NationStates

Pan-European State wrote:UCA will stand to better than EAO and UDAF, if you have any concerns about this alliance; founders will help you.

South Olpen wrote:

Pan-European State wrote:UCA will stand to better than EAO and UDAF, if you have any concerns about this alliance; founders will help you.

I do have a concern; didn't you directly decide to merge with UDAF? Even when a vote was taking to ally with the PRS? Ill join the alliance, but I would like an explanation to how the EAO continues to be a democratic organization, even when member states clearly don't have a meaningful voice in how the organization operates.

Pan-European State wrote:

South Olpen wrote:I do have a concern; didn't you directly decide to merge with UDAF? Even when a vote was taking to ally with the PRS? Ill join the alliance, but I would like an explanation to how the EAO continues to be a democratic organization, even when member states clearly don't have a meaningful voice in how the organization operates.

1. EAO was getting inactive, merging would give a tiny bit of activity.
2. EAO hasn't had any elections yet, that would still need to be done.
3. It was the best for EAO's path, to make it stronger and more relevant.

South Olpen wrote:

Pan-European State wrote:1. EAO was getting inactive, merging would give a tiny bit of activity.
2. EAO hasn't had any elections yet, that would still need to be done.
3. It was the best for EAO's path, to make it stronger and more relevant.

That's not what I asked. I asked how you claim that the EAO is still democratic, even when you initiated a vote (that was in the PRS favor) to ally with what we can all agree is the sworn enemy of UDAF. And, by the way, merging/allying with the PRS would bring the same results, without being undemocratic. Stop avoiding hard questions.

Pan-European State wrote:

South Olpen wrote:That's not what I asked. I asked how you claim that the EAO is still democratic, even when you initiated a vote (that was in the PRS favor) to ally with what we can all agree is the sworn enemy of UDAF. And, by the way, merging/allying with the PRS would bring the same results, without being undemocratic. Stop avoiding hard questions.

It's simple, PRS members were nearly most of the members. The others aren't active, any chance to merge would instantly be shot down. This alliance isn't UDAF or EAO anymore, it's a better alliance. True democracy and freedom can be achieved, no one founder having the upper hand.

South Olpen wrote:

Pan-European State wrote:It's simple, PRS members were nearly most of the members. The others aren't active, any chance to merge would instantly be shot down. This alliance isn't UDAF or EAO anymore, it's a better alliance. True democracy and freedom can be achieved, no one founder having the upper hand.

Yes, and? If most members want something, no matter any biases they might have, its only democratic to provide it. And vice versa, saying that any vote will be shot down, means that nations reasonably acting in self preservation and self interest is bad. And if that's the case, what's the point of being in any alliance that helps its members, and I would be hard pressed to see you saying UDAF or the UCA is bad. Also, if my interpretation is correct, SM and the IHS declared they would be on top of the pecking order.

Pan-European State wrote:

South Olpen wrote:Yes, and? If most members want something, no matter any biases they might have, its only democratic to provide it. And vice versa, saying that any vote will be shot down, means that nations reasonably acting in self preservation and self interest is bad. And if that's the case, what's the point of being in any alliance that helps its members, and I would be hard pressed to see you saying UDAF or the UCA is bad. Also, if my interpretation is correct, SM and the IHS declared they would be on top of the pecking order.

If you mean the order of command, that's just who organised it all first/who was here longest. Also, if EAO asked to merge with PRS there would be no problems but merging with UDAF is obviously going to be a problem. PRS caused a civil war so democracy can be installed in Pan-Europe instead of actually getting information, they are as bad as SM. I'm not accepting another, collapsing, alliance that stops EAO doing what would be best for it's future.

South Olpen wrote:

Pan-European State wrote:If you mean the order of command, that's just who organised it all first/who was here longest. Also, if EAO asked to merge with PRS there would be no problems but merging with UDAF is obviously going to be a problem. PRS caused a civil war so democracy can be installed in Pan-Europe instead of actually getting information, they are as bad as SM. I'm not accepting another, collapsing, alliance that stops EAO doing what would be best for it's future.

In a truly democratic society, it shouldn't matter what's better for the future, but what the people want. So how about you answer my question and we put this to rest. How is the EAO democratic when you do something the majority explicitly voted against?

Pan-European State wrote:

South Olpen wrote:In a truly democratic society, it shouldn't matter what's better for the future, but what the people want. So how about you answer my question and we put this to rest. How is the EAO democratic when you do something the majority explicitly voted against?

What majority? Would it be fine, if me and loads of other people stopped PRS votes from passing? No, we'd get banned. EAO was not fully democratic at that point, elections were going to happen if we had more members.

South Olpen wrote:

Pan-European State wrote:What majority? Would it be fine, if me and loads of other people stopped PRS votes from passing? No, we'd get banned. EAO was not fully democratic at that point, elections were going to happen if we had more members.

Ill admit that, when looking into the rules, it never stated anything about democracy (but socially speaking starting a vote implies you'll listen to the outcome), I did find this lovely tidbit in the constitution/charter/rules page.
"EAO is independent from other alliances like UDAF and CUSP but they may freely send delegates to the HQ (after signing all required forms)."
, which means, by my calculation, you unilaterally changed the charter, without even calling a vote you would ignore. Which, might I add, is something CUSP doesn't even do.

South Olpen wrote:

Pan-European State wrote:What majority? Would it be fine, if me and loads of other people stopped PRS votes from passing? No, we'd get banned. EAO was not fully democratic at that point, elections were going to happen if we had more members.

Ill admit that, when looking into the rules, it never stated anything about democracy (but socially speaking starting a vote implies you'll listen to the outcome), I did find this lovely tidbit in the constitution/charter/rules page.
"EAO is independent from other alliances like UDAF and CUSP but they may freely send delegates to the HQ (after signing all required forms)."
, which means, by my calculation, you unilaterally changed the charter, without even calling a vote you would ignore. Which, might I add, is something CUSP doesn't even do.

Southeast Marajarbia wrote:

South Olpen wrote:Ill admit that, when looking into the rules, it never stated anything about democracy (but socially speaking starting a vote implies you'll listen to the outcome), I did find this lovely tidbit in the constitution/charter/rules page.
"EAO is independent from other alliances like UDAF and CUSP but they may freely send delegates to the HQ (after signing all required forms)."
, which means, by my calculation, you unilaterally changed the charter, without even calling a vote you would ignore. Which, might I add, is something CUSP doesn't even do.

Enough you two, don't get this thread off topic.

The Democratic Republic of Nytoa wrote:Full Nation Name: the Republic of Nytoa
Leader Name: Phillip Smith
Name of Representative: Mason White
Type of Government: Centrist Democracy
How big is your population: 2.1 billion
How big is your army?: 125 millionn
Do you wish to establish diplomatic relations with a member? If so, who?: None yet
Are you prepared to deal with the threat of both Slave Traders and Raiders to NS?: Yes
OOC:
Are you a puppet of anybody?: No
Do you promise to not break any of the rules listed below?: Yes
(IK i dont have to do this but I want to)

Southeast Marajarbia wrote:

The Democratic Republic of Nytoa wrote:Full Nation Name: the Republic of Nytoa
Leader Name: Phillip Smith
Name of Representative: Mason White
Type of Government: Centrist Democracy
How big is your population: 2.1 billion
How big is your army?: 125 millionn
Do you wish to establish diplomatic relations with a member? If so, who?: None yet
Are you prepared to deal with the threat of both Slave Traders and Raiders to NS?: Yes
OOC:
Are you a puppet of anybody?: No
Do you promise to not break any of the rules listed below?: Yes
(IK i dont have to do this but I want to)

Accepted

Islamic Holy Sites wrote:

Southeast Marajarbia wrote:
Accepted

Um, aren't all members of previous alliances accepted?

Southeast Marajarbia wrote:

Islamic Holy Sites wrote:Um, aren't all members of previous alliances accepted?

Yes, but read the bottom of Nytoa’s post.

Pan-European State wrote:

South Olpen wrote:Ill admit that, when looking into the rules, it never stated anything about democracy (but socially speaking starting a vote implies you'll listen to the outcome), I did find this lovely tidbit in the constitution/charter/rules page.
"EAO is independent from other alliances like UDAF and CUSP but they may freely send delegates to the HQ (after signing all required forms)."
, which means, by my calculation, you unilaterally changed the charter, without even calling a vote you would ignore. Which, might I add, is something CUSP doesn't even do.

Does it say "We will never merge with anyone." No. It meant, that votes/happenings wouldn't be influenced by PRS, UDAF and etc. Merging was a choice to further the alliance, not because any alliance forced me to.

South Olpen wrote:

Pan-European State wrote:Does it say "We will never merge with anyone." No. It meant, that votes/happenings wouldn't be influenced by PRS, UDAF and etc. Merging was a choice to further the alliance, not because any alliance forced me to.

Oh, yeah you're right! No alliance influenced the election because there wasn't one.

The Allied Tribe wrote:Why the hell do you guys keep changing your name every time there’s a merge?

Now it looks like they’re trying to make themselves look like the military wing of the UIC, and they went three letter.

i do not approve

What I do find rather amusing is that SM stated that the UIC must hold elections to merge with the UDAF or else it isn’t a democracy, yet merged with the EAO without an election. It really shows how inconsistent SM is with the whole “democracy” thing. The thing is, the EAO would most likely vote against had an election taken place since the alliance was apparently non-UDAF related, so the Pan-European State probably didn’t hold an election for that reason.

Southeast Marajarbia wrote:

The Allied Tribe wrote:Why the hell do you guys keep changing your name every time there’s a merge?

Now it looks like they’re trying to make themselves look like the military wing of the UIC, and they went three letter.

i do not approve

What I do find rather amusing is that SM stated that the UIC must hold elections to merge with the UDAF or else it isn’t a democracy, yet merged with the EAO without an election. It really shows how inconsistent SM is with the whole “democracy” thing. The thing is, the EAO would most likely vote against had an election taken place since the alliance was apparently non-UDAF related, so the Pan-European State probably didn’t hold an election for that reason.

I said hold a vote, not elections. Besides, it should already be clear that we aren’t a part of the UIC. We change the name every time we merge because it makes sense, as nobody would agree to keep the original name when an alliance is planning on a merge.

Southeast Marajarbia wrote:This is a message from the Government of Southeast Marajarbia:

After a historic merge between the United Defence Alliance Force and Earth Alliance Organization, a new mega alliance has now officially been created! With 5 Alliances now apart of the UCA, this mega alliance shall hopefully be able to focus on more goals, including the establishment of a new world order! Please keep in mind that any current member of UDAF or EAO will not be required to reapply. Also, all Founders are able to accept or deny applications.


If you wish to join, fill out this form:

Full Nation Name:
Leader Name:
Name of Representative:
Type of Government:
How big is your population:
How big is your army?:
Do you wish to establish diplomatic relations with a member? If so, who?:
Are you prepared to deal with the threat of both Slave Traders and Raiders to NS?:
OOC:
Are you a puppet of anybody?:
Do you promise to not break any of the rules listed below?:

Observer Application:
Full Nation Name:
Leader Name:
Name of Representative
How big is your population?:
Do you wish to establish diplomatic relations with another member? If so, who?:
Will you follow our Rules?(Listed Below):

Rules:
Don't join and leave before 48 hours have passed.
Don't spam anybody for the region password until after a week has passed.
Don't threaten any UDAF member with anything, including sanctions, unless you have permission first.
New Nations that have joined NS in less than 24 hours must spend at least a week actively playing the game.


Benefits of Joining:
Be a part of a massive trade deal
Gain the right to protection from hostile forces if requested


Members:
Islamic Holy Sites (Co-Founder of IDSF, 1st in command)
Southeast Marajarbia (Co-Founder of IDSF, 2nd in command)
Nova Catania (Founder of the UAN, 3rd in command)
Socialist States of Ludistan (Founder of the DEA, 4th in command)
Pan-European State (Founder of the EAO, Fifth in command)
Nytoa