NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY!!!

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina would like to join the NSO if it were re-established as well.

Also, how about simply a resolution defining National Sovereignty?

[Unibot]

Also, how about simply a resolution defining National Sovereignty?

GA#2?

[Yelda]

OOC:

After reading this...

NSO membership represented a variety of perspectives on national sovereignty, with some members choosing to advocate absolute sovereignty, others limited sovereignty, and still others holding very specific criteria regarding what constitutes sovereignty and to what extent the NSUN should respect it. Members were usually referred to as "sovereigntists" or "NatSovers", though the terms could also be used to describe adherents to the wider NS "sovereigntist movement," which included more extreme and anti-UN elements such as ACCEL and Gatesville. Most active members of NSO took a more pragmatic approach to sovereignty and the formulation of international law.

... if you'll have me, the Unibotian Delegation wouldn't mind joining the NSO. I can write up a formal letter, or a resume or whatever, if you like, Yelda.

There's no need for a formal letter or resume. In the past people simply joined by registering at the forum and then stating if they wanted to be full members or observers. Let's discuss this a bit more and see if we end up starting a new board. If we do that there wouldn't be much point in registering at the old one.

(posting with Yelda since Arororugul doesn't do OOC)

[Aabceef]

OOC all:

So like, an alternate World Assembly? How would that help solve the problem of stoppint the WA from infringing on national sovereignty

No, just a forum to discuss promoting sovereigntism in the real World Assembly. Or are you just doing this to troll? If so, buzz off.

The Republic of Quadrimmina agrees with the position that a National Sovereignty Organization should be in place. But we are curious as to what the prior role of the organization was.

http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=N ... ganization

We would also like to note that we feel any such organization should score proposed WA resolutions, to provide some insight into its effect on sovereignty.

We tried that in the old org, and it was just so much work. I'd sooner not try it again.

OCC: No, I'm not trolling.

In such a case the Dominion of Abceef would be interested in joining as an observer until it can better assess how to politically align itself with the NSO depending on what consensus if any arrives as to what 'national sovereignty' constitutes. We are worried because the unique political system we have in Abceef is made to specifically address Abceef's needs and we believe certain things should be left up to the national and local governments and not to the WA. I would be all for such an organization that would establish a 'constitution' of sorts for the rights of sovereign nations that specifically outlined a general consensus of the beliefs and principles of sovereignty. This would help us provide a metric by which to measure different proposals and whether they infringe upon the generally accepted concept of what constitutes sovereignty and by how much.

[Bears Armed]

"Need you ask? of course we are interested in joining this revived NSO."


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Callisdrun]

This shit was stupid six years ago. Still is.

[Enn]

This shit was stupid six years ago. Still is.

It was stupid six years ago, I'll give you that. Then came HotRodia's essay on National Sovereignty, which established NatSov as a legitimate theory of UN/WA operations. At that point, it ceased being stupid.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This shit was stupid six years ago. Still is.

And ^this shit would have been considered borderline trolling six years ago. Probably still is.

[Aabceef]

This shit was stupid six years ago. Still is.

It was stupid six years ago, I'll give you that. Then came HotRodia's essay on National Sovereignty, which established NatSov as a legitimate theory of UN/WA operations. At that point, it ceased being stupid.

OCC: Where could I fInd said essay?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Let's discuss this a bit more and see if we end up starting a new board. If we do that there wouldn't be much point in registering at the old one.

OOC: I really don't think it's a good idea to crash an old board with a bunch of new members after three years of inactivity. For one, though I'm sure he wouldn't mind, TH has no idea anyone's trying to resurrect his board (or does he?). Most of the admins and mod staff there don't even exist anymore (with the exception of Flib and myself). And it would be incredibly confusing. Just start a new forum, and even then, I would think we'd grant TH the courtesy of running it by him first if we use the same name or present the WA NSO as an extension of the UN one.

edit: @Aabceef: I think this is the essay Enn is referring to.

[Enn]

This shit was stupid six years ago. Still is.

It was stupid six years ago, I'll give you that. Then came HotRodia's essay on National Sovereignty, which established NatSov as a legitimate theory of UN/WA operations. At that point, it ceased being stupid.

OCC: Where could I fInd said essay?

OOC: I'm having trouble accessing the original post (I have the horrible feeling Jolt has eaten it), but much of the material on this page is either drawn directly from it, or further developed from that original post.

The one Kenny has linked to is also worth reading over.

NatSov, as put forward by HotRodia back then, didn't convince me. It still doesn't, not entirely. But the way it was written made me realise that NatSov is indeed a legitimate theory for nations engaging with the UN/WA. I can respect it, even if I don't agree.

[Callisdrun]

This shit was stupid six years ago. Still is.

And ^this shit would have been considered borderline trolling six years ago. Probably still is.

It's my honest opinion.

[Urgench]

NatSov, as put forward by HotRodia back then, didn't convince me. It still doesn't, not entirely. But the way it was written made me realise that NatSov is indeed a legitimate theory for nations engaging with the UN/WA. I can respect it, even if I don't agree.

OOC Yeah I agree out of character, I mean IC Urgench thinks Natsov and Infed are dead and pointless, but I personally see it's merits.

[Sionis Prioratus]

OOC: I believe, much as our characters (including my own) eventually label themselves IntFed of NatSov, excessive labelling/polarization essentially dumbs down any debate, much as the real world Democrat x Republican, Liberal x Conservative, North x South, etc. Everything much sooner than later, on any issue, eventually will boil down to soundbites, litmus tests, character assassination/branding, all the stuff that makes RL politics such a pain in the ass.

And for all it's worth, there was one resolution that could have made my beloved character resign from the World Assembly; and it was this close of becoming a reality.

[Tarsas]

After reading that resolution, I am supporting this organization fully.

EDIT: and we would join, and the yes hold more votes than the no, we would just need to do the yes choice with the most votes.

[Yelda]

Let's discuss this a bit more and see if we end up starting a new board. If we do that there wouldn't be much point in registering at the old one.

OOC: I really don't think it's a good idea to crash an old board with a bunch of new members after three years of inactivity.

Yeah I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to register at the old board (and so far no one has).

For one, though I'm sure he wouldn't mind, TH has no idea anyone's trying to resurrect his board (or does he?). Most of the admins and mod staff there don't even exist anymore (with the exception of Flib and myself). And it would be incredibly confusing. Just start a new forum, and even then, I would think we'd grant TH the courtesy of running it by him first if we use the same name or present the WA NSO as an extension of the UN one.

As far as I know TH doesn't know about these discussions. I'll contact him and maybe he'll post in the thread. I agree that TH should have the option of running the new board since it would essentially still be the NSO.....but with a new board. Of course we'll still have Flib as NSO Mafia Don, so that won't change.

[The Holy Pagan Reich]

The Holy Pagan Reich will observe with interest.....for now.

If this organization turns out to be legit and in the best interests of our national sovereignty then we'll talk business.

[Sungai Pusat]

Maybe you sould revamp the organisation and reproduce the meaning of the NSO and revamp the forum while you're at it!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

As far as I know TH doesn't know about these discussions. I'll contact him and maybe he'll post in the thread. I agree that TH should have the option of running the new board since it would essentially still be the NSO.....but with a new board. Of course we'll still have Flib as NSO Mafia Don, so that won't change.

I meant run it by him first if we decide to use his name or affiliate ourselves with the former NSO, not that he should run it. It's an interesting idea, but I doubt he has the time.

[Yelda]

As far as I know TH doesn't know about these discussions. I'll contact him and maybe he'll post in the thread. I agree that TH should have the option of running the new board since it would essentially still be the NSO.....but with a new board. Of course we'll still have Flib as NSO Mafia Don, so that won't change.

I meant run it by him first if we decide to use his name or affiliate ourselves with the former NSO, not that he should run it. It's an interesting idea, but I doubt he has the time.

Ah, understood. Serves me right for posting while half asleep.

[Quadrimmina]

The primary question outlining this debate is whether or not national sovereignty needs to be advocated for. Shouldn't individual nations advocate for their own sovereignty in the WA by voting?

[Tarsas]

Voting does not always allow us to get what we need, this organization is needed.

[Crayfish Islands]

The primary question outlining this debate is whether or not national sovereignty needs to be advocated for. Shouldn't individual nations advocate for their own sovereignty in the WA by voting?

Yes, but maintaining membership in the WA can erode a nation's sovereignty. The WA is not a threat to NatSov itself, but many of the resolutions coming to vote in recent memory are.

[Unibot]

OOC:

After reading this...

NSO membership represented a variety of perspectives on national sovereignty, with some members choosing to advocate absolute sovereignty, others limited sovereignty, and still others holding very specific criteria regarding what constitutes sovereignty and to what extent the NSUN should respect it. Members were usually referred to as "sovereigntists" or "NatSovers", though the terms could also be used to describe adherents to the wider NS "sovereigntist movement," which included more extreme and anti-UN elements such as ACCEL and Gatesville. Most active members of NSO took a more pragmatic approach to sovereignty and the formulation of international law.

... if you'll have me, the Unibotian Delegation wouldn't mind joining the NSO. I can write up a formal letter, or a resume or whatever, if you like, Yelda.

There's no need for a formal letter or resume. In the past people simply joined by registering at the forum and then stating if they wanted to be full members or observers. Let's discuss this a bit more and see if we end up starting a new board. If we do that there wouldn't be much point in registering at the old one.

(posting with Yelda since Arororugul doesn't do OOC)

Okay Yelda, when you've figured out what you're going to do with this, give me a shout with a TG or whatever.

IC: Eduard paused, reading over a pamplet on the NSO. He motioned to ask the General something curiously,

"Is there a real difference between the observers and the members of the NSO? Or is the status of "observer" just to indicate to others that your nation's interests do not always align with the NatSov-extremist ideology? I suppose what I'm really asking is: is there a enforced-compliance in NSO for members to vote a certain way?" Eduard asked.

This shit was stupid six years ago. Still is.

It was stupid six years ago, I'll give you that. Then came HotRodia's essay on National Sovereignty, which established NatSov as a legitimate theory of UN/WA operations. At that point, it ceased being stupid.

OOC: That's a really excellent read, I remember a few years back when someone pointed it out to me, I read it a few times over again to absorb it all -- it really should be a sticky on this forum for the new members to have access to (I mean, Jolt is .. err...Jolt -- you know what I mean).

[Aabceef]

OOC:

After reading this...

NSO membership represented a variety of perspectives on national sovereignty, with some members choosing to advocate absolute sovereignty, others limited sovereignty, and still others holding very specific criteria regarding what constitutes sovereignty and to what extent the NSUN should respect it. Members were usually referred to as "sovereigntists" or "NatSovers", though the terms could also be used to describe adherents to the wider NS "sovereigntist movement," which included more extreme and anti-UN elements such as ACCEL and Gatesville. Most active members of NSO took a more pragmatic approach to sovereignty and the formulation of international law.

... if you'll have me, the Unibotian Delegation wouldn't mind joining the NSO. I can write up a formal letter, or a resume or whatever, if you like, Yelda.

There's no need for a formal letter or resume. In the past people simply joined by registering at the forum and then stating if they wanted to be full members or observers. Let's discuss this a bit more and see if we end up starting a new board. If we do that there wouldn't be much point in registering at the old one.

(posting with Yelda since Arororugul doesn't do OOC)

Okay Yelda, when you've figured out what you're going to do with this, give me a shout with a TG or whatever.

IC: Eduard paused, reading over a pamplet on the NSO. He motioned to ask the General something curiously,

"Is there a real difference between the observers and the members of the NSO? Or is the status of "observer" just to indicate to others that your nation's interests do not always align with the NatSov-extremist ideology? I suppose what I'm really asking is: is there a enforced-compliance in NSO for members to vote a certain way?" Eduard asked.

This shit was stupid six years ago. Still is.

It was stupid six years ago, I'll give you that. Then came HotRodia's essay on National Sovereignty, which established NatSov as a legitimate theory of UN/WA operations. At that point, it ceased being stupid.

OOC: That's a really excellent read, I remember a few years back when someone pointed it out to me, I read it a few times over again to absorb it all -- it really should be a sticky on this forum for the new members to have access to (I mean, Jolt is .. err...Jolt -- you know what I mean).

I do think we should at least have a sign up list of people who wish receive a telegram whenever any such organization becomes active and we have a forum in place.

As for the difference between an observer and a member, I would also like to know what this is if anyone knows or can point to me where to find the info on what the difference was in the now defunct NSO forum between a member and an observer.