The Fer-de-Lance Vs The Hydra Chicken [HARD MT][OOC]

[Inyourfaceistan]

I would like to announce that I proposed the following terms via TG and they have been denied.

Looks like this will be getting interesting soon...

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I notice you only give your side of the story. I have always agreed to the first on the understanding that if inyursta wasn't there the seas around would still be there, ergo IYF didn't create the sea any more than they created the atmosphere; and I can't control the second as most Ausitorian trade is governed by multinational organizations, and isn't even Ausitorian. It is therefore a completely pointless demand.

I really do not have time to go into the details of the Ausitorian space program. All I will say is that the design performance of the Starfighter is much more limited than the current plans (it does use boosters) and therefore far more readily achievable. In any event you may substitute the f/a 70 Panther from Halcyon arms - the Ausitorian modified variants can attain the required altitude (you can corrobate with Parthan if you like, although I think he's a bit fed up).

In short, 2ria: Don't like RPing with us? Do not RP with us.

You started this. Aravea, remember? And now this. If you don't want to cooperate with me, why did you launch a cyberattack against Ausitoria? Evidently you assumed you would be able to force your own idea of realism onto me.

You can't. No more than I can force mine on yours. Therefore let us agree to disagree and proceed.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Well since it looks like I'm out of the IFC, then it looks like I'm free to do almost anything I want without serious reprocussion.

Talk about irony!

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

It's the difference between the freedom to operate under shared freedoms or the freedom to have distinct freedoms - like Britain and the EU. Freedom at a discrete level, or freedom at some shared level. I think it is fair to say that the two of us have an almost completely opposed conceptual understanding of the levels and mechanisms of freedom.

Anyway, do you have any desire to continue this RP? I have the deepest OOC reservations about continuing this RP with you, regarding it as an excessive waste of time, and in any event as far as I'm concerned the details are merely approximations of generally non-Ausitorian and probably generally non-cannon probabilities.

Given those two points, and given that we have no need to RP or decide such matters of detail, I think agreeing not to concern ourselves with any such details would be the most straightforward way to conclude this RP at present. Would you agree? Or shall we agree to disagree? Anyway, that is how I shall proceed.

[Inyourfaceistan]

It's the difference between the freedom to operate under shared freedoms or the freedom to have distinct freedoms - like Britain and the EU. Freedom at a discrete level, or freedom at some shared level.

But freedom at a shared level is inherently less free and more restrictive than freedom at an individual level.
So what's your point?

I think it is fair to say that the two of us have an almost completely opposed conceptual understanding of the levels and mechanisms of freedom.

You don't say?

Although I think it's fair to guess that you don't really care about freedom and just want influence and authority but whatever.

Anyway, do you have any desire to continue this RP? I have the deepest OOC reservations about continuing this RP with you, regarding it as an excessive waste of time, and in any event as far as I'm concerned the details are merely approximations of generally non-Ausitorian and probably generally non-cannon probabilities.

Given those two points, and given that we have no need to RP or decide such matters of detail, I think agreeing not to concern ourselves with any such details would be the most straightforward way to conclude this RP at present. Would you agree? Or shall we agree to disagree? Anyway, that is how I shall proceed.

What details?

You either think you can move assets through my waters without my permission or you can't.
You can or you can't. There is no in between.

And I am highly certain you do not have the military skills needed to assert your authority over me, I am entirely sure you can not turn my allies and trade partners against me, and I am completely willing to wager you have no other cards up your sleeve which can do a damn thing to influence me now that military, trade and diplomacy are all completely out of the question.

So if you don't think you can physically change my ability to defend my own waters, then be my guest and walk away.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Relevant development for anyone who was following this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=372670

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you very much.

Addressing your earlier post, individual freedom over shared freedoms doesn't work unless your highest ambition is the freedom to go and live as a hermit in a cave without any external services or beneficial human interaction, the freedom to rape or murder everyone you like, or the freedom not to contribute anything to wider society. That may be some people's ambition, it certainly isn't mine or Ausitoria's.

There is the interesting in-between question of what counts as Ausitoria, which I shall explain again. Given that Ausitoria is fast ceasing to exist except as a philosophical construct, the ability for Ausitoria to evade restrictions is approaching infinite. You would virtually have to block all foreign trade to have any successful chance of stopping Ausitoria. (Did you read that article about the Ausitorian offset trade? The important point is that the trade doesn't need to be legally Ausitorian to be effectively Ausitorian: Ausitoria is smashing the boundaries of what it means to be sovereign).

However, if you insist upon resolving the detail of these not-legally Ausitorians, I am quite willing to continue to RP them at a slower pace.

In any event, I am increasingly confident that the Commonwealth's weapons are more than a match for Inyursta's publicly available weapons in every category. However this is an economic dispute so Ausitoria will continue to confine itself to using its financial weapons, unless you find Inyursta's economic weapons are outmatched and you decide to turn to Inyursta's supposed military superiority. In any event our nations are both members of more powerful alliances, and both nations also have other more important matters to pursue, so the likelihood of a one-on-one fight should be minuscule.

So, let us wrap this all up. Before I do finish my next post; just to check, what is the current standard of Inyursta's treatment of third-party ships?

[Inyourfaceistan]

Addressing your earlier post, individual freedom over shared freedoms doesn't work unless your highest ambition is the freedom to go and live as a hermit in a cave without any external services or beneficial human interaction, the freedom to rape or murder everyone you like, or the freedom not to contribute anything to wider society. That may be some people's ambition, it certainly isn't mine or Ausitoria's.

This argument is entirely strawman.

There is the interesting in-between question of what counts as Ausitoria, which I shall explain again. Given that Ausitoria is fast ceasing to exist except as a philosophical construct, the ability for Ausitoria to evade restrictions is approaching infinite. You would virtually have to block all foreign trade to have any successful chance of stopping Ausitoria.

I highly doubt that...

(Did you read that article about the Ausitorian offset trade? The important point is that the trade doesn't need to be legally Ausitorian to be effectively Ausitorian: Ausitoria is smashing the boundaries of what it means to be sovereign).

One word for you: cocaine.

Read about it.

In any event, I am increasingly confident that the Commonwealth's weapons are more than a match for Inyursta's publicly available weapons in every category.

1) By what measurement?

2) "Better Weapons" have little to do with strategy, operation, tactics, and logistics - which are the true conflict winners.

However this is an economic dispute so Ausitoria will continue to confine itself to using its financial weapons, unless you find Inyursta's economic weapons are outmatched and you decide to turn to Inyursta's supposed military superiority. In any event our nations are both members of more powerful alliances, and both nations also have other more important matters to pursue, so the likelihood of a one-on-one fight should be minuscule.

Oh no, economic weapons from someone who doesn't trade with me and has absolutely no influence in my region.
I'm terrified!

So, let us wrap this all up. Before I do finish my next post; just to check, what is the current standard of Inyursta's treatment of third-party ships?

The same way we treat third-party trucks passing through our roads.
Duh.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"Duh"? You really haven't ever heard of freedom of navigation, have you?

Ignoring everything else (we're never going to agree), thank you for your reply. I'll see if I can't get a post up some time in the next week.

[Isle of Lost]

"Duh"? You really haven't ever heard of freedom of navigation, have you?

Ignoring everything else (we're never going to agree), thank you for your reply. I'll see if I can't get a post up some time in the next week.

I do not seek to interfere with Inyur's argument against you, but I believe it is more than worth my noting that a majority of your argument is based on the idea that Freedom of Navigation is an actual thing that exists between you and Inyursta.

I have a post on the previous page where I seeked to prove such does not exist that I think you chose to ignore rather than giving an acknowledgment.

For your Convenience
-Furthermore, you may add to that previous post by removing any assumption that the International Freedom Coalition has any sort of law governing Navigation; as you have hence removed Inyursta from the IFC and therefore voided any bounds Inyursta had to IFC law assuming such a law did exist.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

RL standards are generally customary, particularly amongst the pro-realism community, e.g. units, language, culture, and ideology. That includes policy.

My point is that there is absolutely nothing silly about going around Nationstates OOCly assuming, unless otherwise clarified, that nations behave similarly to RL ones. That Inyursta does not behave similarly is of course their own choice. However there is nothing "obvious" about nations on nationstates not behaving in a customary manner according to RL standards. Hence saying 'Duh' is entirely unjustified.

That, and that only, is my point on that subject.

As for the IFC, I quite fail to see what that has to do with this RP. Please leave them out of it.

[Isle of Lost]

Three Points:

1. If behaving like "realistic" is a key cornerstone to the RP community, than realistically Lib and Aus would recognize a lack of formal Trade Treaty with Inyursta and push to create one rather than implying Inyursta has one. Keep in mind that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is signed by only 60 member nations; and considering the WA 'being' the UN for NS, a lack of membership in such by Inyursta's part further destroys your own point...

2. You are correct, it is not wrong to assume such; however, I have come to understand that is error here is in that you have been corrected in your assumptions but for some reason, which is not yet clear to me, you continue to act as though your assumption is correct? I believe it to be rather clear that legally you have no case here unless you develop some sort of treaty.

Perhaps I have missed an OOC and IC conversion point where you OOC agree you have no right to put shipping in the The Sea of Juarez without Inyurstan approve due in part to a formal Trade Treaty between your nations and in second part to the recognition that said body of water is Internal Waters and the argument here is whether Ausitorian ships would ICly know of such bounds... but I am doubting such is the case.

3. Finally your failure to see how the IFC fits in to my context is rather disappointing, but I will gladly clear it up for you.

At the time of my previous post, only two organizations held the ability to impose superior law upon Inyursta; those being SACTO and the IFC. I stated that your removal of Inyursta from the IFC voided any chance to further impose superior law of navigation upon said county; I.E: If the IFC held some sort of law requiring all members to acknowledge Freedom of Navigation among members said law is now voided in the eyes of Inyurstan law and therefore is a moot point.

[Inyourfaceistan]

"Duh"? You really haven't ever heard of freedom of navigation, have you?

What?
A concept of "customary" international law IRL which does not apply to NS because there is no true UN equivalent, to which even certain IRL nations have not ratified?
On top of which the concept was actually derived from European colonial exploitation powers deciding amongst themselves that their trade ships were now off-limits during war?

This has to do with my policies for letting foreign trucks use my roads and foreign ships use my internal waters how?

As for the IFC, I quite fail to see what that has to do with this RP. Please leave them out of it.

He was bringing up the IFC to point out that I do not belong to any organization which demands "freedom" of navigation (although I would fail to see how letting Iranian ships sail up the Chesapeake is 'freedom') between members.
I'm no longer in the IFC, and I have never been and will never be in the WA, and there is no UN in nationstates. So please point out a treaty I ratified or an organization I belong to that says that your assets have a right to move through my waters.

And that's ironic coming from you who was so quick to try and drag the IFC into a war with SACTO in Tarkan...

[Alexiandra]

EDIT: In fact, having changed sides twice, I now find myself withdrawing from what seems likely to devolve into petty squabbling. I'll be observing, since you're all great writers, and I hope this RP takes off.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

1.

Freedom of navigation is not ensured by treaties, it is simply customary. Freedom of navigation has an ancient history - the Americans used it as justification for the 1812 war, which I shouldn't need to tell you is rather before the UN.

The UN has almost nothing to do with what is custom. In RL freedom of navigation would be customary with or without ink on paper, just as saying 'hello' rather than 'ahoy' is preferred, and people use other words and concepts and expect to be understood and that there us a modicum of moral cohesiveness and mental modes of thought in society. People generally think on the lines they are used to thinking on, and assimilate ideas and such modes of thought.

If anything is standard in RL, including almost universal concepts like free navigation, is it perfectly straightforward and unarguably less tedious to act on the assumption that such standards apply unless otherwise specified. Therefore I assume that other nations are like RL, including almost universal free navigation, unless otherwise specified.

It's like when somebody says MT on an RP, I generally assume they don't want me to make a reference to the sentient ponies in Ausitoria, or whatever; and you can assume there aren't a load of sentient ponies in Ausitoria. Assumptions are how the world works, and are almost invariably useful in making RPing and virtually any higher-level logical process easier.

In future I would strongly recommend that those of you who do not follow such RL standards really should say it somewhere, perhaps on your signatures - it would save a lot of time. Of course if you don't know what the RL standards are, I forgive you. Now you know.

2. [&] 3.

See above.

[...]

Also see above.

To sum, Freedom of Navigation is a custom that became entrenched throughout the industrial revolution, and Inyursta is distinctly non-standard in this regard if we assume RL is the standard. Now that you have stated that you are non-standard, I know how to finish this bit of the RP as quickly as possible.

[Isle of Lost]

Freedom of navigation is not ensured by treaties, it is simply customary

By stating that Freedom of Navigation is customary you are therefore assuming two things of the RL world and applying them to NS.

First Assumption: Freedom of Navigation has been around Forever

Freedom of Navigation as we know it today is a 19th Century ideal rooted in the Paris Declaration (1855? I'll have to check date) which if I am correct was convened to rid the seas of Privateers. In this convention Western powers upheld the ideal that "Free Ships carry Free Goods" (allow all shipping regardless of destination) which up until this point was equally disputed with "Enemy Ships carry Enemy Goods" (attack ships carrying enemy goods). Hence your example of the War of 1812, the United States disagreed with the United Kingdom over which rule applied (ergo, it was not 'customary' at that date). This navigation stuff is all sorts of grey-area truly until the Paris Declaration and (as we'll see in point 2) was not applied to the world until the UN Convention you dismissed.


Second Assumption: All NS Nations are Western

Although many on NS might assume this to be true (biased slander against NS users, my apologies), such is not the case. The earlier mentioned Paris Declaration was something acknowledged by Western nations; not Eastern nations. China, Japan, Russia (for some time) and even the Ottomans to some extent didn't follow such ideals.

Customs and courtesies change between cultures and to apply Western ideals such as "Free Ships carry Free Goods" to Inyursta would be to declare Inyursta is a 'Western' culture; which he has not implicitly declared himself.

[Inyourfaceistan]

To sum, Freedom of Navigation is a custom that became entrenched throughout the industrial revolution

See what IoL wrote.

and Inyursta is distinctly non-standard in this regard if we assume RL is the standard.

Except it's not a standard.
IRL or otherwise.

IRL it is common, but by no means is it a concrete universal standard from which to assume anything of, especially not on NS.

Also, this debate is slightly tangent considering a lot of talk of freedom of navigation involves open oceans (blue water); not continental/territorial/internal/littoral (brown waters)...

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

In the first place, freedom of navigation as we know it today started to be drawn into treaties in the early 1600s between the French/Dutch and Ottomans. I regard 400 years at least of conceptual development as long enough to be getting on with.

In the second place, Ottomans.

And I don't see why international straits would by RL standard be considered anything other than open. Obviously your own nations can be however you like, but if you want to RP with anybody else, it's up to you to (a) make the differences clear and (b) enforce the differences - and preferably also (c) explain why your nations still exist despite running contrary to the convention.

[Inyourfaceistan]

In the first place, freedom of navigation as we know it today started to be drawn into treaties in the early 1600s between the French/Dutch and Ottomans. I regard 400 years at least of conceptual development as long enough to be getting on with.

Again:

So please point out a treaty I ratified or an organization I belong to that says that your assets have a right to move through my waters.

And I don't see why international straits would by RL standard be considered anything other than open.

1) Never said they were closed. Ships can move through Inyursta's internal waters, so long as they do so with Inyursta's permission, on Inyursta's terms and by Inyursta's rules.

2) Implying Panama doesn't have de facto power to shut down their canal at any moment.
Implying Turkey and Malaysia don't have de facto power to shut down their straits.
Implying the US and Canada don't have the combined de facto power to close out the Great Lakes at a whim.
Etc. & Etc.

Obviously your own nations can be however you like, but if you want to RP with anybody else, it's up to you to (a) make the differences clear and (b) enforce the differences

Or maybe it's up to you not to base your plans on poor assumptions...

and preferably also (c) explain why your nations still exist despite running contrary to the convention.

1) You still haven't proven unrestricted navigation of territorial/internal/littoral/brown waters is some universally accepted and ratified standard

2) Again, Inyursta never signed any treaty or belongs to any organization which demands they do accept the above as law

3) Implying a nation can't exist without playing by your rules

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

So please point out a treaty I ratified or an organization I belong to that says that your assets have a right to move through my waters.

That has nothing to do with OOC conventions.

1) Never said they were closed. Ships can move through Inyursta's internal waters, so long as they do so with Inyursta's permission, on Inyursta's terms and by Inyursta's rules.

Implying that's the definition of open.

de facto

=/= de jure

1) You still haven't proven unrestricted navigation of territorial/internal/littoral/brown waters is some universally accepted and ratified standard

Liar.

2) Again, Inyursta never signed any treaty or belongs to any organization which demands they do accept the above as law

Again, nothing to do with OOC conventions.

3) Implying a nation can't exist without playing by your rules

You can't RP with me if you don't play by my rules.

[Inyourfaceistan]

So please point out a treaty I ratified or an organization I belong to that says that your assets have a right to move through my waters.

That has nothing to do with OOC conventions.

1) Inyursta is not a signatory of any such convention. This is IC.

2) So then what does it have to do with?

1) Never said they were closed. Ships can move through Inyursta's internal waters, so long as they do so with Inyursta's permission, on Inyursta's terms and by Inyursta's rules.

Implying that's the definition of open.

Its the same damn way a foreign truck would drive through my roads.

de facto

=/= de jure

My point exactly!

1) You still haven't proven unrestricted navigation of territorial/internal/littoral/brown waters is some universally accepted and ratified standard

Liar.

> Links post that I just shot down
> Calls me a liar

Well played, sir! I see you have followed up my logic-based challenge that your justifications and pretenses are based upon non-universal, non-binding, non-applicable, entirely de-jure and in this particular case non-existent concepts of international diplomatic philosophy which (as I stated out before in branding them as de-jure) can easily be nullified by physical and direct action; by resorting to ad-hominem attacks against my honesty.
A classic move, and masterfully executed!

(Almost as masterfully as a tilt raise in poker, I might add)

2) Again, Inyursta never signed any treaty or belongs to any organization which demands they do accept the above as law

Again, nothing to do with OOC conventions.

So lets break this down.

You seem to be stating this isn't a convention in the form of an agreement.
I can assume based on basic common sense you don't mean a convention as a large gathering or as part of an electoral system.

It's unlikely you are speaking convention as in common practice because by definition that convention can and often is broken (hence the term "non-conventional wisdom"); or else we wouldn't have south-oriented maps, women who wear converse with their gowns and the entire strategies that have won wars for smaller guerrilla or semi-guerrilla armies.

So please, find me a definition of convention which is not only automatic and to be assumed, but also works like a binding contract?

-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convention
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict ... convention
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... convention

3) Implying a nation can't exist without playing by your rules

You can't RP with me if you don't play by my rules.

This argument has literally done a full circle, it seems...

---

Edit: You are free to leave if all you can do is whine with no bite. Nobody gives a damn.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

This is ridiculous. You’re trying to have an argument and you clearly don’t even know what I'm arguing about. Because I'm not arguing about what you think we’re arguing about (you seem to be think you’re stuck in some crazy circle; so evidently you are arguing about it).

Shall I explain?

There are two different arguments here: the first is the one all of us have been arguing about, the second is the one Inyursta has been arguing about. The first is whether freedom of navigation is an OOC convention; the second is whether it is an IC convention. I have not been discussing whether something is an IC convention OOCly because we all already know it isn’t an IC convention. You think I’m arguing it is an IC convention; I’m not arguing that, I’m arguing it’s an OOC convention which has nothing to do with the fact it's not an IC convention.

It is really very obvious that freedom of navigation is an OOC convention. Let us start from the basis that what is an OOC convention is completely and utterly decided by what goes on IRL, in the real world. Freedom of navigation has been enforced by first the Pax Britannia and then the Pax Americana for most of the last two fucking centuries since the victory of the Manchester school of trade. It is now a custom as set in stone as the British Constitution (another binding convention); and I don’t care what fantasy world you live in IRL, but in modern international policy making it is a given standard, even if there are a few places that attempt to flout it. It is almost the height of ignorance to suppose it is not an OOC convention, although given modern education perhaps that is understandable.

Since what is a real world convention is a reasonable standard and approximation for nationstates, that is what I have been using. It is therefore unarguably defensible for me to ask you whether your nation follows those rules.

The point of my argument is on this only:

So, let us wrap this all up. Before I do finish my next post; just to check, what is the current standard of Inyursta's treatment of third-party ships?

The same way we treat third-party trucks passing through our roads.
Duh.

It is about this:

Why should I have to assume your nation doesn’t behave like nations do IRL? Why can’t I assume it does behave like nations do IRL unless you specify otherwise?

I.e., there is nothing “Duh” about asking whether Inyursta isn’t like IRL.

I am entirely and absolutely entitled to ask you a sensible question without you saying 'duh' after you give an answer.

I would be exceptionally grateful if you could confine your reply to that point: it is acceptable for me to ask you a question on the basis of supposing that things in nationstates might behave like they do IRL, including the RL standard of freedom of navigation.

(Although since now we know your nation doesn’t behave like normal nations do IRL; whether it was justifiable for me to ask you is hardly important – if you disagree, just say you disagree, and we can end this argument here on another note of mutual disagreement).

---

As for the argument about what we’re arguing about:

For God’s sakes, learn to tell when people are arguing a different point. If you think an argument is circular/repetitive, you may simply not have realized that you're not arguing on the same point. (Therefore you are obviously not well placed to work out what I am arguing).

[Inyourfaceistan]

This is ridiculous. You’re trying to have an argument and you clearly don’t even know what I'm arguing about. Because I'm not arguing about what you think we’re arguing about (you seem to be think
you’re stuck in some crazy circle; so evidently you are arguing about it).

So you can't keep up with me point by point, the argument becomes circular, and it's all because I don't know what we are arguing about?

There are two different arguments here: the first is the one all of us have been arguing about, the second is the one Inyursta has been arguing about. The first is whether freedom of navigation is an OOC convention; the second is whether it is an IC convention. I have not been discussing whether something is an IC convention OOCly because we all already know it isn’t an IC convention. You think I’m arguing it is an IC convention; I’m not arguing that, I’m arguing it’s an OOC convention which has nothing to do with the fact it's not an IC convention.

You're implying the two are mutually exclusive.
You're implying I haven't been simultaneously arguing against both this entire time.

So let's go back to ground 1:
> You have still yet to prove that 'freedom' of navigation is an absolute rule, set in stone, and should be regarded as the standard setting
> You have still failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that Inyursta ever signed any pact or convention which states foreign bodies can freely navigate their internal waters without regulation or regard to Inyurstan law and sovereign authority.

It is really very obvious that freedom of navigation is an OOC convention.

[citation needed]

Let us start from the basis that what is an OOC convention is completely and utterly decided by what goes on IRL

Oh my God for once I agree with something you say.

Freedom of navigation has been enforced by first the Pax Britannia and then the Pax Americana for most of the last two fucking centuries since the victory of the Manchester school of trade. It is now a custom as set in stone as the British Constitution (another binding convention); and I don’t care what fantasy world you live in IRL, but in modern international policy making it is a given standard, even if there are a few places that attempt to flout it. It is almost the height of ignorance to suppose it is not an OOC convention, although given modern education perhaps that is understandable.

So you admit there are nations even IRL which do not follow this supposed "standard"?
If there are exceptions to the rule how can it be set in stone?

Since what is a real world convention is a reasonable standard and approximation for nationstates, that is what I have been using. It is therefore unarguably defensible for me to ask you whether your nation follows those rules.

I never said it wasn't.

However, it has been stated time and time again Inyursta treats its internal waters the same as it does its land territories.
That being said, why would foreign trade asset moving through Inyurstan territory be treated any different than foreign trade asset moving through Inyurstan territory?

The point of my argument is on this only:

The same way we treat third-party trucks passing through our roads.
Duh.

It is about this:

Why should I have to assume your nation doesn’t behave like nations do IRL? Why can’t I assume it does behave like nations do IRL unless you specify otherwise?

1) See above.

2) But there are IRL nations which do not abide by your supposed "set in stone" rule. So feel free to 'assume' whatever you want*, but that does not give you any reason to hold me to some philosophical "standard" without even the slightest shred of evidence beyond bandwagon logic and the anecdotal fact European colonial powers made it up as an excuse to protect their exploitation vessels from each other and now the USA (which even at home has its own opposition) uses it as an excuse to play World Policeman and station naval ships near nations it doesn't like.

*(well, except assuming you can warp to my nation or have assets in my nation without either RP'ing their proper infiltration or getting my permission)

I.e., there is nothing “Duh” about asking whether Inyursta isn’t like IRL.[/size]

I am entirely and absolutely entitled to ask you a sensible question without you saying 'duh' after you give an answer.

So this is all because you got bent out of shape when I said duh?

Let me make this simple:

Foreign asset travelling through sovereign Inyurstan territory = Foreign asset travelling through sovereign Inyurstan territory

X = X

No matter how you try and change the equation, the variable remains the same.

Duh.

I would be exceptionally grateful if you could confine your reply to that point: it is acceptable for me to ask you a question on the basis of supposing that things in nationstates might behave like they do IRL, including the RL standard of freedom of navigation.

Wait? So Peru and Venezuela aren't IRL nations?

Well shit, if that's the case I might as well just start over with a whole new nation that has a monarch and a parliament and a colonial history and even royalty for that matter; because apparently I have been playing this game wrong!

(Although since now we know your nation doesn’t behave like normal nations do IRL; whether it was justifiable for me to ask you is hardly important – if you disagree, just say you disagree, and we can end this argument here on another note of mutual disagreement).

1) There are nations IRL who don't follow your "standard"

2) I never said it wasn't 'justifiable' to ask said question. You were the one who got bent out of shape, not me...

As for the argument about what we’re arguing about:

For God’s sakes, learn to tell when people are arguing a different point. If you think an argument is circular/repetitive, you may simply not have realized that you're not arguing on the same point. (Therefore you are obviously not well placed to work out what I am arguing).

Right back at you...

---

---

This having been said, I would much rather see how the cards play out IC rather than prolonged bickering here...

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

So you can't keep up with me point by point, the argument becomes circular, and it's all because I don't know what we are arguing about?

[...]
You're implying the two are mutually exclusive.
You're implying I haven't been simultaneously arguing against both this entire time.

No, you've missed my point entirely.

Let me explain simply.

> You have still failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that Inyursta ever signed any pact or convention which states foreign bodies can freely navigate their internal waters without regulation or regard to Inyurstan law and sovereign authority.

I haven't been trying to prove this.

So you admit there are nations even IRL which do not follow this supposed "standard"?
If there are exceptions to the rule how can it be set in stone?

Easily. It is a standard. People don't speak standard English, that doesn't mean it isn't a standard.

Since what is a real world convention is a reasonable standard and approximation for nationstates, that is what I have been using. It is therefore unarguably defensible for me to ask you whether your nation follows those rules.

I never said it wasn't.

And at last, you agree.

2) I never said it wasn't 'justifiable' to ask said question. You were the one who got bent out of shape, not me...

You said 'duh' unfairly and unjustly. This entire argument is your fault.

This having been said, I would much rather see how the cards play out IC rather than prolonged bickering here...

Then I would strongly advise you to be politer.

[Ghant]

There are two different arguments here: the first is the one all of us have been arguing about, the second is the one Inyursta has been arguing about. The first is whether freedom of navigation is an OOC convention; the second is whether it is an IC convention. I have not been discussing whether something is an IC convention OOCly because we all already know it isn’t an IC convention. You think I’m arguing it is an IC convention; I’m not arguing that, I’m arguing it’s an OOC convention which has nothing to do with the fact it's not an IC convention.

It is really very obvious that freedom of navigation is an OOC convention. Let us start from the basis that what is an OOC convention is completely and utterly decided by what goes on IRL, in the real world. Freedom of navigation has been enforced by first the Pax Britannia and then the Pax Americana for most of the last two fucking centuries since the victory of the Manchester school of trade. It is now a custom as set in stone as the British Constitution (another binding convention); and I don’t care what fantasy world you live in IRL, but in modern international policy making it is a given standard, even if there are a few places that attempt to flout it. It is almost the height of ignorance to suppose it is not an OOC convention, although given modern education perhaps that is understandable.

I'd argue that talking about what's kosher in RL doesn't exactly translate to IC. This isn't RL, this is a collaborative fiction site. Keyword there: fiction. NS is hardly different from something like Dungeons & Dragons or a work of fictional literature canon. Hence, what people should be asking here is: "what does the player who exercises creative agency over the pertinent creative material think?"

I seem to recall reading somewhere (I could be mistaken) that the region Inyursta is in, is more or less that player's creative material. Therefore, arguing what is and isn't acceptable in his creative canon is a moot point. As far as I'm concerned, if Inyursta says that his region, in which he exercises creative agency, possess flying dolphins, then by God, there's flying dolphins in that region's waters.

My other point is that for many players, such as myself, who don't recognize RL history ICly, something like an international waters convention doesn't exist, because it never happened in the in-game universe canon. The UN doesn't exist ICly, according to my canon, because I don't recognize RL history ICly. So on and so forth.

Indeed, the reason this argument is still going on is because a player's creative agency isn't being respected (Inyursta) and another player (Libraria) is attempting to impose roleplaying conventions on his creative material. Not only is that not fair, but it is against common roleplaying courtesy and etiquette. Instead, what Libraria should be talking about is "hey Inyursta, what would you like to do? Since this is your creative material that we are talking about?"

I've been following this argument for nearly as long as it's been going on, and that's ultimately the conclusion that I've come to. Libraria trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The result is always going to be the same. Inyursta has made it clear what's acceptable, and what's not, within his roleplaying setting. So if Libraria cannot respect and abide by the decisions made by Inyursta regarding his creative material, I recommend he just don't write with him, and if Libraria cannot accept how he decides to roleplay international waters in the region in which he exercises creative agency, then he shouldn't recognize it OOCly. Problem solved.