandrian friend, Europeia's document is a cultural accord between them rather than the full on nine-yards bilateral treaty that was the Silverpine-Sapphire document even though it was written entirely in roleplay style.

Awesome! I'll add it when I have the time. It wasn't a deliberate miss, I just didn't have that data available to me.

Frattastan II wrote:

Canton Empire wrote:Are the circles supposed to be spheres of influence?

"Red - COPS. Yellow - CAIN. Green - Arnhelm."

They are looser multilateral treaties. The Convention on Offsite Property Security (COPS) is a treaty against forum destruction, and the Arnhelm Declaration regulates recruitment.

Fratt's got the idea. I apologize though if I missed out anyone signed up to COPS. There's no list of signatories, so it was kind of guesswork on my part.

Ryccia wrote:

Unibot III wrote:
Hey Ryccia, it's been ages! I agree, that's my basic point. I was really worried about TSP's last coup and the lack of a diplomatic response. It's my belief that unless the democratic GCRs alliance more, fill in the fissures between them with a multilateral pact, that some democratic GCRs are at risk of having their coupers receive more diplomatic support than them.

And none of this normal. In the past, when a democratic GCR was couped, the coupers were widely condemned.

Exactly! I had a similar idea a few days ago, just an idea in my head, but it's nice to see there are people who think similar to me. Your article was very detailed, at least to me, I think. I agree with you. My reaction to this was: finally, someone talks about this! And in a detailed way!

Yes, it is dissapointing when democratic GCRs stay neutral or indifferent to a coup in a fellow democratic GCR. If they care about democracy, they would help other fellow GCRs in need. I think that regions don't seem to care anymore, from my viewpoint. Or at least self-absorbed. I'm not the best person for politics nor foreign affairs, or even a person of this at all, so my thoughts might be completely wrong (which I probably am).

Part of why I wrote this thread was to arm interested citizens like you with evidence, so you could be able to point to this game theory work and say "see, it is in our interests!" Because I find a lot of FA guys in NS tend to neglect and flippantly dismiss the regional value and interest in multilateral pacts. I'm genuinely worried about some of the GCRs - I think they're setting themselves up for trouble by not balancing the GCR Sovereignty Accords with their own framework. Regardless it's something to press upon your officials; perhaps TIL/ADC might adopt it as party policy - I expect they'll be at least receptive to the idea. Glen-Rhodes, for starters, has always been an internationalist and a pro-democratic voice. (Although we don't always see eye to eye.)

Belschaft wrote:And the reason behind that was simple; our 2016 constitutional crisis was a complicated and messy event, and not easily or accurately described as a coup. TSP itself very intentionally didn't refer to it as such in the Assembly Resolution we adopted to resolve the crisis, though some citizens and legislators do choose to call it a coup.

A government dissolved the constitution, banished political opponents and assumed complete power. That is a textbook definition of 'coup'. It's you who introduced the alternative narrative of it being a "constitutional crisis", as if there was anything ambiguous about its legality.

--

A great read Uni! Glad to see you're still coming up with great and innovative concepts.

Unibot III wrote:

Belschaft wrote:Also, if we're making map corrections; there is no question about the legal status of the TSP-Balder alliance. It remains in force.

I've heard about four different answers to that question depending on who you ask. And given Balder didn't intervene in the last coup, I can't see why for the purposes of this analysis they would count as a treatied ally - it's clear that the treaty in practice is not in force and its legal status is also widely contested.

The treaty remains in both Balder and TSP's legal archives. When a past MoFA attempted to remove it, it was put back. TSP - in response to the court dispute over the question - established a new, clear and binding procedure for treaty dissolution. This procedure has not been used to dissolve the Balder treaty.

Short of someone producing a court ruling to the contrary, the treaty cannot be considered dissolved by any reasonable individual.

Kringalia wrote:

Belschaft wrote:And the reason behind that was simple; our 2016 constitutional crisis was a complicated and messy event, and not easily or accurately described as a coup. TSP itself very intentionally didn't refer to it as such in the Assembly Resolution we adopted to resolve the crisis, though some citizens and legislators do choose to call it a coup.

A government dissolved the constitution, banished political opponents and assumed complete power. That is a textbook definition of 'coup'. It's you who introduced the alternative narrative of it being a "constitutional crisis", as if there was anything ambiguous about its legality.

And yet this "alternative narrative" is one widely accepted, and TSP's Assembly explicitly did not call it a coup.

It seems to me that the major flaw in this analysis is the implication that the Feeders and Sinkers must be pitted against each other, and that the GCR Sovereignty Accords represent some kind of threat to the so-called "democratic" GCRs -- which, to be clear, are relatively democratic, but not any moreso than, for example, Balder. I don't see any reason that the four Feeders and Sinkers involved in the GCR Sovereignty Accords should be regarded as hostile to the other five Feeders and Sinkers. The GCR Sovereignty Accords are about those four regions respecting a basic mutual worldview and governments based on that worldview, not about pushing that worldview onto other Feeder and Sinker regions or their governments.

Would it be fine for the other five Feeders and Sinkers to adopt a multilateral treaty based on their own basic mutual worldview, assuming such a mutual worldview exists between them? Of course. It is always a good thing when regions define their identities and are secure in their identities. But I don't think it's helpful or even accurate, in 2017, to describe this in terms of a "cold war" or other hostility. It's like this essay is frozen in 2014-15. Relations have been improving recently between Feeders and Sinkers, across ideological barriers. Some positive relations have always existed across ideological barriers, such as the treaty alliance that has existed between The East Pacific and Osiris since 2014, or the non-aggression pact between Osiris and The Rejected Realms which both regions continue to honor. Ultimately, the greatest guarantor of the security of Feeders and Sinkers is for all Feeders and Sinkers to stand united against violations of each other's sovereignty, and rather than encouraging hostility and a revived cold war, it makes more sense to encourage continuation of the recent thaw.

We would be better off ultimately working toward something like the Pan-Sinker Security Pact for all Feeders and Sinkers, minus the flaws that eventually brought down the PSSP.

TL;DR: Sure, let groups of Feeders and Sinkers agree to defend each other based on their shared principles, but there is no need for that to be transformed into hostility or for it to preclude defense of Feeders and Sinkers that don't share those principles. No new "cold war" -- encourage the opposite, which is the current trend anyway.