International Freedom Coalition (OOC, APPS TEMP CLOSED)

[Rhinocera]

I'm assuming the legality of arbitrary search, seizure, and detention would be the two 'no's that concern you, correct?

[Rhinocera]

That number was prior to my nations recent shrinking (used to RP at full NS pop). I didn't really feel like rebuilding the military yet.

Then don't apply with false numbers, Rhino.

They're not false. As of now, that's what it stands at. Not all of them are actually active, but Rhinocera doesn't maintain reserves like other nations so all personnel are considered active.

[The United Remnants of America]

Then don't apply with false numbers, Rhino.

They're not false. As of now, that's what it stands at. Not all of them are actually active, but Rhinocera doesn't maintain reserves like other nations so all personnel are considered active.

What do they do when not active?

Because the URA has a similar system. Non-active military personnel switch to local law enforcement and civil services so they're always employed as military personnel, but not always "in uniform,"

That's kind of how I've decided to do it. I haven't ever seconded units to the RRF, but I'll show up when needed with support at a theater where IFC is taking military measures.

While I can see that makes sense for some, it would be handy to have some idea of how many forces can be drawn upon - e.g. a Division? A Corps? A CVBG? A Fighter Wing?

Do you mean me specifically?

I can decide how much can be ready at any given time, if you want. They'd still remain off the RRF roster, but available if coalition forces were necessary.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Yes please.

I'm assuming the legality of arbitrary search, seizure, and detention would be the two 'no's that concern you, correct?

And the right to fair trial etc. and freedom from cruel and absurd punishment, plus the absence of even informal democratic mechanisms such as Hong Kong's Legislative Council or Britain's pre-reform parliaments.

[Novo Wagondia]

Incidentally I should mention that I am somewhat concerned by the possibility that we may have to wait for 6 months for some of the Capital locations, and would therefore suggest that those applicants who would be willing to also be considered as a temporary location should make that clear - for instance, Alexandria could certainly be used from July-November. Of course there would be some disruption in the moving, but I do think it would probably be better to have a central location - or at least some locations - earlier.

Also on the subject it would be interesting to know whether some locations might also be capable of being used for subsidiary/departmental headquarters - for instance, Santa Catalina seems to have two dozen specialized buildings, and Alexandria's location could easily be optimized for any department requiring secure communications. However, of course suitability does not necessarily mean the host governments would be willing to have such locations used in such a manner.

In addition I am generally of the opinion that all (or at least most) of the aspects of government should be able to largely function in one place - although there are already subsidiary offices in various IFC countries. Nonetheless, since technically we are searching for a replacement for Musrum, which was the location of the Senate, the executive (and for that matter the judiciary) could go to a (or two) different main locations.

I think we should first elect a capital, and after that, having judged the capacity of the host, we could decide if there should be regional or departmental offices in addition to the main campus. As for the timeframe, especially given the calls to hold the next summit in the new capital, I think it's best to treat the renovation period as an IC formality, and move right in. If we were being entirely realistic most of our facilities would take years to build, outfit, secure, and fully absorb all of the administrative infrastructure. Thus, to keep things moving, it may be best to have a thoughtful and detailed candidacy process but then immediately embrace the new capital, rather than muddle the achievement with interim offices and sub-departments before we have a chance to cerebrate.

[Great Feng]

Frankly I'm more worried about building up my influence now.
I'm sick of being viewed as like North Korea internationally.
Time to build myself up into Turkey, Iran, or Russia, in terms of international relations(Though I'm politically not at all like it, I'm just disliked as much as it internationally. Unless I'm wrong. Am I wrong?
Anyway Yes, all three are hated, but every country it seems like hates Feng, so I'm settling for that.
Besides the other examples I could use are all NATO(Turkey is but also acts on it's own political and military ambitions, unlike many NATO members), so I have no other good examples.

When Feng has enough allies and influence, then Feng will be able to me a major member of the IFC with important influence, and not be like Belgium, Estonia, etc.

[Pillowlandia]

Frankly I'm more worried about building up my influence now.
I'm sick of being viewed as like North Korea internationally.
Time to build myself up into Turkey, Iran, or Russia, in terms of international relations(Though I'm politically not at all like it, I'm just disliked as much as it internationally. Unless I'm wrong. Am I wrong?
Anyway Yes, all three are hated, but every country it seems like hates Feng, so I'm settling for that.
Besides the other examples I could use are all NATO(Turkey is but also acts on it's own political and military ambitions, unlike many NATO members), so I have no other good examples.

When Feng has enough allies and influence, then Feng will be able to me a major member of the IFC with important influence, and not be like Belgium, Estonia, etc.

The Pillowlandian commonwealth doesn't hate you, then again I'm pretty new on NS still. Plus, Belgium is a nice place.

[Great Feng]

Frankly I'm more worried about building up my influence now.
I'm sick of being viewed as like North Korea internationally.
Time to build myself up into Turkey, Iran, or Russia, in terms of international relations(Though I'm politically not at all like it, I'm just disliked as much as it internationally. Unless I'm wrong. Am I wrong?
Anyway Yes, all three are hated, but every country it seems like hates Feng, so I'm settling for that.
Besides the other examples I could use are all NATO(Turkey is but also acts on it's own political and military ambitions, unlike many NATO members), so I have no other good examples.

When Feng has enough allies and influence, then Feng will be able to me a major member of the IFC with important influence, and not be like Belgium, Estonia, etc.

The Pillowlandian commonwealth doesn't hate you, then again I'm pretty new on NS still. Plus, Belgium is a nice place.

I was referring to Belgium as NATO doesn't really need it's military and diplomatic weight.
I'm trying gain some international weight.
Speaking of which, Gods and Emperors, decided what you'll be playing as yet?

[Pillowlandia]

Not yet, I think I'll likely do one in Asia or something similar

[Rhinocera]

They're not false. As of now, that's what it stands at. Not all of them are actually active, but Rhinocera doesn't maintain reserves like other nations so all personnel are considered active.

What do they do when not active?

Because the URA has a similar system. Non-active military personnel switch to local law enforcement and civil services so they're always employed as military personnel, but not always "in uniform,"

Units get rotated out of service on a cycle. The largest single organized unit of the Rhinoceran military is a legion, which is a 750,000 person unit. There are 36 Legions in the Rhinoceran Army (navy uses a different system). Of these 36 Legions up to 12 can be on extended leave at any given time, though the number fluctuates. I had everything schemed out and organized, but I misplaced the paper I wrote it on and don't remember the exact numbers.

[Great Feng]

The Yujing Pact thread

[Grande Republic of Arcadia]

The Yujing Pact thread

Can I join in?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Time to build myself up into Turkey, Iran, or Russia, in terms of international relations(Though I'm politically not at all like it, I'm just disliked as much as it internationally. Unless I'm wrong. Am I wrong?
Anyway Yes, all three are hated, but every country it seems like hates Feng, so I'm settling for that.

Ausitoria doesn't - although clearly Feng has tried their hardest to make Ausitoria hate them. However Feng can't touch Ausitoria, and Ausitoria never remembers insignificant incidents, so... friends?

But really I'd suggest you ought to work out who Feng's friends are, and start working with them. On the subject, I'm planning for the 9th Summit to focus on strategic discourse so that we can all understand each other's viewpoints better, and look to work in areas of common interest.

I think we should first elect a capital, and after that, having judged the capacity of the host, we could decide if there should be regional or departmental offices in addition to the main campus. As for the timeframe, especially given the calls to hold the next summit in the new capital, I think it's best to treat the renovation period as an IC formality, and move right in. If we were being entirely realistic most of our facilities would take years to build, outfit, secure, and fully absorb all of the administrative infrastructure. Thus, to keep things moving, it may be best to have a thoughtful and detailed candidacy process but then immediately embrace the new capital, rather than muddle the achievement with interim offices and sub-departments before we have a chance to cerebrate.

I'm for thinking everything through before moving myself!

[The United Remnants of America]

I'm leaving for China today and I'll be gone for a month.

I expect to come back and see nothing has changed, because that's the glory of the IFC: Nothing Happens.

See ya, guys.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Have a good time! Er... some things probably will be changing, so just for you*, I'll make sure they're (mostly) optional.

*This is me trying to be friendly and no doubt saying something that will worry everybody. Don't worry, I generally believe in letting nations get on with whatever they want too, once they've agreed on minimum standards.

[N awlins]

Oh,

And I'd like to extend an invitation to you guys to post within my thread that is linked in my app.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Oh,

And I'd like to extend an invitation to you guys to post within my thread that is linked in my app.

The link appears to be broken - could you provide a new one please?

[N awlins]

That's odd.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=377756

Also went back and fixed it.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you.

Incidentally, to change the subject to something more of use in general long-term RP planning, what opinions do IFC members have on the subject of enforced conformity/uniformity of RPing styles and conventions? I ask merely for opinions, in light of some interesting discussions with New Aeyariss on the subject of natural and artificial requirements for RPing in nationstates?

(Do tell me if my question doesn't make any sense, and I'll explain it properly tomorrow - it's a fairly complicated question that most of us perhaps don't consciously think about).

[Guadalupador]

Thank you.

Incidentally, to change the subject to something more of use in general long-term RP planning, what opinions do IFC members have on the subject of enforced conformity/uniformity of RPing styles and conventions? I ask merely for opinions, in light of some interesting discussions with New Aeyariss on the subject of natural and artificial requirements for RPing in nationstates?

(Do tell me if my question doesn't make any sense, and I'll explain it properly tomorrow - it's a fairly complicated question that most of us perhaps don't consciously think about).

I'd like some more detail on this question, if you don't mind me requesting.

[Pillowlandia]

Thank you.

Incidentally, to change the subject to something more of use in general long-term RP planning, what opinions do IFC members have on the subject of enforced conformity/uniformity of RPing styles and conventions? I ask merely for opinions, in light of some interesting discussions with New Aeyariss on the subject of natural and artificial requirements for RPing in nationstates?

(Do tell me if my question doesn't make any sense, and I'll explain it properly tomorrow - it's a fairly complicated question that most of us perhaps don't consciously think about).

as far as actual storytelling goes I'm against it, diversity inspires innovation. However if it is purely the style of formatting it might be okay, as long as it isn't to heavy handed. I think something more like a style guide would work best.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you.

Incidentally, to change the subject to something more of use in general long-term RP planning, what opinions do IFC members have on the subject of enforced conformity/uniformity of RPing styles and conventions? I ask merely for opinions, in light of some interesting discussions with New Aeyariss on the subject of natural and artificial requirements for RPing in nationstates?

(Do tell me if my question doesn't make any sense, and I'll explain it properly tomorrow - it's a fairly complicated question that most of us perhaps don't consciously think about).

I'd like some more detail on this question, if you don't mind me requesting.

Certainly.

There are natural requirements for successful RPing, e.g. the ability to write well. Then there are artificial ‘requirements’, e.g. realism and collaboration. If one assumes that RPing can be about story-telling without other people being involved, these 'artificial requirements' might be taken as unnecessary.

To be slightly more specific, the whole point was addressed in two deleted posts. (So much for informed discussion – I am glad Ausitoria expelled IYF for IC reasons, otherwise I would currently be seeking expulsion on OOC grounds. It is indecent to block off well-intentioned discussion).

Certain norms of behaviour are bounding us all

You are welcome to remain in your echo-chamber, your hall of mirrors, where everybody thinks the same way as you do, for as long as you like. I personally prefer people who I can disagree with, people I can perhaps learn from. You are respected by other conformists for being a conformist. I respect myself for occasionally being a non-conformist.

[Quite simply, w]e're not all conformists.

No one says you are always wrong; yet I have yet to see you backing yourself up with any evidence.

I have better things to do than try to condense years of study, and of course cannot provide you with any evidence for unpublished results.

But the point is I no longer care very much about what you think about whether I am right or not. It may pain you to hear it, but I can get by perfectly well without you thinking that I am right.

No - it are always the same patterns of behaviour based on arguing and purposeful ruining fun of others.

Where on earth is the fun in going through life without disagreements? Nobody would ever have discovered anything without disagreeing with the status quo. You're not one of those mad nutters who thinks we should never have stopped being cavemen, are you? (Of course you aren't - that's a rhetorical question - and in fact there might even be something to be said for never having stopped being a caveman, but I digress). I personally think being a caveman is a great deal less fun than being able to think with all the advancements of critical thinking.

And, just to be clear:

ALL OF THIS IS NOT IC CLASH OF POWERS BUT AN ATTEMPT TO EXPAND OOC INTO IC SPHERE?

This OOC clash is about freedom of choice. Some of the IC clashes have also been about freedom of choice. That does not mean that the IC clash is the result of the OOC clash (indeed, the IC about IC freedom of choice predates this argument about freedom in RPing).

As you can see, it can be argued that complete agreement is not necessary for RPing - particularly when RPing in the storytelling style seen in factbooks. Of course disagreement means dancing on eggshells, but collaboration on everything is unnecessary and is indeed a barrier in a world where people seek truth via diversity. In short, we can agree to disagree.

Of course the opposing viewpoint is that all RPs should at least aim to be collaborative in every respect.

Anyway, I'd be very interested in your comments?

[Valaran]

I'd like some more detail on this question, if you don't mind me requesting.

Certainly.

There are natural requirements for successful RPing, e.g. the ability to write well. Then there are artificial ‘requirements’, e.g. realism and collaboration. If one assumes that RPing can be about story-telling without other people being involved, these 'artificial requirements' might be taken as unnecessary.

They're only artificial in the sense a culture or state is artificial. As in, they are technically constructed, but that does not reduce their worth, or perception of their worth. As I've often said before, realism provides a framework for RPing - a point of useful metrics that is understandable to everyone involved. One can RP the effects of something more easily if it is placed in a context they understand, and the opposite is also true. Now, this framework is not absolute, and there are clearly points where it is needed less - humans can talk in any setting. But if the subject is economics, then clearly that needs a mutual framework in which to operate, or else one is creating numbers with no relation to each other, and no grounding in any basis of mutual understanding and acceptance. This is both confusing, and can be abused.

Collaboration is also a framework, and used to achieve a better story, in short.

Neither of these frameworks is absolutely necessary, and can be over-applied.* However, to what extent they are necessary depends on the people RPing, and what they are trying to RP. I very much enjoy RPing FanT and FT, where the focus of the RP changes, and where realism in some areas is less important. But when RPing without realism in MT, I will only do so with those I trust not to abuse this situation, or in RPs where it matters less. Its a personal choice to what extent you use these frameworks, but they are useful and popular for good reasons. Their 'artificiality' does not detracted from their usefulness, I find.

Incidentally, this is why regions have an enduring attraction to RPers. Its a good space to have a mutually agreed on framework.

*people can consider realism an ends in itself, whereas I have described here it as a means to an end. Applying it over-zealously can obviously be a problem in its own right.

The spoilered stuff is just additional pints and comments. I was being a bit 'debatey', but it was only aimed at theoretical points

As you can see, it can be argued that complete agreement is not necessary for RPing - particularly when RPing in the storytelling style seen in factbooks.

It is not, but it matters greatly where the disagreement is. Its not a minor disagreement if its on the very nature of your RPs' realism, for instance, and I'm struggling to see how a fundamental disagreement there can be ignored in a context where the realism matters (such as economics).

truth via diversity

This creates issues, however, when trying to jointly create something. A diversity of opinion is a good thing, but clearly there are limits. Its also why you will find organisations that rely on collaboration (such as a government), will tend to have similar views, and diversity in opinion is present only up to a point. Larger organisations ('broad church' Parties) will have a greater diversity of opinion, while smaller outfits can be more purist.

Again, there are scenarios when this does not matter, but these views in themselves have to be mutually agreed upon - it becomes difficult to RP when one person says 'it doesn't matter' and another person says 'it does matter'.

In short, we can agree to disagree.

The normal purpose of this phrase is to end debates. It makes no sense to agree to disagree on an important RPing topic, because the whole point of saying 'lets agree to disagree' is to then close the subject - usually the intent of an RP is to continue it, not end it, and 'agreeing to disagree' also marks when such progression is impossible.

A disclaimer would be that New Aeyariss and I disagree on almost every aspect of RPing at a fundamental level. De facto, we have agreed to disagree, but that means not RPing with each other.

[Flardania]

As you can see, it can be argued that complete agreement is not necessary for RPing - particularly when RPing in the storytelling style seen in factbooks. Of course disagreement means dancing on eggshells, but collaboration on everything is unnecessary and is indeed a barrier in a world where people seek truth via diversity. In short, we can agree to disagree.

Of course the opposing viewpoint is that all RPs should at least aim to be collaborative in every respect.

Anyway, I'd be very interested in your comments?

I am one to believe if it involves your nation alone of course it doesn't need to be collaborative, if it was SACTO would probably dismantle alot of Kasuga's social/domestic policies. Also I believe there should not be a lot of strict rules that "is implied to be the norm" in place before a rp even begins. However with that said I believe in any rp that involves another nation other than yourself then it should aim to collaborative in every respect because if not, you are essentially high jacking an aspect of a nation you can never truly understand.

[Pillowlandia]

Why is there so much salt?