Embassy of the South Pacific

[A Bloodred Moon]

snip

I won't respond bit by bit because there was a lot to unpack but I think there's a few things that should be said:

• Divergent perspective on the PRL and the Emerald Realm are important here. I see the old Emerald Realm as a failure: it was neutral, sure, but it was also terribly inactive, almost nonfunctional - its "government" was like eight Gameplayers (with focuses elsewhere) caught in a messy political gridlock between the FRA, imperialists, and the NPO. I also don't regard the PRL as a failure, I think, despite Feux, Milograd, and AMOM's best efforts, the PRL was actually an enormous success. The revolution took the most inactive GCR and made it the most active GCR - it pulled in a whole new generation of NSers and gave them their first start in NS. It was voted the most active and important region in the game by others at the time, it also had the most active and the most prominent defender military in NS at the time. The PRL seemed from the outside to be a force of generational change within the game. Every region has political bans (Balder, NES' region, has dozens of political bans) -- I don't regard the PRL leadership as a "cabal," it seemed to me to be a rather open group of some of the 'youngest' NSers leading a GCR in NS who were experimenting, innovating, and reconsidering what a Game-Created Region could be, culturally and politically.

Ah yes, coming from a true native of Lazarus rather than a known defender subversive. I am sure your extensive history of unbiased observation within Lazarus has led you to this belief.

I think there is a diaspora of players who cut their teeth in the PRL who have never been welcomed back to Lazarus after the crises; their good experience with the PRL is uncomfortable for Lazarenes because it contradicts a foundational myth that today's Lazarus likes to tell: that the PRL was bad, corrupt, exclusive, or compromised ethnically.

I presume you have examples of this? I am unaware of any such thing occurring. We welcomed back Milo before he chose the NPO over us, even though he was involved in the NLO as well as the PRL. If I recall, Harmoneia was involved in the PRL and she was a Security Auditor until she was removed for inactivity. I don't believe we specifically excluded anyone because of their involvement in the PRL. Your made up claims regarding "foundational myths" is also not based in reality, as in Lazarus there is no such tale being promoted.

Frankly, this argument is completely made up, based on no actual facts.

I agree with you that if Lazarus were to realign itself with a defender cause that it should form a new multilateral organization/nucleus -- that is global leadership that is missing today and the region that fills that void will gain an enormous political advantage.

Luckily, you do not get to have a say in Lazarus' affairs. If Lazarus wishes to realign itself with the defender cause, we will decide for ourselves what we do with it.

NPO is most certainly neutral. Francoism sees raiding and defending as userite causes/movements - and calls for the NPO and other GCRs to rise above this userite struggle. Francoism is also expansionist, in that it anticipates the unification of the Pacifics (Pacifica) -- so invaders and defenders can be "useful" to NPO in these regards as pawns and temporary political allies or scapegoats, and the means of expansionism can appear to be synonymous with imperialism.

The NPO is an opportunist regime out only for it's own gain and influence within NS, and they view influence in the GCRs to be the key objective. They have in the past aided defenders more than raiders - the most recent occasion being the liberation attempts on Iran, which they even attempted to conceal by working with clean puppets. The purge of Lazarus in 2013 is another example, as is the aid the NPO gave to the Revolt in an attempt to gain greater influence in Lazarus through Task Force Lazarus. I do not recall the NPO ever working together with raiders in recent years. Indeed, they were openly hostile to raiders, who they regarded as a threat to their opportunist agenda in the GCRs, whereas they regarded defenders as their allies. You could say they are more defender-leaning (although personally, I think they view defenders as the easier faction to exploit for their own goals).

Anyways, speaking as a Lazarene, I am glad to see a non-agression pact has been established between our regions.

[Evil Wolf]

Has Lazarus become a democracy yet? How is this not a walk-back of TSP foreign policy?

Ironic that you're so concerned about democracy in Lazarus when you were a massive supporter of the Defender Dictatorship back when PRL was forced upon Lazarus by NPO agents. It's almost like your primary concern is really just making sure regions are aligned to the Defender side and everything thereafter is an ever-shifting excuse to either justify or dismiss positions that either do or do not agree with your fanatical Defenderism.

I wonder, Unibot, if your position on Lazarus is in any way related to Glen being anti-Lazarus when LazCorp was first formed because it was not "democratic" enough for Glen. Also probably not Defender enough for him either, if I'm connecting these dots correctly.

In any case, I am glad that TSP as a whole has stated clearly that it and it's citizens will stay out of Lazarus' affairs and is interested in moving on from it's murky past with Laz.

[The Church of Satan]

[list][*] Divergent perspective on the PRL and the Emerald Realm are important here. I see the old Emerald Realm as a failure: it was neutral, sure, but it was also terribly inactive, almost nonfunctional - its "government" was like eight Gameplayers (with focuses elsewhere) caught in a messy political gridlock between the FRA, imperialists, and the NPO. I also don't regard the PRL as a failure, I think, despite Feux, Milograd, and AMOM's best efforts, the PRL was actually an enormous success. The revolution took the most inactive GCR and made it the most active GCR - it pulled in a whole new generation of NSers and gave them their first start in NS. It was voted the most active and important region in the game by others at the time, it also had the most active and the most prominent defender military in NS at the time. The PRL seemed from the outside to be a force of generational change within the game. Every region has political bans (Balder, NES' region, has dozens of political bans) -- I don't regard the PRL leadership as a "cabal," it seemed to me to be a rather open group of some of the 'youngest' NSers leading a GCR in NS who were experimenting, innovating, and reconsidering what a Game-Created Region could be, culturally and politically.

Ah yes, coming from a true native of Lazarus rather than a known defender subversive. I am sure your extensive history of unbiased observation within Lazarus has led you to this belief.

There is an element of truth to what Uni says. Being part of the PRL was a wild experience due in large part to Milo's leadership and his use of the region's theme at that time. He was an unbelievably charismatic leader which isn't common in NS at all. The PRL was an intense inspiration for Lazarus that brought unprecedented activity. Sure there was a cult of personality centered on Milograd, the "beloved Chairman," but it was incredibly beneficial to the region. There's no doubt in my mind that if the PRL had been raider-aligned, its success would have remained the same.

[Unibot III]

Ah yes, coming from a true native of Lazarus rather than a known defender subversive. I am sure your extensive history of unbiased observation within Lazarus has led you to this belief.

One of us proactively worked with many a Lazarene delegate and helped where they could to liberate Lazarus, the other has couped Lazarus multiple times.

... so how'll about you take your "true native" vs. "subversive" crap and shove it somewhere dark and spongy? *waves you away*

I wonder, Unibot, if your position on Lazarus is in any way related to Glen being anti-Lazarus when LazCorp was first formed because it was not "democratic" enough for Glen. Also probably not Defender enough for him either, if I'm connecting these dots correctly.

Lazarus and TRR were allies long before either were defender or democratic and it was a relationship that I always encouraged as a TRR citizen. The way in which the Imki regime was established, however - in contradiction to the Peacekeeping Agreement - left me and many others uncomfortable with where Lazarus was headed. I think it's unfair to blame democracy and defenders as being responsible for Lazarus' instability. Especially when the rule of law has been twisted into knots in Lazarus to accommodate actual ex-occupiers like you, Evil Wolf, in the name of regional 'unity' and amnesty. I've seen this story before in TSP (as has Glen, who you cited): people who coup get welcomed back with open arms and people whose only concern was the security of their region get marginalized as a part of the amnesty/unity process. The PRL has been almost universally condemned by revisionist accounts as some sort of no-good "fenda" dictatorship, but it's bs -- Lazarus was never as active, never as culturally important, or as engaging, as it was when the PRL reigned -- there's a whole generation of NSers from Lazarus who lost a home when the PRL/CU fell. LazCorp seems to be a throwback to the neutral Emerald regime which historically failed in more ways than one to engage Lazarenes.

[Ikania]

Ah yes, coming from a true native of Lazarus rather than a known defender subversive. I am sure your extensive history of unbiased observation within Lazarus has led you to this belief.

There is an element of truth to what Uni says. Being part of the PRL was a wild experience due in large part to Milo's leadership and his use of the region's theme at that time. He was an unbelievably charismatic leader which isn't common in NS at all. The PRL was an intense inspiration for Lazarus that brought unprecedented activity. Sure there was a cult of personality centered on Milograd, the "beloved Chairman," but it was incredibly beneficial to the region. There's no doubt in my mind that if the PRL had been raider-aligned, its success would have remained the same.

CoS is right. The PRL was an immense success because of Milograd, and the active playerbase united behind his leadership- Kazmr, Funkadelia, Feux, Stujenske, Kogvuron, among others. Laz had a very dynamic populace with a lot of enthusiasm for our Chinese communist theme. We even adopted portraits of CCP officials as our avatars, and used the Lazarene Gazette as gameplay's premier propaganda outlet. I can't speak for everyone, but to my memory (this was a long time ago, all things considered) "defenderism" took a back seat. I don't ever recall us using the LLA for any significant operations. It seems a little strange to insist that a Defender plot propped up the PRL, or other governments, when nothing substantial ever came of it. The NPO was the real puppetmaster, their tacit allegiance with defenders notwithstanding.

At the same time, I have to say Wolf is infinitely more qualified to speak about the history of Lazarus, as someone who has served as Delegate multiple times, than Unibot, whose CV is best left unmentioned. Forget coups- that's the way the game is played. Evil Wolf knows Lazarus so well, he was able to take it over. Unibot doesn't know Lazarus, or its people, like a real native. That isn't some kind of nativist malarkey, it's just the truth. Wolf has been there since time immemorial. Unibot can never be a citizen of Lazarus.

[New Rogernomics]

Lazarus and TRR were allies long before either were defender or democratic and it was a relationship that I always encouraged as a TRR citizen. The way in which the Imki regime was established, however - in contradiction to the Peacekeeping Agreement - left me and many others uncomfortable with where Lazarus was headed.[...]

I will have to reply to this in three parts.

Firstly, I did not agree when Imkiville ended the Peacekeeper Agreement and adopted the Cormac mandate, and Harmoneia among others were unhappy with that decision. Not to mention that the new Lazarus upended the CU and in doing so, the TSP and TRR relationship that had existed during the CU Though in Imki's defense, the decision wasn't entirely unwarranted in hindsight given the exposing of Task Force Lazarus, and the issues with those involved in the constitutional convention, and in particular a player that attempted OOC revenge on her and the council.

Secondly, the Peacekeeper Agreement and the whole Con Con process wasn't without faults. So it would be incorrect to blame heavily a particular party who tried to carry out it, meaning the Peacekeeper regions, the council, and the attendees. The ideal was that Lazarenes would attend and determine their own future, but in reality the vast majority of those who turned up had never set foot in any current regime of Lazarus i.e meaning the Celestial Union onwards. Not to mention that the council was divided on who to let in, leading to big wait times for applications. Unfortunately, it ended up a disaster, and while folks at the time were determined to blame one party i.e. the council or the peacekeepers, it was pretty doomed to fail from the start.

Thirdly, I mean by that if we could turn back the clock, then only citizens of the Celestial Union, Undead Dominion, and Wolfist Lazarus should have been allowed to attend without special invitation. Relying on citizenship lists would have also meant no need for a council, as those on the list would be indisputably Lazarenes. The other option, which might have been even better than the Con Con was to just restore the Humane Republic mandate in the interim (as it had existed before the Celestial Union), and then push for discussion and amendments on it with the stability that it would have provided.

As it stood, Imki made the final decision to give up on the Con Con rather than push ahead with a drafting process that could have gone on for months more, or perhaps never ended, and had already resulted in anger and frustration from all attendees to no positive end result. This will continue to be debated, and some might still be annoyed to this day of what happened. Though Lazarus has to live with the cards it has been handed, even if those cards were a decimated community that the PRL laid a lot of the groundwork for - even if the PRL is a controversial construct to this day given who it excluded.

The PRL has been almost universally condemned by revisionist accounts as some sort of no-good "fenda" dictatorship, but it's bs -- Lazarus was never as active, never as culturally important, or as engaging, as it was when the PRL reigned -- there's a whole generation of NSers from Lazarus who lost a home when the PRL/CU fell. LazCorp seems to be a throwback to the neutral Emerald regime which historically failed in more ways than one to engage Lazarenes.

I'd have to disagree there. The Emerald Regime had way more difficulties and challenges than LazCorp has ever faced, and it really struggled from staffing shortages, which is something that fortunately LazCorp hasn't faced. For quite a while I was having to write the Lazarene Gazette myself, and you can find some of my updates on various NS off-site forums from the time, and folks were pretty much appointed based on them being in the region and willing. Not to mention that Imaginary and her cabinet have put a lot of effort into community building initiatives, and quite a lot of activity is on the Lazarus RMB. When the Emerald Republic fell, plenty were tired of heavy inactivity and welcomed the PRL, though there were consequences for those that fell foul of the regime i.e. such as NES or general raider leaners.

[Evil Wolf]

One of us proactively worked with many a Lazarene delegate and helped where they could to liberate Lazarus, the other has couped Lazarus multiple times.

Well, Jo has never participated in any coup, so I can only assume you're talking about yourself when you refer to "couped Lazarus multiple times"

The PRL has been almost universally condemned by revisionist accounts as some sort of no-good "fenda" dictatorship, but it's bs -- Lazarus was never as active, never as culturally important, or as engaging, as it was when the PRL reigned -- there's a whole generation of NSers from Lazarus who lost a home when the PRL/CU fell.

First, being that you are the ultimate Historical Revisionist on NS, Unibot, I find it more than a little amusing that you're accusing others of what is your primary modus operandi.

Secondly, speaking of historical revisionism, you seem to be forgetting that while the Emerald government was inactive towards the end, Ex-NPO Senator and then Lazarus delegate Feux, who was the main facilitator of the coup that ushered in the PRL, had been delegate for nearly a year at that point and was the primary reason why so much inactivity was on going. He appointed people who specifically told him that they couldn't be active in order to fill minister spots, he went absent for weeks at a time, and he never acted to fix any of this until he suddenly Purged a good number of citizens out of no where. It's a safe assumption that Feux made the region inactive on purpose in order to make a change of government more appealing, and if he didn't, he was massively neglectful in his duties as delegate. Either way, it was the perfect set up to push in the PRL, but it was entirely manufactured.

As it stood, Imki made the final decision to give up on the Con Con rather than push ahead with a drafting process that could have gone on for months more, or perhaps never ended, and had already resulted in anger and frustration from all attendees to no positive end result.

Yes, the ConCon was an utter failure for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was foreign interference on behalf of some of the Peacekeeper Forces, who at times forgot entirely that they were invited guests, and not conquering heroes.

In fact, the entire premise that Imki was truly obligated to follow the Peacekeeper Agreement to a ruinous end in her own region that she now controlled is somewhat laughable. Those who wanted to influence Lazarus treated her like a pawn to be disposed of once the ConCon was over, and she made them pay the price by utterly crushing their foreign ambitions and dreams of reviving a PRL styled Defender and NPO Aligned Lazarus. She made sure Lazarus stayed in control of its destiny and was not once again made a puppet for outside GCR powers and I am glad to have played a part in helping her do so.

[Guy]

Recently, I did propose legislation as a private citizen that would make the guard more flexible, though that failed to reach quorum - and you can find plenty of Lazarenes that would rather Lazarus remain neutral than be a R/D battleground.

As a private citizen, I would prefer IF Lazarus were to establish an alignment that we build an inter-regional organization with a clear purpose, as simply arguing in our assembly that 'raiding/defending is fun' wouldn't cut it, whether that organization leans defender in ideology or not. I see merits in defending such as protecting defenseless regions from groups just out to cause mischief/harm or to ruin communities, though at the same time defending puts a lot of effort into defending regions on the decline , which was one of the criticisms of the FRA when it was in existence. ... Not sure if you know, but I started out the game as a defender, and never actually participated in a solid raid beyond one with Catlandatopia, and even though I side more with raiders - it is a philosophical position and not an active one. I don't condone raids on regions, though I do oppose defenderism under the premise that action leads to reaction i.e. defending regions without substantive community value or purpose that are in decline isn't improving the game, and ironically defending such regions gives raiders purpose to exist.

Thinking about how one can meaningfully contribute to R/D, rather than just fight for one's alignment, is a pretty darn good thing to do - and we sorely miss people who are willing to look at that big picture, and those that do often resolve that being partisan warriors for their side is the best thing they can do anyway. I completely sympathise with the point that defending regions without native communities does nothing but motivate invaders, which is why for many years I was quite sceptical about the benefit of stopping tag raids on small regions. The issue for defenders though is that they sorely need the practice to be able to stop the big invasions. Short of something truly transformational in R/D, such as defending being able to call on vastly more people to liberate a region at update than invaders could pile it, I don't think that defenders really have a choice. Which is unfortunate, because update defending is tough.

I'd love for someone to have a good thing about how either defending or invading can be done differently, but I've truly exhausted myself on those ends.

I am surprised that you argue that the NPO was neutral, as plenty of players would argue the opposite, that there was a tacit alliance between defender alignment and the NPO as they shared some of the same goals. That isn't the same as an outright lean defender, but it was hardly neutral. In fact a large part of the failure of the NLO to be established was down to the NPO-FRA rift that developed, when their interests no longer aligned.

As a matter of historical record, I very much dispute this. I have nothing to lose by admitting that there was some NPO-FRA agreement, written or otherwise, but it simply did not exist.

There were no negotiations or anything given by the FRA in return for Lazarus' FRA application. I don't even think I had advance notice of it, and was surprised (pleasantly, certainly) by it. Was there a sense that Milograd was trying to achieve something? Yes. But if it was the NPO's foreign goals, it was a spectacular failure, because we continued to very much disapprove of it. It seemed much more like an attempt to build up a GCR and be influential in it. You could very well claim that there was an understanding that the FRA would "support" the PRL only because it retained its defender alignment. Certainly, everyone has their biases depending on their alignment. But defender support, political or military, made very little difference to the establishment of the PRL. If you think that defenders were that influential at the time that our support was critical, you need to re-examine the power structures of the time. And frankly, defenders probably would not have opposed anything short of obvious foreign influence, given the backing of DYP and Harmoneia for its establishment and that it removed the imperialists' overt choke-hold on the region. And by the time the PRL had applied to join the FRA, it was quite established.

[TSP Foreign Office]

PRESS RELEASE

---

 

 

STATEMENT ON LAZARUS

30 March 2020


Fellow South Pacificans and friends,

On March 29th, the Ministry of Foreign affairs of the Coalition of the South Pacific was made aware of worrisome plans made by the Prime Minister of Lazarus Sylven Razedusk. While most of the gameplay community is aware of the comments made by the Lazarene Prime Minister, let us be clear in noting how those comments made a direct rebuke at the way of life we have embraced in TSP. While we accept Lazarus’s sovereign right to set their own direction we are nonetheless distraught that such a promising relationship must now be put on hold.

TSP’s defenderism is an ideology built around the idea of respecting those regions who have a government that permits self-determination and respect governments that do the same. Of course, we respect Lazarus’ ability to determine its own ideology - but the very fact that we believe in this self-determination apparently now makes us an enemy. It is troublesome that the Lazarene foreign policy holds us in the same level of contempt as it holds serial coupers, like those found in Lone Wolves United. As the Lazarene Foreign Minister recommended, we made numerous attempts to reach out to members of the Lazarene government to seek clarification on this misguided policy but we found all official channels to be cut off and any direct requests have only been met with silence by government officials we once saw as friends. It is clear that, as Minister joWhatup said, Lazarus does not intend to provide “an explanation as to why we believe their [ideology] to be dangerous.” Lazarus say that “relevant people have been spoken to” - apparently their own allies are not relevant. We see this as the epitome of disrespect for a friendship and an ideology that has led to TSP to do more than anyone else to promote a “Lazarus by Lazarenes for Lazarenes” in the past years.

On April 2nd, I will submit a request to the Assembly of the South Pacific for a resolution of condemnation against Lazarus and a repeal of Pax Poukai, barring any change of course by the Lazarene Government. It is a shame that this is how Lazarus has chosen to reciprocate our friendship it is tragic that this is how it ends, and it is disheartening to see the hours of work put into forging ties, writing treaties, and negotiating wasted. While we remain hopeful Lazarus will change course, we do not see a path forward to any further cooperation with Lazarus anytime soon. Nevertheless, TSP will continue to promote native rule in all regions and we will never let the actions or threats of any region, friend or otherwise, tear us away from our core values.


 

Faithfully yours,

Minister of Foreign Affairs,
United Federated States of Omega


 

---

 

[Kingdom of Napels]

It should be noted that Lazarus does not bear ill will for the South Pacific. Indeed, we consider there to be similarities between our regions, and we are of the belief that, no doubt, defenderism has never seemed harmful to your region's interests. We certainly value many aspects of your region and it's community, and would be glad to continue our relations with the South Pacific should the latter renounce it's allegiance to defenderism. However, as a region that has been torn apart, overthrown and subverted by those following an alignment-based ideology, Lazarus can no longer continue it's ties to the South Pacific, among other regions following a hostile ideology, in the same way. Defenderism, along other ideologies such as raiderism, imperialism and Francoism, has never caused Lazarus anything but hurt and strife. The only ideology that has ever proven itself to be beneficial is neutrality. Therefore, while we are saddened that such a decision has prompted our allies in the South Pacific to such a statement, we will not give up our stance on this. It is our sincere hope that the South Pacific will see the dangers of such an ideology, and join Lazarus in it's neutrality, so we can work together for the betterment of both our regions. We hope that the South Pacific can understand and respect our decision to take a stance.

---

On a personal note, I am slightly confused by a part of your statement:

On April 2nd, I will submit a request to the Assembly of the South Pacific for a resolution of condemnation against Lazarus

This seems to imply you, and by extension, the South Pacific, believes that Lazarus is taking a wrong approach in determining our stance. In the same statement, you also mention:

Of course, we respect Lazarus’ ability to determine its own ideology

These two quotes seem contradictory - how can you respect our decision to declare ourselves opposed to those ideologies that have harmed us in the past while simultaneously condemning us for doing exactly that? Could you clarify?

[United Federated States of Omega]

On a personal note, I am slightly confused by a part of your statement:

On April 2nd, I will submit a request to the Assembly of the South Pacific for a resolution of condemnation against Lazarus

This seems to imply you, and by extension, the South Pacific, believes that Lazarus is taking a wrong approach in determining our stance.

While I do not speak for the Assembly, I can say the elected government of TSP thinks it is wrong for Lazarus to cast aside their long time friends.

Of course, we respect Lazarus’ ability to determine its own ideology

These two quotes seem contradictory - how can you respect our decision to declare ourselves opposed to those ideologies that have harmed us in the past while simultaneously condemning us for doing exactly that? Could you clarify?

Just because we respect your decision does not mean we agree with it. We respect the right of the Lazarene government to make their declaration while we disagree with the stance taken in the declaration. We will not seek to impose our will on the Lazarene people but we still have a right to express our displeasure with the declaration, and I will ask the Assembly to express that displeasure on behalf of the entire Coalition on April 2nd.

[Your Imaginary Friend]

[New Rogernomics]

Sorry for taking this long to reply...RL consuming things.

Thinking about how one can meaningfully contribute to R/D, rather than just fight for one's alignment, is a pretty darn good thing to do - and we sorely miss people who are willing to look at that big picture, and those that do often resolve that being partisan warriors for their side is the best thing they can do anyway. I completely sympathise with the point that defending regions without native communities does nothing but motivate invaders, which is why for many years I was quite sceptical about the benefit of stopping tag raids on small regions. The issue for defenders though is that they sorely need the practice to be able to stop the big invasions. Short of something truly transformational in R/D, such as defending being able to call on vastly more people to liberate a region at update than invaders could pile it, I don't think that defenders really have a choice. Which is unfortunate, because update defending is tough.

I'd love for someone to have a good thing about how either defending or invading can be done differently, but I've truly exhausted myself on those ends.

I think that defender and raider organizations are not inherently benign, as the ideal scenario, which is incredibly boring operation wise, is that no one raids or defends, and regions just die of their own accord without interference. If I was to moralize, then I would technically view raiders and defenders as the enemy of a peacekeeping alignment i.e. anti-interventionist interventionists, where the goal is to prevent all sides interfering in natural regional development. Ironically though, a peacekeeper faction would in turn develop some ideological hypocrisy in being hostile or friendly to defenders and raiders on an operational basis, and perhaps interfering in regions on a preemptive basis. Hypothetically, that is probably where it might be fun to take a region, just to add another ideological faction to the R/D game dynamic. There would be operational situations where Peacekeepers would align with raiders, solely to keep defenders out of a region, and likewise align with defenders to keep raiders from taking a region - and defenders and raiders would have a fun time of it, as the ideological end goal of Peacekeepers is to undermine the operational capabilities of both (and keep both factions guessing).

As a matter of historical record, I very much dispute this. I have nothing to lose by admitting that there was some NPO-FRA agreement, written or otherwise, but it simply did not exist.

Well, you could take that point of view, though if I was to make a historical entry there isn't enough of a consensus to heavily go one way or the other. Mostly you can find plenty of raiders that to this day will still point to allegations of NPO-FRA collusion. Though I was more referring to when Lazarus went into civil war, which was around the NLO period, and the NLO was somewhat aligned to the NPO.

There were no negotiations or anything given by the FRA in return for Lazarus' FRA application. I don't even think I had advance notice of it, and was surprised (pleasantly, certainly) by it. Was there a sense that Milograd was trying to achieve something? Yes. But if it was the NPO's foreign goals, it was a spectacular failure, because we continued to very much disapprove of it. It seemed much more like an attempt to build up a GCR and be influential in it. You could very well claim that there was an understanding that the FRA would "support" the PRL only because it retained its defender alignment. Certainly, everyone has their biases depending on their alignment. But defender support, political or military, made very little difference to the establishment of the PRL. If you think that defenders were that influential at the time that our support was critical, you need to re-examine the power structures of the time. And frankly, defenders probably would not have opposed anything short of obvious foreign influence, given the backing of DYP and Harmoneia for its establishment and that it removed the imperialists' overt choke-hold on the region. And by the time the PRL had applied to join the FRA, it was quite established.

I was referring to the brief period of the NLO and not PRL-NPO relations. I was there when the PRL was founded, so the full story is that folks manipulated themselves into power, and tossed out their political opposition, and pretty successfully at that. I wouldn't be arguing that the FRA was required to maintain the PRL, as the PRL leadership itself, prior to the FRA being involved, was already solidifying it's control and removing dissident imperialists and raiders. There was an amusing point when the PRL had all but removed active raiders from the region, and added my name to claim in a propaganda article that there still are raiders in the PRL - even though I was not an active raider and not any kind of physical threat to the regime.

[United Federated States of Omega]

As you all no doubt guessed we had a great time playing around with our friends from Lazarus this April Fool's Day and TSP is still defender. Hope you all enjoyed April Fool's and we can't wait to do something great next year.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

As you all no doubt guessed we had a great time playing around with our friends from Lazarus this April Fool's Day and TSP is still defender. Hope you all enjoyed April Fool's and we can't wait to do something great next year.

It was obvious and lame. Be more imaginative next year please.

[TSP Foreign Office]

PRESS RELEASE

---

 

 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF PAX CAPRICORN

27 April 2020


Fellow South Pacificans and friends,

The New Pacific Order and The Coalition of the South Pacific have recently entered into a nonaggression pact, entitled Pax Capricorn, with one another. This pact codifies the unwritten contract of mutual respect both regions have been upholding for each other for some time.

Pax Capricorn also certifies both regions’ commitment to fostering a healthy culture between one another. The agreement passed through the Coalition’s Assembly and the NPO’s Senate with relative ease; a signal of a prosperous relationship to come. Both regions intend to strengthen their ties to one another through this agreement, in the hope of promoting the formidable culture both regions already have.

The full text of the agreement may be found here.

 

Faithfully yours,

Minister of Foreign Affairs,
United Federated States of Omega


 

---

 

[Tinhampton]

Pax Capricorn! Interesting, even if it sounds like dodgy Latin - the original Treaty of Capricorn was unilaterally terminated in a hail of anti-NPO dabbing right after Adytusgate... did Capricorn II happen because your demands regarding Svez and Pergamon were met (however inadvertently) or for something else?

[The Seeker of Power]

I want to thank The South Pacific for their will to work with us and achieve this agreement. I look forward to further develop our relationship with you!

[United Federated States of Omega]

Pax Capricorn! Interesting, even if it sounds like dodgy Latin - the original Treaty of Capricorn was unilaterally terminated in a hail of anti-NPO dabbing right after Adytusgate... did Capricorn II happen because your demands regarding Svez and Pergamon were met (however inadvertently) or for something else?

TSP was encouraged by the community development within the NPO and the reforms Lord of Darkness has made to their government. To be clear, this is not a mutual defense treaty like the Treaty of Capricorn, just an agreement to nonaggression. We see this is as the start of re-engagement by our communities and look forward to how these relations may develop in the future. We are glad to have come to this agreement with our neighbors in the NPO and were encouraged throughout the process at how the NPO met us with friendship and amity.

[Sandaoguo]

If that's merely a non-aggression pact, I'm curious what more there would be in a full-flown treaty alliance

[Unibot III]

If that's merely a non-aggression pact, I'm curious what more there would be in a full-flown treaty alliance

The law as written has interesting implications.

TSP won't legally be allowed to suspend its treaty with NPO for up to twelve months (potentially) if NPO coups any other GCR, including TRR and TNP!

Meaning, NPO will have already done its little PR session and apologized by the time their treaty is perennially up for review with TSP.

(Knowing NPO though they'll just coup TSP directly, making this thought experiment purely academic.)

[Mallorea and Riva]

If that's merely a non-aggression pact, I'm curious what more there would be in a full-flown treaty alliance

The law as written has interesting implications.

TSP won't legally be allowed to suspend its treaty with NPO for up to twelve months (potentially) if NPO coups any other GCR, including TRR and TNP!

Meaning, NPO will have already done its little PR session and apologized by the time their treaty is perennially up for review with TSP.

(Knowing NPO though they'll just coup TSP directly, making this thought experiment purely academic.)

Eh Article 5 Section 2 provides for an early termination right.

Section 2. Either signatory may terminate the treaty with a public notice to the other signatory, effective after five days.

[Xoriet]

Article V. Suspension of Terms and Termination of the Treaty.

Section 1. Either signatory may suspend the terms of the treaty if the other signatory has materially breached its terms, until such a time that both signatories peacefully settle the dispute and adopt a memorandum of understanding that the treaty is again in force.

Section 2. Either signatory may terminate the treaty with a public notice to the other signatory, effective after five days.

There is most certainly a provision for withdrawal.

Article VI. Sunset Provisions.

Section 1. Every twelve months following the adoption of the treaty, it must be renewed through the process laid out for the adoption of new diplomatic agreements in each region’s laws and regulations.

Section 2. The failure to renew the treaty by either party will suspend the treaty’s terms for at most thirty days.

Section 3. Should the treaty not be renewed by both parties by the end of those thirty days, it is to be considered repealed for all intents and purposes.

The Sunset Provisions refer to a need to renew the treaty every twelve months, not an inability to terminate it before then.

[Unibot III]

The law as written has interesting implications.

TSP won't legally be allowed to suspend its treaty with NPO for up to twelve months (potentially) if NPO coups any other GCR, including TRR and TNP!

Meaning, NPO will have already done its little PR session and apologized by the time their treaty is perennially up for review with TSP.

(Knowing NPO though they'll just coup TSP directly, making this thought experiment purely academic.)

Eh Article 5 Section 2 provides for an early termination right.

Section 2. Either signatory may terminate the treaty with a public notice to the other signatory, effective after five days.

Section 1 qualifies that early termination can only be commenced on the grounds that the text has been materially violated. All of the activities of NPO between 2014 and the present day would not constitute a violation of this agreement.

This is why Xoriet is now equivocating and citing the Sunset protocol and Withdrawal protocol. I never questioned the existence of an extinguishment process, rather I was noting that the withdrawal mechanism is limited to material breaches of the treaty text.

Any time NPO coups a different GCR, TSP would have to wait for the sunset review process before evaluating its treaty with NPO.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Eh Article 5 Section 2 provides for an early termination right.

Section 2. Either signatory may terminate the treaty with a public notice to the other signatory, effective after five days.

Section 1 qualifies that early termination can only be commenced on the grounds that the text has been materially violated. All of the activities of NPO between 2014 and the present day would not constitute a violation of this agreement.

This is why Xoriet is now equivocating and citing the Sunset protocol and Withdrawal protocol. I never questioned the existence of an extinguishment process, rather I was noting that the withdrawal mechanism is limited to material breaches of the treaty text.

Any time NPO coups a different GCR, TSP would have to wait for the sunset review process before evaluating its treaty with NPO.

That's not how I read Article 5. Section 1 deals with suspension of the terms of the treaty, which requires a material breach.

Section 2 makes no reference to Section 1, deals with termination, and has no such limitation. Xoriet is pointing to the Sunset protocol and explicitly stating that it does not restrict the parties' rights under Article 5.