International Freedom Coalition (OOC, APPS TEMP CLOSED)

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

The suspension is only a temporary measure. I would have to be blind to realize how unpopular it is to unilaterally expel members (and to not to be able to read my own legislation). I simply feel we should be able to vote on it, and until then, Feng is suspended as a precautionary measure (primarily so they can't vote on their own expulsion).

If Ausitoria was simply wanting to boot out Feng for some imaginary revenge, why would they have invited and accepted Feng's re-application a few months ago?

As for any absurd alegations of tyranny, Ardoki has (at least in principle) resigned and even without Ardoki's vote the motion to even start discussing impeachment seems to have (just) failed. The IFC is a tyranny by majority, and a benevolent tyranny by majority at that. (I.e. a democracy).

In the IFC, members ultimately decide everything, and if you don't like it, use what you do not like, and legislate to change it.

Anyway, Feng, Feng will have an opportunity to defend itself in the Council before we vote.

As for Bluewell, I know that isn't decided yet, which is why Ausitoria hasn't done anything yet. Ausitoria would obviously go on attacking Ralkovia, simply because it's a good excuse, but equally obviously they wouldn't defend territory they didn't want too.

But if Bluewell really wanted more defence, they should simply ask for it - although given that there are around 200,000 IFC soldiers there (not including Pillowlandia) and dozens of fleets in the area, they're not exactly poorly defended anyway...

[Great Feng]

The suspension is only a temporary measure. I would have to be blind to realize how unpopular it is to unilaterally expel members (and to not to be able to read my own legislation). I simply feel we should be able to vote on it, and until then, Feng is suspended as a precautionary measure (primarily so they can't vote on their own expulsion).

If Ausitoria was simply wanting to boot out Feng for some imaginary revenge, why would they have invited and accepted Feng's re-application a few months ago?

As for any absurd alegations of tyranny, Ardoki has (at least in principle) resigned and even without Ardoki's vote the motion to even start discussing impeachment seems to have (just) failed. The IFC is a tyranny by majority, and a benevolent tyranny by majority at that. (I.e. a democracy).

In the IFC, members ultimately decide everything, and if you don't like it, use what you do not like, and legislate to change it.

Anyway, Feng, Feng will have an opportunity to defend itself in the Council before we vote.

As for Bluewell, I know that isn't decided yet, which is why Ausitoria hasn't done anything yet. Ausitoria would obviously go on attacking Ralkovia, simply because it's a good excuse, but equally obviously they wouldn't defend territory they didn't want too.

But if Bluewell really wanted more defence, they should simply ask for it - although given that there are around 200,000 IFC soldiers there (not including Pillowlandia) and dozens of fleets in the area, they're not exactly poorly defended anyway...

Still think suspension is unconstitutional. Nothing against you just sayin'.
Though I'll abide by it this time.

[Mizrad]

First off I wass unaware that you were actually autistic, I'll apologize for that. Definitely would've been a lot more understanding with how I worded that if I had known.

With everything else I'm not going to tell you that it isn't happening, because it is, but there are better ways to solve it than everybody arguing about it. We can all talk this out at a normal pace and get things done right? With that being said I appreciate you admitting where you're wrong and I hope you are accepting of my apology. Now finally I think we should all find a way to move on from bickering to making actual progress. Does anybody have suggestions?

Apology accepted.
Now if only more Politicians would admit they were wrong.

That would definitely be a start haha.

Anyways my proposal is that we start a thread where each IFC member states their complaints and then we figure out a way to do something about it. No insults, no bullshit, just "X is what I find wrong with the IFC" and we find a solution. If the thread dies then it shows nobody actually cares enough about the issues to do anything.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Haha, that's what most of our threads are for. Definitely not dying.

Still think suspension is unconstitutional. Nothing against you just sayin'.

Honestly, I am the author of about 90% of the IFC's legislation. I know what I can't do, and I can do anything else proper, provided of course that it won't lose the confidence of the Council. In this case I think a suspension, a peaceful and calm discussion, and a free vote later is entirely proper (and also probably not unpopular).

[Great Feng]

Haha, that's what most of our threads are for. Definitely not dying.

Still think suspension is unconstitutional. Nothing against you just sayin'.

Honestly, I am the author of about 90% of the IFC's legislation. I know what I can't do, and I can do anything else proper, provided of course that it won't lose the confidence of the Council. In this case I think a suspension, a peaceful and calm discussion, and a free vote later is entirely proper (and also probably not unpopular).

This brings up an interesting case: You could potentially be manipulating the interpretation of the meaning of the legislations to your own profit and liking.
Should the writers of the legislation be allowed to serve as interpreters of it or should they be forced to have someone else interpret it?
Else it could and may have already turn/turned into a dictatorship.
Theoretically at least.

[Asigna]

Let me ask though. Who among the IFC is in favor of appeasing these turn of events?

[The United Remnants of America]

Let me ask though. Who among the IFC is in favor of appeasing these turn of events?

Which events specifically?

[Asigna]

Let me ask though. Who among the IFC is in favor of appeasing these turn of events?

Which events specifically?

Lib's actions as of late.

[The United Remnants of America]

Which events specifically?

Lib's actions as of late.

In favor of some, not in favor of others.

[Roskian Federation]

alright

roskian naval warships are ready to go

when we fukin shet up bois

[Roskian Federation]

Typical. You likely just did this because of a mixture of it being Nihon specifically and hatred for feng.
And Bluewell applied too. WTF? Double standards.
Mark my words this is becoming more like a dictatorship by the day...
The IFC now only serves to profit L&A. Having Ardoki only adds an Anti-SACTO member to the IFC and gives L&A an extra vote against people like Inyursta and Aravea.
L&A is only intervening in wars when it profits him. And he is trying to fill his government with people loyal more to him than the alliance.
Be warned IFC...
You may have your Erdogan moment soon enough.
However what article/law did you use to legally suspend me?
I think you did an unconstitutional action.
As such I am hesitant to abide by this ban as I find it unconstitutional.
Also if I remember correctly the resolution to impeach Ausitoria formally passed.

are you leaving NS again?

[Roskian Federation]

Let me ask though. Who among the IFC is in favor of appeasing these turn of events?

I'm not going to appeal, mainly because its a waste of time. The IFC is basically LAA and then all the poor souls with nowhere else to go.

[Guadalupador]

Let me ask though. Who among the IFC is in favor of appeasing these turn of events?

Not a fan to be honest.

[The United Remnants of America]

alright

roskian naval warships are ready to go

when we fukin shet up bois

Same. I'm ready.

[Valaran]

Ausi might not be the most liked leader of the IFC although I'm sure any of the past leaders would agree with his decision to suspend you.

Well, tbch, I have no opinion on the matter in either direction.

Let me ask though. Who among the IFC is in favor of appeasing these turn of events?

hah

As for any absurd alegations of tyranny, Ardoki has (at least in principle) resigned and even without Ardoki's vote the motion to even start discussing impeachment seems to have (just) failed. The IFC is a tyranny by majority, and a benevolent tyranny by majority at that. (I.e. a democracy).

Actually the motion was to initiate impeachment proceedings, rather than begin discussion.

And there is no special marker of benevolence in the council (and nor would that make the IFC democratic - its only democratic in the sense that its constituent parts are democracies - the council is closer to something else).

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Let me ask though. Who among the IFC is in favor of appeasing these turn of events?

I'm not going to appeal, mainly because its a waste of time. The IFC is basically LAA and then all the poor souls with nowhere else to go.

Honestly, if Valaran was counting correctly, you lost the motion to initiate impeachment proceedings fair and square in a free and open vote. We each argued our points of view and at the end I happened to have a tiny majority in numbers. The vote on whether Feng should be expelled, further suspended, or fully reinstated will also be a free vote, and it might well go against Ausitoria's preference (particularly because Ausitoria doesn't mind much what the outcome is, so they won't be bothering drumming up support, so you can certainly campaign strongly against it if you can marshal the arguments properly).

If I can be so bold as to give you advice, don't side with people, and then you won't have to give up on democracy just because you lose a vote. If most of us side with issues, not people, then since we all have slightly different perspectives on these issues, we will constantly divide and redivide on different sides, and lose some arguments and win others. Ausitoria has lost around a dozen votes, but it hasn't stopped them from winning a few times as many, and I'm still trying to get better at it. I think at one point or other almost every single nation in the IFC has voted against something Ausitoria supports, and I think at some point all of them have voted for something Ausitoria supports as well.

(That's what I mean when I say benevolent democracy, Valaran - the benevolence to ensure that the majority does not squash the minority, because the people in the majority may be in the minority on the next issue).

[Isle of Lost]

I'm not going to appeal, mainly because its a waste of time. The IFC is basically LAA and then all the poor souls with nowhere else to go.

Honestly, if Valaran was counting correctly, you lost the motion to initiate impeachment proceedings fair and square in a free and open vote. We each argued our points of view and at the end I happened to have a tiny majority in numbers. The vote on whether Feng should be expelled, further suspended, or fully reinstated will also be a free vote, and it might well go against Ausitoria's preference (particularly because Ausitoria doesn't mind much what the outcome is, so they won't be bothering drumming up support, so you can certainly campaign strongly against it if you can marshal the arguments properly).

If I can be so bold as to give you advice, don't side with people, and then you won't have to give up on democracy just because you lose a vote. If most of us side with issues, not people, then since we all have slightly different perspectives on these issues, we will constantly divide and redivide on different sides, and lose some arguments and win others. Ausitoria has lost around a dozen votes, but it hasn't stopped them from winning a few times as many, and I'm still trying to get better at it. I think at one point or other almost every single nation in the IFC has voted against something Ausitoria supports, and I think at some point all of them have voted for something Ausitoria supports as well.

(That's what I mean when I say benevolent democracy, Valaran - the benevolence to ensure that the majority does not squash the minority, because the people in the majority may be in the minority on the next issue).

If I may interject, once again understanding my App is somewhere in the clouds, but currently as a prospective IFC member I do not see how one would dismiss Feng from the IFC so as he/she cannot vote on their own ejection legislation but allow a government official to then vote on their own impeachment legislation. Nothing against either side of course, I just sense that perhaps this was over looked given no direct mandate forbidding or allowing such. However, as a non-member my view is of course open to ignoring and I fully understand such and will not be offended if such is the case

[The Lendol Archipelago]

Honestly, if Valaran was counting correctly, you lost the motion to initiate impeachment proceedings fair and square in a free and open vote. We each argued our points of view and at the end I happened to have a tiny majority in numbers. The vote on whether Feng should be expelled, further suspended, or fully reinstated will also be a free vote, and it might well go against Ausitoria's preference (particularly because Ausitoria doesn't mind much what the outcome is, so they won't be bothering drumming up support, so you can certainly campaign strongly against it if you can marshal the arguments properly).

If I can be so bold as to give you advice, don't side with people, and then you won't have to give up on democracy just because you lose a vote. If most of us side with issues, not people, then since we all have slightly different perspectives on these issues, we will constantly divide and redivide on different sides, and lose some arguments and win others. Ausitoria has lost around a dozen votes, but it hasn't stopped them from winning a few times as many, and I'm still trying to get better at it. I think at one point or other almost every single nation in the IFC has voted against something Ausitoria supports, and I think at some point all of them have voted for something Ausitoria supports as well.

(That's what I mean when I say benevolent democracy, Valaran - the benevolence to ensure that the majority does not squash the minority, because the people in the majority may be in the minority on the next issue).

If I may interject, once again understanding my App is somewhere in the clouds, but currently as a prospective IFC member I do not see how one would dismiss Feng from the IFC so as he/she cannot vote on their own ejection legislation but allow a government official to then vote on their own impeachment legislation. Nothing against either side of course, I just sense that perhaps this was over looked given no direct mandate forbidding or allowing such. However, as a non-member my view is of course open to ignoring and I fully understand such and will not be offended if such is the case

I think that Feng would likely be assumed as voting against it. Aus' vote was an assumed vote as well, unless I'm mistaken.

[Isle of Lost]

Aus explained that Feng would have a chance to defend themselves prior to the vote but is being suspended such that they cannot vote.

The suspension is only a temporary measure. I would have to be blind to realize how unpopular it is to unilaterally expel members (and to not to be able to read my own legislation). I simply feel we should be able to vote on it, and until then, Feng is suspended as a precautionary measure (primarily so they can't vote on their own expulsion).

Edited for proper quotation now that I am off my mobile

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

To clarify, Feng is being suspended because it is my government's opinion that:

1. Among oriental nations, it has historically been considered that tributary states are a basis for claims of sovereignty,
2. De-facto economic independence is either a primary function or the primary function of a nation, and a significant or integral part of sovereignty, and
3. The nation appears to be proving to be incapable of having an independent foreign policy, and therefore:

For these reasons the IFC member has or may well have de-facto ceased to act sufficiently as a sovereign nation, and cannot consequently be considered a functional member, either on grounds of the necessity of equality among members, the necessity of members being able to freely carry out IFC policy, or undue influence exerted by a third party.

To be very clear, Feng is not being suspended to ensure that they do not vote on their own expulsion/suspension reinstatement. Feng is being suspended because it is the government's opinion that Feng should be suspended as a precautionary measure, which is because the government has no confidence that Feng is functionally independent, for the reasons listed above.

[The Lendol Archipelago]

Was it stated anywhere that Feng will not be permitted to vote on his expulsion?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

It is certainly my understanding that it is a convention that suspended members cannot vote. But it is not a very well-defined term. I suppose any of the Speaker, Judicial Committee, Cabinet, or Council could contest whether that is a convention with the force of law, or whether it is up to the discretion of the Speaker, or possibly the Government.

[Great Feng]

Typical. You likely just did this because of a mixture of it being Nihon specifically and hatred for feng.
And Bluewell applied too. WTF? Double standards.
Mark my words this is becoming more like a dictatorship by the day...
The IFC now only serves to profit L&A. Having Ardoki only adds an Anti-SACTO member to the IFC and gives L&A an extra vote against people like Inyursta and Aravea.
L&A is only intervening in wars when it profits him. And he is trying to fill his government with people loyal more to him than the alliance.
Be warned IFC...
You may have your Erdogan moment soon enough.
However what article/law did you use to legally suspend me?
I think you did an unconstitutional action.
As such I am hesitant to abide by this ban as I find it unconstitutional.
Also if I remember correctly the resolution to impeach Ausitoria formally passed.

are you leaving NS again?

Ha not even close.
But I will have a surprise ready in a couple months.

[Great Feng]

First off Ausi besides the Tribute I can do whatever I want economically.
Second off I have a completely independent foreign policy.
Thirdly "economic independence " is tricky to define. Do you suggest that EU nations don't have economic independence? Because they have more restrictions placed on them than my tribue to Nihon places on me.
Thirdly Austria Hungary had a different policy: They payed smaller nations so those nations wouldn't invade or attack them, in a very similar manner to the tribute system. Were they not independent?

[Roskian Federation]

I'm not going to appeal, mainly because its a waste of time. The IFC is basically LAA and then all the poor souls with nowhere else to go.

Honestly, if Valaran was counting correctly, you lost the motion to initiate impeachment proceedings fair and square in a free and open vote. We each argued our points of view and at the end I happened to have a tiny majority in numbers. The vote on whether Feng should be expelled, further suspended, or fully reinstated will also be a free vote, and it might well go against Ausitoria's preference (particularly because Ausitoria doesn't mind much what the outcome is, so they won't be bothering drumming up support, so you can certainly campaign strongly against it if you can marshal the arguments properly).

If I can be so bold as to give you advice, don't side with people, and then you won't have to give up on democracy just because you lose a vote. If most of us side with issues, not people, then since we all have slightly different perspectives on these issues, we will constantly divide and redivide on different sides, and lose some arguments and win others. Ausitoria has lost around a dozen votes, but it hasn't stopped them from winning a few times as many, and I'm still trying to get better at it. I think at one point or other almost every single nation in the IFC has voted against something Ausitoria supports, and I think at some point all of them have voted for something Ausitoria supports as well.

(That's what I mean when I say benevolent democracy, Valaran - the benevolence to ensure that the majority does not squash the minority, because the people in the majority may be in the minority on the next issue).

That count ignores every vote after it.