CONVENTION ON SOVEREIGN REGIONS

by **Levantx** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:53 pm

Dear Leaders of many regions (too many regions) ....

We need some regional Order, a new region Order..
That is why I as Minister on Foreign Affairs from Thaecia, invite you all to the Font Convention.

the purpose of the convention, Let us discuss interregional law defining the sovereignty of a region.

DISCORD CONVENTION or in here (bellow)

a first draft of a TREATY can be found in here

by **Saint Vladimir the Great** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:05 pm

by **Lyrical International Brigade** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:03 pm

I simply cannot express how disappointed I am that the Font Convention is not a convention for discussing fonts.

Sans serif? More like sans soul!

(yeah I went there)

by **Cuba-Venezuela** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:05 pm

Lyrical International Brigade wrote:I simply cannot express how disappointed I am that the Font Convention is not a convention for discussing fonts.

Sans serif? More like sans soul!

(yeah I went there)

this but unironically

EDIT: That confused emoji was accidental. Lol.

by **Aynia Moreaux** » Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:46 am

I still can't figure out why it's called font convention? :/

by **Kaystein** » Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:38 am

Alright, i'll take a look later. This looks interesting.

by **Cossack Peoples** » Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:40 am

Ban comic sans, it's distasteful and unpatriotic.

by **Blood Wine** » Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:30 am

Fun fact: Enadia will likely be there

by **Kaystein** » Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:51 am

Looking beyond the name, the document is simple and straightforward. Article one could be edited to lower the number of active nations residing in a region before it qualifies.

by **Fransmany** » Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:00 am

It’s called the Font treaty because that is the name of Levantx’s capital city.

It reads very well for a first draft. I’m not in a position to work for such a goal, but UCR agreements are always interesting to watch play out.

by **Levantx** » Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:23 pm

Hi guys,

Thanks for the feedback. I ve indeed posted the treaty as a draft in here. No definitive version far from it.

Lowering the WA nations requirement is something debatable; Yes, I had no inspiration so I just named it after my own Capital (Font City).

I posted the draft version in here, just to see who and what kind or reaction would follow. Out of My frustration as Minister on Foreign Affairs to deal with (I am sorry) very very small regions who actually have no real representation or credibility, to cooperate with in events... raiding or defending or other Interregional organisation. Because they just do not carry the vote.

The goal of the Treaty (If supported also by major regions as Osiris and others) is to agree among those major region NOT to recognize those smaller regions as "equals" or sovereign. So that it is less attractive to create meaningless UCR's unless you have a group/community support.

by **Lenlyvit** » Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:43 pm

I do not agree with this type of move. Any region, regardless of size, is a sovereign region and should be treated as such. Trying to limit what falls under the categorization of sovereign when it comes to regions in this way is wrong. If you have trouble trying to run events with small regions, find bigger regions to run events with. This just sounds like a way for ego stroking and a way for larger regions to keep smaller regions down, which I personally would never ever agree too.

by **Aynia Moreaux** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:58 am

is to agree among those major region NOT to recognize those smaller regions as "equals" or sovereign. So that it is less attractive to create meaningless UCR's unless you have a group/community support.

I don't think this is the way to go about weeding out smaller, ineffective regions. CS is two years old, has a core community that is very active and wouldn't be allowed to sign this treaty because we only have like ~15 WA votes. World assembly endorsements are not a catch all for who's 'sovereign' or not.

Edit: Also as UCR's, why are you worried about the support of Osiris and other GCR's supporting this treaty and your view on who deserves sovereignty? You shouldn't be looking to GCR's to guide your UCR decisions.

by **Warzone Codger** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:34 am

Support. Time for the Oligarchs to band together and shake things up...

It's not that far fetched to be honest; many big regions already have size requirements before you can make embassies with them for them to acknowledge you. This mainly appears to be formalising it and banding it together at the multi regional level.

Rather than debating the merits of it, I want to know what it actually does.

by **Pangurstan** » Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:12 pm

Warzone Codger wrote:Support. Time for the Oligarchs to band together and shake things up...

It's not that far fetched to be honest; many big regions already have size requirements before you can make embassies with them for them to acknowledge you. This mainly appears to be formalising it and banding it together at the multi regional level.

Rather than debating the merits of it, I want to know what it actually does.

It looks like it just defines regions with less than 35 WA members as non-sovereign.

by **Warzone Codger** » Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:15 pm

Pangurstan wrote:
Warzone Codger wrote:Support. Time for the Oligarchs to band together and shake things up...

It's not that far fetched to be honest; many big regions already have size requirements before you can make embassies with them for them to acknowledge you. This mainly appears to be formalising it and banding it together at the multi regional level.

Rather than debating the merits of it, I want to know what it actually does.

It looks like it just defines regions with less than 35 WA members as non-sovereign.

Making my point that I'll be more interesting if it did something. No embassies? Block on all communication on forums and discord? Are all residents/nations within a sovereign region bound by this as individuals? Do we also block refusal to buy cards from non sovereign region.

So many possibilities to shake things up depending on where they want to go....and if they could pull it off

by **Levantx** » Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:19 pm

To reply on some reaction. but First thanks for the debate, that is what I was trying to achieve.

About the 35 limit, it is just a number it can lowered down or scaled up deppending on many things.

I am in favour of creating bigger obstacle, or at least, making it less attractive for a "one person region" to create a region. I do believe that a region should be at least an active group of people. Not a one person or two person dream to create a region with the purpose of gaining power. If everyone thinks like that, which apparantly happens, the consequence will be that we have toooo mannnyyy regions, with less or no meaning at all.

I think the next big thing for Nationstates (or at least I hope) is interregional cooperation and linkages. It was in the past that regions where some how independent and individual entities from each other. However we see clearly that much more regions do invest in cross-regional cooperation, e.g. events like song contests, card lotteries, sports and gaming events, WA cooperation and so much more. Regions do become interdependent.

So the answer is not more small regions, but more big regions, and that is something we do not have here in NS. I am not saying that small regions serve no purpose. Because being part of a smaller regions is even more fun sometimes than a big region, locality, like minded people and sometimes more activity possibilities.

However having a discourage to create and create more regions should be somewhat supported to encourage more cooperation between regions. As Warzone Codger said it depends on where we want to go. You can have a region, but having the right to cooperate with other regions and being part of "the interregional community" as soverein region or equal as some others should be limited. Like the United Nations, a nation is recognized by others only when it fullfils some criteria.

by **East Meranopirus** » Sat Dec 21, 2019 3:49 am

Levantx wrote:I think the next big thing for Nationstates (or at least I hope) is interregional cooperation and linkages.

I think you've been living under a rock named Thaecia since the beginning of your time in NS. I thought every knew that interregional cooperation has been a vital part of NS since its beginning.

by **Latrovia** » Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:45 pm

East Meranopirus wrote:
Levantx wrote:I think the next big thing for Nationstates (or at least I hope) is interregional cooperation and linkages.

I think you've been living under a rock named Thaecia since the beginning of your time in NS. I thought every knew that interregional cooperation has been a vital part of NS since its beginning.

I strongly discourage this sort of insensitive, ugly and quite frankly offensive behavior! Be better!

by **Fransmany** » Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:46 pm

So the philosophy behind this convention is diet Francoism?

So the answer is not more small regions, but more big regions, and that is something we do not have here in NS. I am not saying that small regions serve no purpose. Because being part of a smaller regions is even more fun sometimes than a big region, locality, like minded people and sometimes more activity possibilities.

by **Xoriet** » Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:46 am

Fransmany wrote:So the philosophy behind this convention is diet Francoism?

So the answer is not more small regions, but more big regions, and that is something we do not have here in NS. I am not saying that small regions serve no purpose. Because being part of a smaller regions is even more fun sometimes than a big region, locality, like minded people and sometimes more activity possibilities.

Not really anything like Francoism, unless you mean the elitist mindset behind it. Francoism had nothing to do with devaluing regions' rights to determining sovereignty. Later on it was used in ways that completely did undermine that exact thing, but that was not related to the original document at all.

What you're looking at is a weird mindset where suddenly regions with no particular importance here think they have the right to call other regions unworthy of being called sovereign because they don't meet the qualifications of this certain group trying to elevate themselves above the others.

This is a weird way to try to gain relevancy. If you want the support of the GCRs to declare that regions of a certain size should be ostracized from the community because they don't meet your qualifications, I doubt you'll be getting it from most of us. GCR mechanics are totally different to UCR mechanics. You can't compare us at all. If you're using the GCRs to determine the rights of smaller UCRs, you're making a big mistake.

I'm definitely against the idea of your group trying to climb up the social ladder by disregarding other regions that struggle to make it or are happy in a smaller state.

by **Lyrical International Brigade** » Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:12 am

Xoriet wrote:...What you're looking at is a weird mindset where suddenly regions with no particular importance here think they have the right to call other regions unworthy of being called sovereign because they don't meet the qualifications of this certain group trying to elevate themselves above the others....

...I'm definitely against the idea of your group trying to climb up the social ladder by disregarding other regions that struggle to make it or are happy in a smaller state.

Very well put. In fact, what is now crystal clear is that someone needs ~~a hug~~ some Anarchy!

by **Warzone Codger** » Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:02 pm

Xoriet wrote:
Fransmany wrote:So the philosophy behind this convention is diet Francoism?

Not really anything like Francoism, unless you mean the elitist mindset behind it. Francoism had nothing to do with devaluing regions' rights to determining sovereignty. Later on it was used in ways that completely did undermine that exact thing, but that was not related to the original document at all.

What you're looking at is a weird mindset where suddenly regions with no particular importance here think they have the right to call other regions unworthy of being called sovereign because they don't meet the qualifications of this certain group trying to elevate themselves above the others.

This is a weird way to try to gain relevancy. If you want the support of the GCRs to declare that regions of a certain size should be ostracized from the community because they don't meet your qualifications, I doubt you'll be getting it from most of us. GCR mechanics are totally different to UCR mechanics. You can't compare us at all. If you're using the GCRs to determine the rights of smaller UCRs, you're making a big mistake.

I'm definitely against the idea of your group trying to climb up the social ladder by disregarding other regions that struggle to make it or are happy in a smaller state.

I think it a strange thing that GP is so narrow in the regions we give attention to. I am guilty of it myself. By objective measures their home region, Thaecia has over 200 Nations and 100 Endos, making it one of the largest UCRs and solid base to be heard and start throwing some politic in GP and cause some waves.

The declaration isn't too far a stretch from what's typical policy of most large regions. Looking at the Embassy and Consulate polices of several large regions

That is every non puppet region larger than Thaecia and some of then only have a third of the WAs Thaecia has. There's a diverse range in requirements between regions but 35 WAs would not be completely out of place (There are also super active orgs and newspapers but that's assumed). Some are even harsher. Embassy policy and Sovereignty are different things but it still falls back to 'you are too small for us to bother with you'.

I'm actually kind of sad the OP is already backtracking with his Smaller regions is even more fun sometimes than a big region, locality, like minded people and sometimes more activity possibilities. They should actually go further. No embassies, No participating in activities, No forum or discord fraternisation, No card buying, Free for all for recruitment and raiding to 'non-sovereign' regions!! Which means they shouldn't listen to me, but hey.

....Ok that's a bit extreme and more of an endgame goal. :twisted:

but OP could reach out to some regions with similar embassy requirements and build up to that or at least get a statement of neutrality to that.

Agreed though that they this isn't a GCR/UCR matter, how could the be that insecure? You decided to came to GP and cause waves. Embrace being the big boy and go hit and get hit.

by **Levantx** » Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:16 pm

Xoriet wrote:snip

Warzone Codger wrote: snip

I am more inclined to follow the perspective/discours of Codger. However doesn't mean that the draft text is not negotiatioble, because IT IS.

The idea is not calling an other region unworthy. Because I do not think that small regions should not exist. They absolutely can exist. Only they should not interact in political gameplay with other region. They perfectly can Roleplay as most region do btw, within the own region.

As Codger also said, sometimes we should dare to come with something new, make some waves. IRL that is also what the US has done with the United Nations system. Now we have HumanRights and a Security Council which solves many issues in the Real World.

Thaecia has the right as very large and active region to also come with an idea, thank you for the confidence Codger. But as Xoriet said, we cannot do it alone, mutual recognition is needed.

My idea is not new. There is nothing wrong with classifying a region (in political gameplay) as sovereign (as another's equal) or not. The Real World already has a Treaty in place doing exactly that.

THE TREATY OF MONTEVIDEO, defining what a Sovereign state is. (Go Wiki it). Not every small nation is seen in the World as sovereign state. It is absurd to allow just everyone play with the big Leaders at the table. At least my opinion.

If there are in the real world similar rules, why not organise our politics on what is already present. Regions interacting with eachother as sovereign state/region should also have a basic order of things? That is what I propose in this Treaty.

Yes it can go as far as Codger said, or less far, that is part of this discussion.

Merry christmas and many loves peeps

by **Levantx** » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:46 pm

The next question I am asking right now, after seeing the debate.

is it not a logical next step to create a United Nations/World Assembly "Organisation" based not around individual nations. (as it now is)
BUT Based aroundREGIONS(!) as the participating actor/player?

Happy to watch and hear out the next debate ;-)

CONVENTION ON SOVEREIGN REGIONS

CONVENTION ON SOVEREIGN REGIONS

Who is online