Embassy of the NPO

[Aivintis]

Two thirds or more of ongoing never get posted about on site at all anymore. You'd be "waiting" until the heat death of the universe in most cases. I, for one, am playing NationStates, not DiscordBackrooms, and think that notable ongoings should get announcements, or at least *posts* - and equally, that parties should be *interested* in telling their narrative to the world.

I don't think any of us are entitled to any information from the NPO, as long as we're not their citizens.

Which is to say, you're not entirely wrong about wanting something to chew on, but that's kinda the whole point of the game that is gameplay, isn't it? Especially for Frontiers and Feeders (and other GCRs), whose insecure existence inherently requires engagement with Gameplay.

Does it? Unless you find 400 updaters lying around somewhere, I'd disagree, but that's besides the point. Devolving this into a dialogue on the nature of feeders just proves how starved of agendaposting opportunities NSGP seems to be.

Don't wanna clog their embassy either, so peace out. I suppose we can continue this on discord (in one of those backrooms you mentioned, perhaps, since we happen to share one) if you really want.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Two thirds or more of ongoing never get posted about on site at all anymore. You'd be "waiting" until the heat death of the universe in most cases. I, for one, am playing NationStates, not DiscordBackrooms, and think that notable ongoings should get announcements, or at least *posts* - and equally, that parties should be *interested* in telling their narrative to the world.

I don't think any of us are entitled to any information from the NPO, as long as we're not their citizens.

But... You shouldn't have to be a citizen of the NPO to hear about their foreign affairs. It's called foreign affairs!

[Refuge Isle]

Two thirds or more of ongoing never get posted about on site at all anymore. You'd be "waiting" until the heat death of the universe in most cases. I, for one, am playing NationStates, not DiscordBackrooms, and think that notable ongoings should get announcements, or at least *posts* - and equally, that parties should be *interested* in telling their narrative to the world.

I don't think any of us are entitled to any information from the NPO, as long as we're not their citizens.

Half of the point of a region's GP thread is to make announcements when convenient. The other half is for third parties to make announcements or ask questions when not.

NationStates Gameplay is based on politics, and politics will always involve gossip, intrigue, and wanting to know things not fully cooked. Although you may not approve of the prying, you can't say that a feeder pulling out of the most notable political alliance of 2022 isn't newsworthy.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Well said.


...though admittedly, when I asked, it was about exiting Sericum and Euro immediately turning to trash talk (and what the ramifications of that would be), and not the MGC. Now it's even *more* newsworthy.

[Madjack]

Why does NSGP feel entitled to play by plays from every major region on everything they do? Feels like y'all just want drama to chew on. Props to Syb for professionalism here - anything more than "Nunya" is more than y'all really need right now. I'm curious, too, but waiting won't kill ya. Patience is a virtue.

Because major gameplay regions - especially game-created ones - have a duty to engage in performative actions to drive activity in gameplay. It's good for the health of the game.

Edit: also fucking incredible to see Euro label anyone 'fair weather friends'

[MacEnthailand]

I also think it’s funny that JayDee II’s statement distanced itself from Euro’s admin team. According to the Europeian Broadcasting Corp. article (by press Secretary/delegate upc): “argued that information sharing regarding Festavo/Dionysus was the responsibility of the Europeian admin team, not the In-Character government.”

Classic Euro technique to stop the bleeding, bunker down and deflect. Suggests they may be worried about additional fallout. I will say though, the EBC never would’ve gotten such a basic fact wrong as whether NPO was staying in the MGC when I was running it (a couple weeks ago)!

[Madjack]

I also think it’s funny that JayDee II’s statement distanced itself from Euro’s admin team. According to the Europeian Broadcasting Corp. article (by press Secretary/delegate upc): “argued that information sharing regarding Festavo/Dionysus was the responsibility of the Europeian admin team, not the In-Character government.”

Classic Euro technique to stop the bleeding, bunker down and deflect. Suggests they may be worried about additional fallout. I will say though, the EBC never would’ve gotten such a basic fact wrong as whether NPO was staying in the MGC when I was running it (a couple weeks ago)!

Very funny also that Europeia feels so strongly about sharing such information, when they had no problem gathering and disseminating information acquiring from TRR's private citizens forum without any kind of thought over it whatsoever.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

There isn't even anything particularly wrong with JayDee referring the NPO government to the Europeian administration team for information, especially if he himself was out of the loop. Dividing the IC government and OOC administration is viewed as best practice in major NS democracies. The issue appears to be that JayDee chose not to respond to the request, point blank, not even to say he'd seen it and is determining what needs to be done. Did he just not see it at all?

[HumanSanity]

The issue appears to be that JayDee chose not to respond to the request, point blank, not even to say he'd seen it and is determining what needs to be done.

Syberis gave notice that the NPO was withdrawing from the Treaty of Sericum at 2:34 PM ET on 1/18. In the message withdrawing from the treaty, Syberis even explicitly listed that the time the NPO reached out to President JayDee was 5:26 PM ET on 1/16. You're telling me that JayDee was negligent for not responding to this request for...less than 2 days?

Keep in mind also that on January 16, JayDee announced the revocation of Dionysus' citizenship and his government was in the active process of prosecuting Festavo for lying on a citizenship application. Euro's internal community was going through a pretty damn rough time at that moment, something JayDee and people in his yet-to-be-confirmed Cabinet likely had personal thoughts about, as well as the difficult task of tending to internal community needs at the time. Plus, JayDee had only been re-elected as President on January 15, so was in the process of nominating and confirming a Cabinet and helping the incoming Ministers find their pencils.

And the NPO's contention is that JayDee was a terrible non-communicative ally for not responding to their DM for less than 2 days, even as the NPO was in active communication with the proper authority on the matter (e.g. Euro's admin team)?

Give me a break. The NPO has to have an extremely inflated sense of self importance to think its DM was even close to JayDee's top priority at that moment. A reasonable guess is it was probably about 60th priority.

Dividing the IC government and OOC administration is viewed as best practice in major NS democracies.

Actually, no. It's the best practice in all NS regions period. Even in autocratic regions where, given the lower frequency of power rotation, it is more likely that OOC and IC officials are the same people, it is still a necessary best practice to separate the IC and OOC processes and justifications.

The NPO's stated justification for pulling this treaty actively goes against that. The idea that the IC government of Euro should inform the IC government of the NPO of an OOC issue is ludicrous in general. It is especially ludicrous that it would be a legal obligation under an IC intelligence sharing clause. Even upon the IC government of Euro being given a courtesy heads up by the OOC admin team that this announcement was incoming, the IC government of Euro has no reason to believe that its OOC admin team has not done due diligence in terms of communicating with other admin teams about this - nor should the IC government be in the habit of reviewing the OOC admin team's communication practices.

Shame.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

The issue appears to be that JayDee chose not to respond to the request, point blank, not even to say he'd seen it and is determining what needs to be done.

Syberis gave notice that the NPO was withdrawing from the Treaty of Sericum at 2:34 PM ET on 1/18. In the message withdrawing from the treaty, Syberis even explicitly listed that the time the NPO reached out to President JayDee was 5:26 PM ET on 1/16. You're telling me that JayDee was negligent for not responding to this request for...less than 2 days?

Keep in mind also that on January 16, JayDee announced the revocation of Dionysus' citizenship and his government was in the active process of prosecuting Festavo for lying on a citizenship application. Euro's internal community was going through a pretty damn rough time at that moment, something JayDee and people in his yet-to-be-confirmed Cabinet likely had personal thoughts about, as well as the difficult task of tending to internal community needs at the time. Plus, JayDee had only been re-elected as President on January 15, so was in the process of nominating and confirming a Cabinet and helping the incoming Ministers find their pencils.

And the NPO's contention is that JayDee was a terrible non-communicative ally for not responding to their DM for less than 2 days, even as the NPO was in active communication with the proper authority on the matter (e.g. Euro's admin team)?

Give me a break. The NPO has to have an extremely inflated sense of self importance to think its DM was even close to JayDee's top priority at that moment. A reasonable guess is it was probably about 60th priority.

Dividing the IC government and OOC administration is viewed as best practice in major NS democracies.

Actually, no. It's the best practice in all NS regions period. Even in autocratic regions where, given the lower frequency of power rotation, it is more likely that OOC and IC officials are the same people, it is still a necessary best practice to separate the IC and OOC processes and justifications.

The NPO's stated justification for pulling this treaty actively goes against that. The idea that the IC government of Euro should inform the IC government of the NPO of an OOC issue is ludicrous in general. It is especially ludicrous that it would be a legal obligation under an IC intelligence sharing clause. Even upon the IC government of Euro being given a courtesy heads up by the OOC admin team that this announcement was incoming, the IC government of Euro has no reason to believe that its OOC admin team has not done due diligence in terms of communicating with other admin teams about this - nor should the IC government be in the habit of reviewing the OOC admin team's communication practices.

Shame.

No, I will absolutely not feel shame about that post. An assessment of the contents of the EBC article where I made no accusation of wrongdoing is about as sympathetic a sentence as you're ever likely to hear from me about Europeia.

[HumanSanity]

No, I will absolutely not feel shame about that post. An assessment of the contents of the EBC article where I made no accusation of wrongdoing is about as sympathetic a sentence as you're ever likely to hear from me about Europeia.

I didn't intend to say you should feel shame for a bad take based on incomplete information.

The people who had complete information and chose to initiate the specific actions they did, in the manner they did, and for the reasons they stated...they are the ones who should feel ample shame.

[The Sapientia]

I fully support the breaking of ties, no matter the stated reason, with a region where multiple cabinet members, honored citizens, and officials complained about a banning of a violent transphobe.

[Pasybfic]

Hello, assorted concerned individuals of NationStates,

Our treaty revocation with Europeia, and our self-selection out of the Modern Gameplay Compact is an interesting one. As a simple matter of fact, the relationship had been strained for some time. The assorted uninvolved parties did make one correct assertion on the reasoning, albeit quite by accident - “A reasonable guess is it was probably about 60th priority.” We recognize that Europeia had a number of things to deal with, and our offense was that the little communication we received from JayDee specifically did not include a recognition that the message was received or that it would be addressed. This moved the Senate to act to dissolve the treaty. However, ultimately, there was slightly more to it than this, admittedly.

A treaty partner should not be not one’s 60th priority, especially one that is angry and asking for address and discussion on a perceived treaty violation. The incident itself, honestly, is secondary to the core issue in our eyes. Europeia and the NPO had reached the point where both governments behaved, both publicly and privately, in this regard for some time. Both regions were effectively operating out of sync for quite some time, and any attempt to bring both regions into sync tended to fail. The NPO takes responsibility wholeheartedly for their share of the matter, but we are of the opinion that this move will be to the benefit of all parties involved, mostly due to this complete lack of synchronicity.

The first hint in regards to this is the overwhelming response of both regions. There is no substantial party within either region who were vocally in opposition to this move, and even those that have collaborated together in the past found the move inevitable, to the point where I received at least one message from a Europeian citizen with the gist of “Well, finally.” Regional priorities and ideals had shifted substantially, and both Europeian and Pacifican alike expressed some concern there.

A breakup between celebrities is often public, often messy, and often there are a thousand people waiting to see who blames who first. We kept our communications within Europeia first as part of one of our core beliefs - a private issue gets addressed privately, a public issue gets addressed publicly. The initial statement written was intended to be factual and to the point, but a release to the public with factual inaccuracy, as well as jabs levied against the NPO being brought publicly led to a change in timetable. We believe that the actions taken by Europeian citizenry and the executive are valid expressions of discontent, but also to some extent that, like anything else, a region needs to be “at fault” for any event or breakup.

If Europeia needs to blame the NPO, we are very used to being at fault, and can take that. The NPO had no intention of dragging something that didn’t work, that actions showed wasn’t going to work, and that our concerns being being “probably about the 60th priority” wasn’t in line with what we intended from allies in multiple defensive pacts. The NPO doesn’t wish to assign public blame to Europeia for the expression of this fact. Sometimes regions grow apart.

We intended to keep the Non-Aggression Pact active to show our hope for the greater well-being of Europeia as a region, but their rejection there shows the intention for immediate, dramatic distance, and we respect that. We intend to maintain any requested distance or closeness, and we wish Europeia nothing but the best in their current direction and messaging.

Our withdrawal from the MGC is related to this, but the statement will be much shorter. We did not intend to be part of a multilateral agreement with Europeia with priorities where they stood, and we did not wish to push for their removal. Instead, we stepped away to leave Europeia with their current MGC partners, and are looking to refocus our efforts into our upcoming and current bilateral treaties and to the Pax Polaris Occidens, whose regions have reached out to us and been in productive discussion on their next steps.

We respect any questions from our treaty and pact partners, and any region who understandably has concern regarding the NPO’s current stances and recent behavior is welcome to reach out to myself on Discord, and we can have a productive talk on this matter.

[Reventus Koth]

Pax Pacifica Occidentalis

That's an interesting way to spell Pax Polaris Occidens. Makes sense you'd want to put Pacifica in there, considering that the pact's actual name roughly translates to "The North-West Peace"

[Pasybfic]

Pax Pacifica Occidentalis

That's an interesting way to spell Pax Polaris Occidens. Makes sense you'd want to put Pacifica in there, considering that the pact's actual name roughly translates to "The North-West Peace"

Too many P words and apparently the autoread impacts all of us. We're allegedly human. Fixed. If I merge the GCRs some day I've got a good name for it though

[HumanSanity]

especially one that is angry and asking for address and discussion on a perceived treaty violation

How did the NPO perceive the in-character government of Europeia not informing the in-character government of the NPO of an entirely out-of-character matter as a violation of the intelligence sharing provision of the in-character Treaty of Sericum?

[Aivintis]

The Pacific is not a difficult ally. They don’t ask for much - they just want their treaty allies to not ignore them and to treat them with respect and mutual consideration, which isn’t that hard to do if you care. Between that with the IC government and the OOC administration questionability, this seems like the only logical move for the NPO. It’s funny to me, then, to see the NPO roped into played up drama by Europeia rejecting the non aggression pact complaining about “fair weather friends”. If a fair weather friend is one that takes no shit and doesn’t want to get taken for granted, then that seems like a label I would want to wear proudly.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Europeia is just trying everything possible to frame this as "NPO bad". If only the NPO were raiders, they'd have a slam-dunk narrative ready to go. =P

But because the NPO has been a diplomatic partner and MGC-adherent up until now, Europeia and its most ardent advocates (hi HumanSanity!) are testing out every possible narrative. "Syberis was the former Pharaoh of Osiris!" was a fun little attempt at capitalizing on anti-raider sentiment. The jabs at the NPO in Europeia's statement were other smaller ways to test out what kind of response worked. You only have to read this thread to see HumanSanity doing a test drive on different roads Europeia could use, checking to see if they're roads worth traveling down. Roads like "the NPO doesn't know IC from OOC"... as if the NPO should've consulted their OOC treaty with Euro that doesn't exist because OOC treaties aren't a thing. Roads like "the NPO is too demanding of its allies", which Aivintis pointed out the funniness of better than I would be able to.

I'm just fascinated, waiting to see what Europeia and its advocates come up with next!

[Esfalsa]

You only have to read this thread to see HumanSanity doing a test drive on different roads Europeia could use, checking to see if they're roads worth traveling down. Roads like "the NPO doesn't know IC from OOC"... as if the NPO should've consulted their OOC treaty with Euro that doesn't exist because OOC treaties aren't a thing.

Right — I agree that OOC treaties aren't a thing, and I think it's therefore reasonable to feel that the administrative (un)banning of Festavo/Dionysus is an OOC matter which should be handled through OOC channels (e.g. admin team to admin team), not IC channels (e.g. an IC treaty). We don't have to all be in complete agreement on where to draw the IC/OOC divide, but I think we're all better off trying to maintain that divide if we don't assume others are raising concerns about IC/OOC separation in order to advance IC interests…

[Aivintis]

[...] the administrative (un)banning of Festavo/Dionysus is an OOC matter which should be handled through OOC channels (e.g. admin team to admin team), not IC channels (e.g. an IC treaty)

Based on what information is publicly available, it seemed that didn't happen either. Just for the record.

[Quebecshire]

[...] the administrative (un)banning of Festavo/Dionysus is an OOC matter which should be handled through OOC channels (e.g. admin team to admin team), not IC channels (e.g. an IC treaty)

Based on what information is publicly available, it seemed that didn't happen either. Just for the record.

Did you even read NPO's original withdrawal statement?

I've got a few things to say, but I want to preface this with a few explicit clarifications ahead of time. the NPO respects Europeia's administrative decisions, and the administrative team has been clear in conversation. Where we have reached out with our own questions on the administrative, OOC side of things, they have been answered clearly, concisely, and where we disagreed on execution, I believe everyone recognized that there was a mutual desire in our core philosophies.

First paragraph, bro. Underline mine.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Oh! Except the Dinoysus thing wasn't an entirely OOC matter, and that's based on the interpretations of Europeians! Dinoysus lying on their citizenship application about their identity was something that fell under the auspices of the IC government of Europeia and even would've been prosecuted as an IC crime if he wasn't re-banned. Maybe Europeia's failure to inform the NPO of this is what violated the intelligence sharing provision in the Treaty of Sericum.

[HumanSanity]

with the IC government and the OOC administration questionability, this seems like the only logical move for the NPO

If the position of the NPO was that Europeia is an unsafe community or a community that provides a platform for a hateful ideology, then it would obviously be correct to terminate the Treaty of Sericum as part of a broader effort for OOC blacklisting. However, that is not a defensible position or the position identified by the NPO. If it was, then the NPO would have terminated all of its treaties and ties with Europeia rather than saying they wanted to maintain their non-aggression pact with Europeia or (initially) remaining in the Modern Gameplay Compact with Europeia.

A sentence which includes the issues with the IC government and OOC administration together as a justification for treaty termination is, quite frankly, dangerous. The very structure that NS communities rely on for safety is that OOC administrative teams will handle OOC administrative matters and IC governments will handle the game itself. The NPO's twice stated justification goes directly against that by saying the Euro IC government needed to take a role in handling an OOC matter in collaboration with the NPO IC government.

It’s funny to me, then, to see the NPO roped into played up drama by Europeia rejecting the non aggression pact complaining about “fair weather friends”.

This is separate from the above comment about the OOC/IC dichotomy, just because it merits a correction about the IC nature of Euro's position regarding the severability of the Treaty of Sericum from the Non-Aggression Pact between the NPO and Europeia. Europeia did not "reject[...] the non-aggression pact". Rather, Europeia's attorney general reached a determination that the non-aggression pact had already ceased to hold any effect upon the ratification of the Treaty of Sericum. This was made clear by President JayDee's statement. The legal grounding for this termination by Europeia's attorney general seems to me, as a casual observer, rather obvious, given that article 9(d) of the Treaty of Sericum states: "Upon ratification, this treaty shall be the sole bilateral treaty between the Pacific and Europeia, superseding any prior written documents describing a relationship between the regions". It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the quality of friendship provided by the NPO to Europeia, rather a matter of fairly dry legal interpretation.

But because the NPO has been a diplomatic partner and MGC-adherent up until now, Europeia and its most ardent advocates (hi HumanSanity!) are testing out every possible narrative.

Your argument assets that I am mixing in-character and out-of-character interests in arguing against the NPO's decision to terminate the Treaty of Sericum. I am not one of the people in this thread who has, repeatedly, invoked OOC matters into IC FA considerations without ever attempting to disentangle them.

However, answering the accusation that I'm some kind of in-character Europeia sycophant will require me to delve into addressing that premise substantively, which I apologize for doing in a post handling a rather serious issue with the NPO's actions and their implications for game health.

Seeing areas where I've been willing to push back against Europeia's stated agenda is not at all difficult. We could look as far back as my adamant opposition to King HEM's Commendation, which earned me the ire of Europeia's WA department such that they abstained on my commendation when the time came. We could also look to more recent history, where I did not brigade the NS forums in defense of some of Europeia's more controversial actions, have routinely criticized the MGC including Europeia's role in it, and was one of the main TSP MoFAs who repeatedly held firm on not granting Europeia a bilateral mutual defense treaty outside of our commitments to them under the Modern Gameplay Compact. A fair assessment of my approach from a Euro FA perspective over the past 1-2 years would be "HS will work with you if they want to be also will say no if they're not having it". It certainly isn't that I'm some kind of Euro Always And Forever individual.

The reason I'm adamantly speaking here has very little to do with the termination of the Treaty of Sericum or the NPO's membership in the Modern Gameplay Compact and the in-character implications of those moves. Rather, the reason I'm speaking is that the statement and justification given by the NPO for their withdrawal from the Treaty of Sericum represents an unacceptable mixing of the IC/OOC divide. Players often accuse each other of mixing that divide, as you have done to me, but it is incredibly rare for a region to repeatedly and openly in official statements say that they are doing so. It's rather disturbing how blatant it is in this context, especially when considering the NPO's second statement on the matter (on this forum) where they say that this was done in the context of deteriorating IC relations between the NPO and Europeia.

as if the NPO should've consulted their OOC treaty with Euro that doesn't exist because OOC treaties aren't a thing.

Congratulations, you have made my point better than I ever possibly could have right here. OOC treaties don't exist because they shouldn't. The norms around collaboration on issues of community safety that exist between OOC administrative teams aren't subject to rules lawyering, negotiation, or political power plays. If the NPO's OOC administrative team wanted context about an OOC issue, they can talk to Euro's OOC administrative team at any time. They would be able to do so regardless of if there was one, two, three, or zero treaties between Euro and the NPO. The NPO's initial statement even acknowledges that occurred in this context and did not state concerns about Euro's OOC administration.

Furthermore, the implication of your claim that Euro's OOC admin team would only have an obligation to collaborate with the NPO's OOC admin team if there was some kind of prior good will between the two regions (e.g. a "treaty", but in jest it seems you're referring to some kind of existing norms of communication and collaboration) also has concerning implications. If Euro and the NPO were in a declared state of in-character war, it would be irrelevant in handling an OOC matter, the teams should still collaborate to the greatest practicable extent on player safety while protecting player privacy and confidentiality.

Oh! Except the Dinoysus thing wasn't an entirely OOC matter, and that's based on the interpretations of Europeians! Dinoysus lying on their citizenship application about their identity was something that fell under the auspices of the IC government of Europeia and even would've been prosecuted as an IC crime if he wasn't re-banned.

Lying on a citizenship application is an in-character crime because citizenship applications are an in-character instrument.

If I, a player in good OOC standing, applied for Europeian citizenship claiming to be a new player, likely because I wanted to gain access to sensitive information as a citizen of Euroepia or to influence the internal political process within Europeia, that would be an in-character offense. In this case, you are correct that the in-character fact of falsifying a citizenship application has relevance to an out-of-character question, but that doesn't mean the fact of lying on the citizenship application isn't itself an in-character crime.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Oh no, this is going to be a lot of typing. =[

But because the NPO has been a diplomatic partner and MGC-adherent up until now, Europeia and its most ardent advocates (hi HumanSanity!) are testing out every possible narrative.

Your argument assets that I am mixing in-character and out-of-character interests in arguing against the NPO's decision to terminate the Treaty of Sericum. I am not one of the people in this thread who has, repeatedly, invoked OOC matters into IC FA considerations without ever attempting to disentangle them.

However, answering the accusation that I'm some kind of in-character Europeia sycophant will require me to delve into addressing that premise substantively, which I apologize for doing in a post handling a rather serious issue with the NPO's actions and their implications for game health.

Seeing areas where I've been willing to push back against Europeia's stated agenda is not at all difficult. We could look as far back as my adamant opposition to King HEM's Commendation, which earned me the ire of Europeia's WA department such that they abstained on my commendation when the time came. We could also look to more recent history, where I did not brigade the NS forums in defense of some of Europeia's more controversial actions, have routinely criticized the MGC including Europeia's role in it, and was one of the main TSP MoFAs who repeatedly held firm on not granting Europeia a bilateral mutual defense treaty outside of our commitments to them under the Modern Gameplay Compact. A fair assessment of my approach from a Euro FA perspective over the past 1-2 years would be "HS will work with you if they want to be also will say no if they're not having it". It certainly isn't that I'm some kind of Euro Always And Forever individual.

The reason I'm adamantly speaking here has very little to do with the termination of the Treaty of Sericum or the NPO's membership in the Modern Gameplay Compact and the in-character implications of those moves. Rather, the reason I'm speaking is that the statement and justification given by the NPO for their withdrawal from the Treaty of Sericum represents an unacceptable mixing of the IC/OOC divide. Players often accuse each other of mixing that divide, as you have done to me, but it is incredibly rare for a region to repeatedly and openly in official statements say that they are doing so. It's rather disturbing how blatant it is in this context, especially when considering the NPO's second statement on the matter (on this forum) where they say that this was done in the context of deteriorating IC relations between the NPO and Europeia.

I called you an ardent Europeia advocate because you're doing the heavy lifting for Euro in this thread. If that's not your intention, then congratulations on accidentally being a great advocate for them during this diplomatic event. Maybe you should consider a future career in Europeia. I hear they need nominees for President. =P

I understand why you're saying that you're only posting here because of your intense feelings about mixing IC and OOC, and saying that the reason has little to do with the termination of the treaty, but things like "JayDee didn't have enough time to respond, thus the NPO was unreasonably impatient!" or "JayDee was too busy nominating and confirming his cabinet to respond, thus the NPO is too egotistical!" are criticisms of this event and negative characterizations of the NPO from an IC perspective - ones you started out your first long post with. So because of that, I read your post (and your intent) in at least a partially-IC manner. If that was wrong, then I apologize. =]

My opinion on the actual issue of the NPO mixing IC/OOC is that I think it's a long road of IC disagreements that have come to a head thanks to an OOC controversy. I'd expect any region's existing IC issues to grow deeper when one of them has an OOC controversy, regardless of how badly one tries to separate IC and OOC. And now that I type that, here's a good example of what I mentioned earlier. Now I'm an NPO advocate in this event, because my position helps put forward a narrative that would benefit them. =P

as if the NPO should've consulted their OOC treaty with Euro that doesn't exist because OOC treaties aren't a thing.

Congratulations, you have made my point better than I ever possibly could have right here. OOC treaties don't exist because they shouldn't. The norms around collaboration on issues of community safety that exist between OOC administrative teams aren't subject to rules lawyering, negotiation, or political power plays. If the NPO's OOC administrative team wanted context about an OOC issue, they can talk to Euro's OOC administrative team at any time. They would be able to do so regardless of if there was one, two, three, or zero treaties between Euro and the NPO. The NPO's initial statement even acknowledges that occurred in this context and did not state concerns about Euro's OOC administration.

Furthermore, the implication of your claim that Euro's OOC admin team would only have an obligation to collaborate with the NPO's OOC admin team if there was some kind of prior good will between the two regions (e.g. a "treaty", but in jest it seems you're referring to some kind of existing norms of communication and collaboration) also has concerning implications. If Euro and the NPO were in a declared state of in-character war, it would be irrelevant in handling an OOC matter, the teams should still collaborate to the greatest practicable extent on player safety while protecting player privacy and confidentiality.

You're actually reading too much into that one, and ended up going in the direction I hoped this discussion would go anyway, so that's great! To be clear, I was only making fun of the phrase "in-character Treaty of Sericum", as if there'd be an out-of-character Treaty of Something-else. Please, no-one ever make an OOC treaty of anything. Horrible idea.

Oh! Except the Dinoysus thing wasn't an entirely OOC matter, and that's based on the interpretations of Europeians! Dinoysus lying on their citizenship application about their identity was something that fell under the auspices of the IC government of Europeia and even would've been prosecuted as an IC crime if he wasn't re-banned.

Lying on a citizenship application is an in-character crime because citizenship applications are an in-character instrument.

If I, a player in good OOC standing, applied for Europeian citizenship claiming to be a new player, likely because I wanted to gain access to sensitive information as a citizen of Euroepia or to influence the internal political process within Europeia, that would be an in-character offense. In this case, you are correct that the in-character fact of falsifying a citizenship application has relevance to an out-of-character question, but that doesn't mean the fact of lying on the citizenship application isn't itself an in-character crime.

Interesting! Do you think it's possible "Europeia not sharing their knowledge of Dinoysus lying on their citizenship application" is the violation of the intelligence sharing provision?

[Aivintis]

Based on what information is publicly available, it seemed that didn't happen either. Just for the record.

Did you even read NPO's original withdrawal statement?

I've got a few things to say, but I want to preface this with a few explicit clarifications ahead of time. the NPO respects Europeia's administrative decisions, and the administrative team has been clear in conversation. Where we have reached out with our own questions on the administrative, OOC side of things, they have been answered clearly, concisely, and where we disagreed on execution, I believe everyone recognized that there was a mutual desire in our core philosophies.

First paragraph, bro. Underline mine.

Where do you see that? I don't see it either in the withdrawal statement or in the original posts by Syb last page preceding the statement. Am I just blind?