[Defeated] Peaceful First Contact

[Morover]

OOC:

Additionally, this discredits the intentional introduction of two nations via a third-party nation. I know I'm probably giving mixed signals in terms of the definition here, especially without giving a solution. Honestly, I don't have a solution for you. I will think about it, though, because I do like the idea behind the proposal - it's just incredibly hard to get perfect. And, honestly, it needs to be perfect (or damn close to it) in order to be viable.

[Umeria]

OOC: I think the comma placement makes it clear what you mean.

But I still find your definition problematic. Substituting "nations" with "peoples," which has a similar meaning, doesn't solve the problem. I'd personally be more on board with "first contact" being an encounter between an official representative of a member nation, or a member nation's military forces, with someone from another nation, for the first time.

That wasn't the only change, I also specified that the peoples are from the nation rather than being the nation as a whole. I think it works.

Additionally, this discredits the intentional introduction of two nations via a third-party nation.

In that case it would be the responsibility of the third-party nation to settle disputes, not the WA.

[Umeria]

I don't see anything wrong with the proposal. Do you?

[Umeria]

Is it really that boring?

[Araraukar]

I don't see anything wrong with the proposal. Do you?

Is it really that boring?

OOC: I'm still waiting for the explanation of how it's relevant to MT nations. Past tech ones? Sure, far enough past. Future tech ones exploring new solar systems? Sure, though limited. But MT nations? Nah. And they're the majority.

[Umeria]

OOC: I'm still waiting for the explanation of how it's relevant to MT nations. Past tech ones? Sure, far enough past. Future tech ones exploring new solar systems? Sure, though limited. But MT nations? Nah. And they're the majority.

I changed the definitions so that meeting with newly independent states counts as a first contact. Newly independent states can exist in MT worlds, as they do on RL Earth.

[Maowi]

OOC: Maybe it's just me, but I still don't find that your definitions are sufficiently clear.

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

a. an "unformed relationship" as a lack of the interaction and/or communication necessary for a member nation to have any disposition towards another nation;

Does this refer to a member nation's general popluace, or the nation's government, both, or neither? I think you should specify, unless you do want it to refer to both, which I'd find somewhat odd and hard to determine.

b. a "first contact" as an accidental meeting between one or more peoples, including peoples from a member nation with an unformed relationship towards at least one other party;

Again; is this a meeting between entire peoples, between official representatives of those peoples, between random civilians from those peoples, all three, a combination of two, or none of them? And why are you using that specific terminology of "peoples," which has a variety of meanings and could be interpreted different ways?

[Kenmoria]

“Why do you require accident for a ‘first contact’? Attaching somebody, even when it is known they are there, is a bad idea if their intentions are not yet known.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'm still waiting for the explanation of how it's relevant to MT nations. Past tech ones? Sure, far enough past. Future tech ones exploring new solar systems? Sure, though limited. But MT nations? Nah. And they're the majority.

I changed the definitions so that meeting with newly independent states counts as a first contact. Newly independent states can exist in MT worlds, as they do on RL Earth.

OOC: But even in such a case you won't be unaware of there being a nation, even if yours hadn't had dealings with them yet. Maowi's latest post has good points that need clearing up.

[Umeria]

• The definition of an "unformed relationship" now refers to member nations in general. It is kept intentionally vague so as to only prevent attacks when there have been zero previous interactions.
  
  
• The operative clause, as well the definition of "first contact", now refer to all citizens of member nations, instead of the member nation itself.
  
  
• "Accidental" has been removed from the definition of "first contact" as it was a remnant of an earlier version.

OOC: But even in such a case you won't be unaware of there being a nation, even if yours hadn't had dealings with them yet.

The definitions no longer care about knowledge of existence, only with the presence or absence of previous interactions.

[Maowi]

OOC: OK, I can now tell what 1.b is doing, but this problem still stands with 1.a.

OOC: Maybe it's just me, but I still don't find that your definitions are sufficiently clear.

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

a. an "unformed relationship" as a lack of the interaction and/or communication necessary for a member nation to have any disposition towards another nation;

Does this refer to a member nation's general popluace, or the nation's government, both, or neither? I think you should specify, unless you do want it to refer to both, which I'd find somewhat odd and hard to determine.

[Araraukar]

OOC: OK, I can now tell what 1.b is doing, but this problem still stands with 1.a.

OOC: Maybe it's just me, but I still don't find that your definitions are sufficiently clear.



Does this refer to a member nation's general popluace, or the nation's government, both, or neither? I think you should specify, unless you do want it to refer to both, which I'd find somewhat odd and hard to determine.

OOC: This is very relevant, given that newly formed nation or not, you ARE going to have people who have relatives in it, who themselves live outside of it. That's just how people work. Unless we're talking like an alien invasion and the aliens setting up shop in the area they decimated... in which case not being allowed to attack them before talking to them sounds silly.

[Umeria]

Changed:

an "unformed relationship" as a lack of the interaction and/or communication necessary for any part of a member nation to have any disposition towards another nation;

[Araraukar]

Changed:

an "unformed relationship" as a lack of the interaction and/or communication necessary for any part of a member nation to have any disposition towards another nation;

OOC: That doesn't really answer any of the concerns. Are private citizens a "part of a member nation"? If yes, then I'm still waiting for the scenario that this'd fit, for MT nations. If not, then you need to define what you count as parts of a member nation.

[Bears Armed]

The current title makes this look as though the proposal should be about standards in blood transfusion services...

[Umeria]

Changed:

an "unformed relationship" as a lack of the interaction and/or communication necessary for any part of a member nation to have any disposition towards another nation;

OOC: That doesn't really answer any of the concerns. Are private citizens a "part of a member nation"? If yes, then I'm still waiting for the scenario that this'd fit, for MT nations. If not, then you need to define what you count as parts of a member nation.

It is now "a member nation's government".

The current title makes this look as though the proposal should be about standards in blood transfusion services...

Better than the previous title, which (apparently) made the proposal look like a complete ban on the military.

[Kenmoria]

“The definition still isn’t quite there, as plenty of nations are willing to form dispositions based on the fact that other nations merely exist.”

[Umeria]

“The definition still isn’t quite there, as plenty of nations are willing to form dispositions based on the fact that other nations merely exist.”

After reading a thesaurus for several minutes Lockwood writes the word "unique" in front of "disposition".

[Umeria]

"Do our military enthusiast colleagues find this proposal acceptable, now that it has been restructured?"

[Araraukar]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. an "unformed relationship" as a lack of the interaction and/or communication necessary for a member nation's government to have any unique disposition towards another nation;

OOC: Very non-militaristic here, but this is still a weird definition, given that nations tend to have unique dispositions (which doesn't really mean anything) towards nations they have no official contact/relationship with.

But why has this whole thing gone in such a difficult direction anyway? You could accomplish what you want by going "Don't shoot at people or vehicles unless you know who and what you are shooting at, or unless they have entered your territory without permission." Then make it apply to nations instead of OOC players, but that doesn't need a million definitions either, because none of the words used there are weird or have multiple meanings.

[Umeria]

OOC: Very non-militaristic here, but this is still a weird definition, given that nations tend to have unique dispositions (which doesn't really mean anything)

Well you interpreted it to mean what I wanted it to mean so it has enough meaning for me.

towards nations they have no official contact/relationship with.

Unofficial relationships are still relationships though.

But why has this whole thing gone in such a difficult direction anyway? You could accomplish what you want by going "Don't shoot at people or vehicles unless you know who and what you are shooting at, or unless they have entered your territory without permission." Then make it apply to nations instead of OOC players, but that doesn't need a million definitions either, because none of the words used there are weird or have multiple meanings.

Alas, there is always a loophole waiting in the shadows. If I make the change you suggest, someone will inevitably assert that it allows them to shoot whoever they want because they "know" that the people or vehicles in question are foreign and therefore an enemy. I'd rather accept the lesser evil of having the proposal be long but unambiguous.

Does the current state of the proposal "work"? Are there any loopholes left? Do people still think it cripples the military?

[Araraukar]

OOC: It's more ambiguous now, there are more loopholes and it doesn't cripple military because of the first two reasons it does nothing to stop them from shooting first. Happy?

[Umeria]

One sentence! It hath been done!

Hereby prohibits all citizens of member nations from attacking persons or vehicles of unknown origin, unless it is in response to either an attack or a territorial incursion by said persons or vehicles.

[Araraukar]

One sentence! It hath been done!

Hereby prohibits all citizens of member nations from attacking persons or vehicles of unknown origin, unless it is in response to either an attack or a territorial incursion by said persons or vehicles.

OOC: Much better.

[Terttia]

OOC: Why does the title sound like body’s text is trying to improve the process of blood transfusions or something along those lines? I haven’t even heard “bad blood” used in this sense. I literally had to look up the definition to even make sense of the title.