Cyriss Pact(OOC/Alliance/Semi-Closed/TG me to join/P/MT)

[Cappuccina]

Technology and trains it is.

Also, how the fuck are your governments so corrupt?

How's my government corrupt?

[Kowani]

Technology and trains it is.

Also, how the fuck are your governments so corrupt?

How's my government corrupt?

Eh, yours is fine.

[Valrifell]

I'm here too, though I have a strong issue with the second-to-last clause of the charter. I don't think a student exchange (minus the exchange) is an appropriate or relevant clause in a military alliance charter. It also seems to implicitly elevate you to a higher position in the alliance.

IC wise there's no way I would agree to something like that.

T'was removed.

Good.

[Cappuccina]

So... just giving a bullshit number with no backing for GDP... Sorry Et, stuff like this makes me nope right on out of these things.

Along with this I don't like how you say you can only opt out if OOC busy. That's a pretty shitty thing to try and enforce and isn't even enforceable outside. People are free to come and go as is and shouldn't be bound to this just because you want numbers/members. Sorry bud, it's a hard no from me.

It's actually a problem in NS alliances where most members never take part in stuff. It is a common complaint in this forum that people are not committed.

Also not bs it's based on geography and resources and realism. Working on a map.

I mean, tbh this pact's charter, is edging extremely close to binding members into a confederation. Though, I wouldn't object to such an arrangement, other members may not be comfortable with surrendering that much of their sovereignty.

[The Chuck]

It's actually a problem in NS alliances where most members never take part in stuff. It is a common complaint in this forum that people are not committed.

Also not bs it's based on geography and resources and realism. Working on a map.

I mean, tbh this pact's charter, is edging extremely close to binding members into a confederation. Though, I wouldn't object to such an arrangement, other members may not be comfortable with surrendering that much of their sovereignty.

^

You can't cage a free spirit Loth.

[Cappuccina]

I mean, tbh this pact's charter, is edging extremely close to binding members into a confederation. Though, I wouldn't object to such an arrangement, other members may not be comfortable with surrendering that much of their sovereignty.

^

You can't cage a free spirit Loth.

I don't have issue with the charter (If implemented, it'd be a de facto confederacy, from my perspective). I only wanted to bring up the point that this charter is rather intrusive to many aspects of a nation's powers of foreign policy, and nations not fond of such tight integration on policy may not join.

[Valrifell]

^

You can't cage a free spirit Loth.

I don't have issue with the charter (If implemented, it'd be a de facto confederacy, from my perspective). I only wanted to bring up the point that this charter is rather intrusive to many aspects of a nation's powers of foreign policy, and nations not fond of such tight integration on policy may not join.

I've also noticed this as well. Restricting what alliances member states can and cannot join and which wars member states can and can not join is overreaching and de facto selling out the foreign policy.

I rescind my acceptance.

[Kowani]

I don't have issue with the charter (If implemented, it'd be a de facto confederacy, from my perspective). I only wanted to bring up the point that this charter is rather intrusive to many aspects of a nation's powers of foreign policy, and nations not fond of such tight integration on policy may not join.

I've also noticed this as well. Restricting what alliances member states can and cannot join and which wars member states can and can not join is overreaching and de facto selling out the foreign policy.

I rescind my acceptance.

Eh, it might be a bit more like a confederation than a traditional alliance, but I’m not hampered by that fact.

[The Chuck]

I've also noticed this as well. Restricting what alliances member states can and cannot join and which wars member states can and can not join is overreaching and de facto selling out the foreign policy.

I rescind my acceptance.

Eh, it might be a bit more like a confederation than a traditional alliance, but I’m not hampered by that fact.

Only the fact that you have no military yet

TG me the quantity of each of the weapon systems you want btw Kowani. I'll crunch the numbers and give you a receipt. Just list them off in numerical order too.

[Cappuccina]

I've also noticed this as well. Restricting what alliances member states can and cannot join and which wars member states can and can not join is overreaching and de facto selling out the foreign policy.

I rescind my acceptance.

Eh, it might be a bit more like a confederation than a traditional alliance, but I’m not hampered by that fact.

Nor am I, as long as my domestic sovereignty is intact, I couldn't care less about sacrificing some, or even most of my foreign policy independence.

I also looked at all our nation pages, all of us have rather similar policies oddly enough.

[Cappuccina]

Well there are problems with external states dividing the alliance and paralyzing it through intimidation and trying to use economic ties. If anyone else has solutions to prevent dysfunction and division I'm open to completely remaking the charter.

The charter was designed with the specific goal of preventing alliance dysfunction and division. Therefore any alternative solutions are welcome.

Personally, I think the charter is fine as a foundation, and any kinks in its operation will be ironed out as the alliance encounters new situations. The idea of the alliance is to combat ideological balkanization, it only makes sense for you to have written it as it is, you can't combat division if your own camp is busy infighting.

[Cappuccina]

Personally, I think the charter is fine as a foundation, and any kinks in its operation will be ironed out as the alliance encounters new situations. The idea of the alliance is to combat ideological balkanization, it only makes sense for you to have written it as it is, you can combat division if your own camp is busy infighting.

The alliance actually has 3 goals:
Combat Ideological Division
Fight for Human Rights
Expand our Power, Influence, and Economic Prosperity together without infighting, and protecting our members

All of which I agree with, and I believe the level of unity and integration called for in the pact charter is necessary towards those ends.

Also, in case I forgot to mention, I formally accept the Cyriss Pact Charter.

[Kowani]

Interesting. I’m agreeing with Capu on all accounts.
Besides, I can’t lose any foreign policy independence if all my foreign policy RP’s are dead.

[Cappuccina]

Interesting. I’m agreeing with Capu on all accounts.
Besides, I can’t lose any foreign policy independence if all my foreign policy RP’s are dead.

The others must agree however else the charter has to change to accommodate their needs while maintaining unity and combined strength and cooperation preventing paralysis and division in the long term.

Don't compromise too much, or your vision will be lost.

[Valrifell]

Trying to pack together ideologically disparate groups together is generally just a bad idea, and you're only likely to attract moderate or centrist nations.

So, like, save a few steps and brand it as such. The Valrish are a revolutionary sort and are extremely partisan. Thinking more into it I just don't see an IC justification for my nation to be a part of this.

[The Chuck]

Trying to pack together ideologically disparate groups together is generally just a bad idea, and you're only likely to attract moderate or centrist nations.

So, like, save a few steps and brand it as such. The Valrish are a revolutionary sort and are extremely partisan. Thinking more into it I just don't see an IC justification for my nation to be a part of this.

^

From a foreign policy point of view for our own nation, the pact is a major no go. We only answer to our small government and do not listen to the commands of others who aren't of our nation.

IC wise there isn't any point for me to be here if foreign policy is going to be dictated to me by one person who has all the power which this is starting to look like.

[Cappuccina]

I think people are completely missing the point of the pact. Lotharia is trying to propose a league of states to cooperate on a level above petty ideologies, on the basis of fighting for human dignity, and furthering the prosperity of the pact's own member states in a spirit of brotherhood.

I'd say the charter hasn't attracted moderate nations, my nation (which is relatively close to my IRL views) is quite conservative, Kowani's nation and views are way different (and in many ways opposite to) than mine, yet we both have similar thoughts on the vision in charter.... willing to set aside ideology to form an alliance pursuing a higher moral purpose.

[Cappuccina]

Um.....are we still doing this?!?

[A m e n r i a]

I was invited here and my question remains; can I be observer?

I think people are completely missing the point of the pact. Lotharia is trying to propose a league of states to cooperate on a level above petty ideologies, on the basis of fighting for human dignity, and furthering the prosperity of the pact's own member states in a spirit of brotherhood.

I'd say the charter hasn't attracted moderate nations, my nation (which is relatively close to my IRL views) is quite conservative, Kowani's nation and views are way different (and in many ways opposite to) than mine, yet we both have similar thoughts on the vision in charter.... willing to set aside ideology to form an alliance pursuing a higher moral purpose.

I'm working on something like this myself. ICly, however, there's no need for the organization until after the Dark Messiahs crisis.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Um.....are we still doing this?!?

Maybe? This whole I'm a lurker, but I agree with the points that you have laid out.

[Cappuccina]

My second proposal is a RP summit to decide the charter.

Yes! I'd personally prefer the play this out IC, it'd be more natural that way.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Minor note: Changing the target to Bolivia.

In this RP, Brazil is invading Bolivia?

[Andsed]

I am in the process of making 2 roleplays-a summit for our charter where every nation invited can participate, and a war roleplay of the new alliance being forced to immediately protect a new member, Uruguay(A NPC), from a Fascist Brazilian Invasion(Also a NPC, volunteers to roleplay it welcome).

Shout-out to the American Imperialism RP that just now gave me the idea for the basic premise due to the name of the rp and flag of the nation who made the RP.

I think an IC summit to figure things out would be a good idea

Minor note: Changing the target to Bolivia.

So Brazil is invading Bolivia? I don’t know if I should be worried for my nations safety (Andsed is located in modern day Chile and Argentina.)

[Kowani]

My second proposal is a RP summit to decide the charter.

I need to develop Kowáni’s background, then.

[Andsed]

I think an IC summit to figure things out would be a good idea


So Brazil is invading Bolivia? I don’t know if I should be worried for my nations safety (Andsed is located in modern day Chile and Argentina.)

I can change Argentine-Santiagio to you then and edit out the mention if you like.

Yeah that would be nice since my nations borders encompasses all of Argentina and Chile so another state in Argentina might create some awkward conflicts