International Freedom Coalition (SignUp2/OOC)

[The Royally United Provinces]

Hola people's. I'm a happy person. A step closer to equal rights for all. I'm also mixed about my flag. Only for a day

[United States of Devonta]

Yes! The US allows same sex marriage! This news has made Scout Camp much more bareable for me

#Lovewins

[Flardania]

#Civilrightswins

[Inyourfaceistan]

#Civilrightswins

#WesternIdeaofCivilrightswins

Not saying I disagree, just saying to call it as it is...

[Flardania]

#Civilrightswins

#WesternIdeaofCivilrightswins

Not saying I disagree, just saying to call it as it is...

#AtLeastIt'sTheSameKindThatOutlawedSegregation

Just saying

[Inyourfaceistan]

#WesternIdeaofCivilrightswins

Not saying I disagree, just saying to call it as it is...

#AtLeastIt'sTheSameKindThatOutlawedSegregation

Just saying

Again, I'm not saying I disagree.

I know in certain parts of the world (i.e. Africa) the whole "LGBTQ" pride craze the West is on comes off as very offensive to them...
I mean after the shit *we* (Mostly Europe, though) have pulled on Africa, you do have to kind of admit from their point of view its pretty insensitive for the same people who brought Colonialism to them and took most their resources to suddenly come in tell them to worry less about their starving villages and tribal wars now fought with AKM's and FAL's and more about appeasing <1-3% of the population...

[Shazbotdom]

Can we take the talk about Same Sex Marriage to General?

[Flardania]

Can we take the talk about Same Sex Marriage to General?

Yes

#AtLeastIt'sTheSameKindThatOutlawedSegregation

Just saying

Again, I'm not saying I disagree.

I know in certain parts of the world (i.e. Africa) the whole "LGBTQ" pride craze the West is on comes off as very offensive to them...
I mean after the shit *we* (Mostly Europe, though) have pulled on Africa, you do have to kind of admit from their point of view its pretty insensitive for the same people who brought Colonialism to them and took most their resources to suddenly come in tell them to worry less about their starving villages and tribal wars now fought with AKM's and FAL's and more about appeasing <1-3% of the population...

And Yea that's true

[Shazbotdom]

IFC Prime Ministerial Questionnaire

Do you, if elected, plan on appointing personal cabinet officers (Press Secretary/Chief of Staff)?

All current positions of governance week he maintained, including the Cabinet Positions.

Do you regard it as suitable that the Prime Minister should function in both an IC and OOC capacity?

It is the place of the Prime Minister to be the Head in both In Character and Out Of Character forms, to bring stability to the alliance as a whole. It would be a failure of leadership to not do what is needed to bring stability in all manners.

How do you plan to keep up activity among members?

Role Playing systems set in place to bring togetherness as well as a system of teambuilding exercises for current and any new members.

How do you plan to ensure quality RPing among members?

Practice systems put in place to ensure members are kept on their toes in case any open conflict begins between any alliances and/or nations that threaten the stability of the IFC.

What is your stance on the current state of the admission system, and the relative position of the Prime Minister and Minister?

The Prime Minister should defer any decision on Acceptance of Membership to the Minister of Membership, aww that is that appointed persons primary role in the Alliance.

What is your stance on inter-alliance relations, and how would you change (or maintain) it?

Relations between members and outside entities, as well as other alliances is essential to peace and prosperity of the role playing world. Regular talks between Alliances shall be initiated for the safety of the IFC.

How will you deal with inter/intra-alliance OOC conflict involving our members?

A system needs to be put into place that will allow the leadership of the Alliance to deal swiftly with problems as they arise. My suggestion is that if a member becomes a problem or causes problems, that they are placed on a temporary suspension of any and all Alliance activities, including being able to vote on any Bills that are put before the Alliance Committee.

Would you appoint ambassadors to other alliances?

I would take applications from any member at large to become an Ambassador to other Alliances, that would serve as a Voice of the International Freedom Coalition, unless there is a major inter-alliance problem that needs me, as Prime Minister, to step in.

Will you support inter-alliance RPs or Summits?

Inter-Alliance RPs and Summits are a clear cut way to bolster friendship between the major, and even the minor, alliances of NationStates. Joint meetings between the IFC and other alliances such as SACTO, the UL, and any others would assist in peace and prosperity throughout the Multiverse.

Will you incorporate regional politics into alliance politics (like sponsoring representatives of the largest regions present)?

Rollplay Alliances and Regional Politics are something that should be exclusionary, unless you are talking about reforming the IFC into a Defender/Raider organization, which I would be against 100%.

What changes (if any) would you make to the term and position structures (i.e. who appoints/elects whom and their respective duties) of the IFC?

I would make no changes. The current political structure is adequate for an alliance of this form.

What is your stance on the current state of the RRF, and how would you change (or maintain) it?

As of this point in time, I would maintain the RRF as it currently is. Although it would be easier if the RRF would have standardized military equipment, and as Prime Minister I would do research on who would have the best military hardware and negotiate the purchase of Domestic Production Rights for use of any military hardware for the RRF.

Which branch of the RRF (if any) would you focus on building up/fleshing out?

None of them, as it currently stands, they are all where they need to be for the safeguard of the Alliance as well as our Member States. I would, though, maintain open donations for the RRF from Member States.

What is your stance on equipment standardization?

All for standardization of equipment for the RRF, but member states should never be required to adopt standardized equipment in order to maintain their membership within the alliance. Each nation should have their own level of sovereignty while within an Alliance, while still maintaining a presence within the Alliance Chambers, one should never bend their will to the whims of the Alliance Leadership.

Would you support using RRF/Treasury equipment/funds to intervene on behalf of non-members or observers?

I would be in support for it if, and only if, it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the membership that by not assisting the non-member and/or observer state in the defense of their homeland, that it would directly impact the membership in a manner that would be detrimental to the future of that said Member State and/or the Alliance as a whole.

How will you ensure that member states act according to proper rules of conventional warfare?

Proper training of new recruits is ideal to ensuring that Conventional Warfare Rules are followed, but once a Member State deploys their forces into a battlefield, it would be difficult to know if they are following the proper rules unless Sovereignty is violated and an IFC supervisor is deployed with their forces to ensure that they are following the aforementioned rules.

What is your stance on Coalition Intelligence, and would you change (or maintain) it?

The Coalition Intelligence Organization is spotty at best and rarely used by any member state. I would revamp the entire system, but would also look for Committee opinions on what changes, if any, should be instituted. Changes should include upgrades of the intelligence computer systems mainframe, new spy satellites and communication system taps.

What is your stance on the Committee system as detailed in Resolution 50, and how would you change (or maintain) it?

The system as laid out in Resolution 50 is most notably the best system that this body has seen, and should be maintained as it currently is.

What is your stance on the IFC Council, and would you change (or maintain) it?

I would maintain the council as it currently is, and would give an Opt Out clause for those members who wish to not be a part of the bureaucracy but only a member of the Defensive Pact.

What is your stance on the IFC Treasury, and would you change (or maintain) it?

I would maintain it.

Which is your stance on the IFTZ?

The IFTZ is good in concept, but need work to be viable if the membership allows it. Consulting with those knowledgeable in Economics and gaining input into how it should be run and then implementing those changes would benefit not only the IFTZ, but also the Alliance as a whole.

If you support Fair Trade/Labor standards, what general measures would they suggest?

Labor Standards should be up to the member states on what to implement within their nations. Forcing those standards on member states would be a clear cut violation of their Sovereignty. Fair Trade systems, though, should be set in place to guarantee that trade should be maintained within the Alliance System and not done in a manner that would be detrimental to the security of the Alliance as well as the economic safety of the Member States.

Would you support a universal IFC currency?

I would not support a Universal Currency.

If yes to the above, would it be optional, or mandatory?

N/A

What is your stance on the Blue Cross, and how would you change (or maintain) it?

I would maintain it as it currently stands. Although with the resources available to them, it has surprised us within the Empire that the membership has found no reason to deploy it with all the various international strive that is happening.

Would you support incentives to encourage monetary donations to the Treasury or Blue Cross?

Incentives are a failed way to get someone to donate anything as it would only reinforce greed within Member Nations and have aforementioned member nations try to 'one up' each other just to see how much others will donate.

If yes to the above, what would be offered?

N/A

Would you support making donations to the Treasury or Blue Cross (or general coalition) mandatory?

Absolutely not, many of our nations have very little money left within their Government Budgets, and also possibly are running in a deficit. It would be a ridiculous violation of their sovereignty to mandate that they give a set percentage of their GDP to the alliance.

If yes to the above, what would be the quota (or minimum percentage of GDP)?

N/A

Anything else you would like to add:

[Kranstentistan]

So.... Any arpees lately. Someone the one I had going (AGAIN), so...

[Aviran]

I would just like to state that I would like to stay Director of the HG, and will support any candidate willing to promote and place the guard as a priority.

[Muzztopia]

so, what exactly is going on here?

[Aviran]

so, what exactly is going on here?

Power has been transferred to Novo until the 27 of this month, when elections will happen for Prime Minister. This happened because Cabinet felt that Aig was too inactive. The order is a few pages back, should you like to read it.

Also, remember that gala I promised a loooooooooooooong while back? Well, it's here!

\:A CORDIAL INVITATION TO THE FIRST ANNUAL:/

BLUE HORIZONS GALA

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

so, what exactly is going on here?

Power has been transferred to Novo until the 27 of this month, when elections will happen for Prime Minister. This happened because Cabinet felt that Aig was too inactive. The order is a few pages back, should you like to read it.

Also, remember that gala I promised a loooooooooooooong while back? Well, it's here!

\:A CORDIAL INVITATION TO THE FIRST ANNUAL:/

BLUE HORIZONS GALA

This reminds me way too much of EN.

WAY WAY TOO MUCH.

You're sure you're not EN?

[Aviran]

Power has been transferred to Novo until the 27 of this month, when elections will happen for Prime Minister. This happened because Cabinet felt that Aig was too inactive. The order is a few pages back, should you like to read it.

Also, remember that gala I promised a loooooooooooooong while back? Well, it's here!

\:A CORDIAL INVITATION TO THE FIRST ANNUAL:/

BLUE HORIZONS GALA

This reminds me way too much of EN.

WAY WAY TOO MUCH.

You're sure you're not EN?

Last time I checked my name was Reece and I was a 17 year old pasty white kid living in Hartford. Any of that match up? Cause if so, I'll just go die in a corner. Lol

[Novo Wagondia]

so, what exactly is going on here?

Power has been transferred to Novo until the 27 of this month, when elections will happen for Prime Minister. This happened because Cabinet felt that Aig was too inactive. The order is a few pages back, should you like to read it.

Also, remember that gala I promised a loooooooooooooong while back? Well, it's here!

\:A CORDIAL INVITATION TO THE FIRST ANNUAL:/

BLUE HORIZONS GALA

Sounds delightful; I'll get a post up soon

Also, quality flag

[Transoxthraxia]

so, what exactly is going on here?

Power has been transferred to Novo until the 27 of this month, when elections will happen for Prime Minister. This happened because Cabinet felt that Aig was too inactive. The order is a few pages back, should you like to read it.

Also, remember that gala I promised a loooooooooooooong while back? Well, it's here!

\:A CORDIAL INVITATION TO THE FIRST ANNUAL:/

BLUE HORIZONS GALA

Who exactly is invited?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

At present I must repeat that I can see no candidates who seem to have sufficiently comprehensive policies to lead the many facets of the IFC. Freedom involves a great many strands: freedom to discuss, freedom to disagree, freedom to be left-liberal or right-liberal; in addition to the freedom to lead, freedom to rule, and freedom to spread freedoms. Such freedoms must be finely policed and balanced: they can have a devastating effect upon each other. Such freedoms must be led by the majority, which is most effective when the majority is moderate, and only properly effective when it can properly balance respect of the minority with the need to function. In short, any extremist position could be highly destabilizing to what is, by and large, one of the most balanced alliances in NS.

I have little confidence in the ability of any current candidates to maintain such a tricky balancing act in all the many ways they may need too, and greatly regret that Novo Wagondia is not running. I do hope I am wrong, but every candidate is proposing at least one potentially and destabilizingly radical policy, even if they don't know it:

Focusing on the military threatens to lurch the freedom coalition away from exercising freedom to merely defending and spreading it. Obviously spreading and defending freedom should be some of our aims, but there is more to an alliance than the number of soldiers it has, or even its military capabilities. Soft power is at least as important, and something we should have a natural advantage at. Why should we abandon our strength?

Trying to change the government or the council to make it 'more streamlined', while a supposedly noble aim, may have the detrimental effect of radicalizing the government: to be moderate and tolerant, it should be large and inclusive: individuals will naturally have their own vagaries, but of a lot of individuals working together will have more combined energy and ideas and abilities.

Even the supposedly 'pro-balance' proposals to curb arguments can only mean that the freedom to discuss, to disagree, and to be different is under grave threat. Yes we need to see if we can minimize arguments, but clamping down on diversity is not balance: it is narrow-minded. Disagreements are to be expected, and to some extent welcomed: only by debate can the best choice for the majority be discovered. We all care - that's why I'm making this argument.

Before anybody complains that I am simply complaining, if elected (without any formal campaigning) I will not not serve (although in practice I would rely considerably on the cabinet as I have never believed in anything approaching a dictatorship, nor have the arrogance to assume nobody else knows better).

But if - or much more probably, when - somebody else is elected, I do hope they will take the tolerant, happy medium instead of carrying out some of these more radical proposals. I do hope they will prove me wrong - nothing would please me better.

[New Aeyariss]

Well some of you asked for diplomatic RP? Here it is !

[Transoxthraxia]

At present I must repeat that I can see no candidates who seem to have sufficiently comprehensive policies to lead the many facets of the IFC. Freedom involves a great many strands: freedom to discuss, freedom to disagree, freedom to be left-liberal or right-liberal; in addition to the freedom to lead, freedom to rule, and freedom to spread freedoms. Such freedoms must be finely policed and balanced: they can have a devastating effect upon each other. Such freedoms must be led by the majority, which is most effective when the majority is moderate, and only properly effective when it can properly balance respect of the minority with the need to function. In short, any extremist position could be highly destabilizing to what is, by and large, one of the most balanced alliances in NS.

I have little confidence in the ability of any current candidates to maintain such a tricky balancing act in all the many ways they may need too, and greatly regret that Novo Wagondia is not running. I do hope I am wrong, but every candidate is proposing at least one potentially and destabilizingly radical policy, even if they don't know it:

Focusing on the military threatens to lurch the freedom coalition away from exercising freedom to merely defending and spreading it. Obviously spreading and defending freedom should be some of our aims, but there is more to an alliance than the number of soldiers it has, or even its military capabilities. Soft power is at least as important, and something we should have a natural advantage at. Why should we abandon our strength?

Trying to change the government or the council to make it 'more streamlined', while a supposedly noble aim, may have the detrimental effect of radicalizing the government: to be moderate and tolerant, it should be large and inclusive: individuals will naturally have their own vagaries, but of a lot of individuals working together will have more combined energy and ideas and abilities.

Even the supposedly 'pro-balance' proposals to curb arguments can only mean that the freedom to discuss, to disagree, and to be different is under grave threat. Yes we need to see if we can minimize arguments, but clamping down on diversity is not balance: it is narrow-minded. Disagreements are to be expected, and to some extent welcomed: only by debate can the best choice for the majority be discovered. We all care - that's why I'm making this argument.

Before anybody complains that I am simply complaining, if elected (without any formal campaigning) I will not not serve (although in practice I would rely considerably on the cabinet as I have never believed in anything approaching a dictatorship, nor have the arrogance to assume nobody else knows better).

But if - or much more probably, when - somebody else is elected, I do hope they will take the tolerant, happy medium instead of carrying out some of these more radical proposals. I do hope they will prove me wrong - nothing would please me better.

So - let me get this straight, if I have interpreted your post correct - you are afraid of the change that would be made to certain aspects of this alliance, because they are "too radical" or they may "destabilize what we already have". If you haven't noticed, the alliance isn't in the best of shape. Just awhile ago, we were voting whether to dissolve the IFC or not. In my humble opinion, it is time for us to change, to try something else. The alliance is in trouble, if you ask me, and we need to try and change something to fix it because it obviously isn't working out right now.

You can make all the arguments you want on keeping the alliance the way it is, but in my opinion, no one wants another laying duck. We want action, we want change, and we want this alliance to emerge from this turmoil stronger than ever. Sitting around and hoping will not do that. Change, internal quiet revolution, and dynamic presidents will help us do that.

[Novo Wagondia]

At present I must repeat that I can see no candidates who seem to have sufficiently comprehensive policies to lead the many facets of the IFC. Freedom involves a great many strands: freedom to discuss, freedom to disagree, freedom to be left-liberal or right-liberal; in addition to the freedom to lead, freedom to rule, and freedom to spread freedoms. Such freedoms must be finely policed and balanced: they can have a devastating effect upon each other. Such freedoms must be led by the majority, which is most effective when the majority is moderate, and only properly effective when it can properly balance respect of the minority with the need to function. In short, any extremist position could be highly destabilizing to what is, by and large, one of the most balanced alliances in NS.

I have little confidence in the ability of any current candidates to maintain such a tricky balancing act in all the many ways they may need too, and greatly regret that Novo Wagondia is not running. I do hope I am wrong, but every candidate is proposing at least one potentially and destabilizingly radical policy, even if they don't know it:

Focusing on the military threatens to lurch the freedom coalition away from exercising freedom to merely defending and spreading it. Obviously spreading and defending freedom should be some of our aims, but there is more to an alliance than the number of soldiers it has, or even its military capabilities. Soft power is at least as important, and something we should have a natural advantage at. Why should we abandon our strength?

Trying to change the government or the council to make it 'more streamlined', while a supposedly noble aim, may have the detrimental effect of radicalizing the government: to be moderate and tolerant, it should be large and inclusive: individuals will naturally have their own vagaries, but of a lot of individuals working together will have more combined energy and ideas and abilities.

Even the supposedly 'pro-balance' proposals to curb arguments can only mean that the freedom to discuss, to disagree, and to be different is under grave threat. Yes we need to see if we can minimize arguments, but clamping down on diversity is not balance: it is narrow-minded. Disagreements are to be expected, and to some extent welcomed: only by debate can the best choice for the majority be discovered. We all care - that's why I'm making this argument.

Before anybody complains that I am simply complaining, if elected (without any formal campaigning) I will not not serve (although in practice I would rely considerably on the cabinet as I have never believed in anything approaching a dictatorship, nor have the arrogance to assume nobody else knows better).

But if - or much more probably, when - somebody else is elected, I do hope they will take the tolerant, happy medium instead of carrying out some of these more radical proposals. I do hope they will prove me wrong - nothing would please me better.

On this topic, I was considering asking for the general opinion on moving the election back one week. While candidates have been able to get their surveys out there, there has been little discussion like this on the merits of each, and some candidates have only announced their campaign within the past 48 hours, which gives them almost no time to campaign and raise votes. I would like to see some more debate, perhaps in a formal, guided setting, and give everybody some more time to flesh out their policies and get them out there. A better informed general membership is going to feel more in touch with the democratic systems of this alliance, boosting activity while ensuring that members vote for the candidates most in touch with their beliefs, for I fear many beyond the dozen most active nations do not even everybody who is running at the moment.

[Aviran]

I had the most inspiring and comprehensive economic, trade, medical, and employment plans just typed up, and then I go to submit?

PLEASE LOG IN!

FUCKING IDLE TIMER!

[The Royally United Provinces]

Yep. I gate it's. You can go back and retrieve it. I do it all the time

[Common Territories]

I had the most inspiring and comprehensive economic, trade, medical, and employment plans just typed up, and then I go to submit?

PLEASE LOG IN!

FUCKING IDLE TIMER!

We've all suffered this bitch of a problem. I'll link bellow a Technical thread that discusses this along with fixes, but to briefly explain why this happens: NS forums are set to log out stanby accounts automatically. Therefore, if they see a nation idle for 100 minutes or something, the forum automatically logs out the account. An Admin explains better, but there are fixes mentioned here that will help you prevent losing content in the future.

Figured I'd post this as we all know the feelz of anger that rage out when this happens.

[Taigawa]

I know this alliance is MT but...

Would you join a PMT/FT banquet if I invited y'all?