NATION

PASSWORD

Partnership for Sovereignty | DSA Joins

Talk about regional management and politics, raider/defender gameplay, and other game-related matters.
Not a roleplaying forum.
User avatar
Partnership for Sovereignty
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Jan 20, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Partnership for Sovereignty | DSA Joins

Postby Partnership for Sovereignty » Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:35 pm

Image


ANNOUNCING THE PARTNERSHIP FOR SOVEREIGNTY

The signatory governments are proud to announce the formation of the Partnership for Sovereignty.

The Partnership for Sovereignty is a Security Council voting bloc created to defend the values of self-determination, positive community, and respect for the World Assembly and its processes. Its member states agree to collaborate to set voting recommendations in line with the principles of the Partnership and to coordinate campaigns on relevant proposals.

The signatories, committed to the values of self-determination, regional sovereignty, and respect for the World Assembly and its members, hereby enter into the Partnership for Sovereignty.

I. Statement of Principles

1. Self-Determination. The Partnership for Sovereignty stands in support of the right of natives of a region to determine the status of their own region.
a. The Partnership for Sovereignty supports Security Council liberation proposals when natives in the target region have consented to the passage of the liberation, especially when the target region is at imminent risk of destruction.

b. The Partnership for Sovereignty opposes Security Council liberation proposals when natives in the target region are opposed to the passage of the liberation, except when the target region supports fascism or hateful ideologies and/or where the region has regularly launched unprovoked attacks against other regions.

c. The Partnership for Sovereignty opposes the practice of approval raiding. Signatories will act against it, including through diplomatic and defensive military action, as each region considers appropriate in the circumstances.

2. Positive Community. The Partnership for Sovereignty stands in support of positive contributions to the building of a better NationStates.

a. The Partnership for Sovereignty supports well-written Commendations for nations or regions which have made significant contributions to defending except where the target nation or region declines their own Commendation.

b. The Partnership for Sovereignty supports well-written Commendations or Condemnations for nations or regions which have made significant contributions to roleplaying, Issue writing or answering, region-building, interregional diplomacy, trading cards, and/or other parts of NationStates except where the target nation or region declines their own Commendation or Condemnation.

3. Respect. The Partnership for Sovereignty stands in support of the stated goals, institutions, and processes of the World Assembly and opposes bad-faith efforts to undermine or circumvent them.

a. The Partnership for Sovereignty opposes not only approval raiding, but any and all bad-faith efforts or proposals that manipulate, mislead and/or subvert the intentions of the World Assembly’s voters, and will endeavor to counteract such disinformation.

b. The Partnership for Sovereignty opposes efforts to manipulate the Security Council to directly harm signatory regions and defenders.

II. Setting Voting Recommendations

1. Each member region may appoint a delegation to participate in private discussions about voting with other member regions of the Partnership for Sovereignty. Each delegation shall have one vote in decisions of the Partnership for Sovereignty.

2. Any representative to the Partnership for Sovereignty may request that the Partnership set a recommendation on a vote for any Security Council proposal prior to on site voting based on the idea such a vote recommendation will fulfill the values in Article I.

3. After discussion, any representative may motion for a vote on a vote recommendation, such a vote will last 24 hours or until all members have voted. A vote recommendation includes the option preferred by the parties and the reasoning published for the recommendation. In order to issue a recommendation, a quorum of one-half of delegations must be reached, and three-fifths of non-abstaining representatives must support the recommendation. If the proposed vote recommendation does not reach these thresholds, the Partnership will not issue a vote recommendation on that Security Council proposal.

4. After a vote recommendation is issued, the recommendation will be published in a NationStates Dispatch for public viewing. Members are encouraged to further distribute the recommendation through appropriate methods to ensure the citizens of the member region are made aware of the vote recommendation.

5. Once the relevant Security Council proposal reaches a vote, the Delegates and World Assembly residents of member regions are strongly encouraged to vote in line with the Partnership’s recommendation.

III. Voting Activation Network

1. Delegations to the Partnership for Sovereignty may coordinate advocacy regarding drafting and voting on Security Council proposals.

2. Delegations to the Partnership for Sovereignty shall maintain a list of contacts with other friendly regions to contact when a voting recommendation is issued by the Partnership for Sovereignty.

IV. Membership Guidelines

1. Any region that wishes to join the Partnership for Sovereignty must contact the responsible authority in a member region to request entry to the Partnership. The member region’s delegation must present the question of the region’s admission to the Partnership for Sovereignty. By requesting admission to the Partnership, a region agrees to abide by the terms of this Charter if admitted.

2. Following discussion of the application, a 72 hour vote will be held and, if three-fourths of non-abstaining delegations concur, with a quorum of one-half of voting delegations, the region shall be admitted.

3. Should an application vote fail to reach quorum, discussion of the application shall continue for one week, after which a second vote is held. Should the second vote fail to reach quorum, the application is automatically rejected.

4. An existing member of the Partnership shall be automatically expelled if they declare a formal raiding alignment.

5. An existing member of the Partnership may be expelled for any reason if three-fourths of voting delegations concur in a 72 hour vote. A member region may not vote on its own expulsion.

6. An existing member of the Partnership may withdraw at any time.

V. Amending the Partnership for Sovereignty Charter

1. Any delegation may propose an amendment to the Partnership for Sovereignty Charter. After discussion, the delegations must unanimously support an amendment to the Partnership for Sovereignty Charter.

2. After the delegations pass an amendment to the Charter, it shall only take effect after it completes the treaty amendment process in all of the signatory regions.


Signatory Regions
10000 Islands (Founding Member)
The Rejected Realms (Founding Member)
the South Pacific (Founding Member)
The Union of Democratic States (Joined 2021/02/03)
The Free Nations Region (Joined 2021/02/13)
Spiritus (Joined 2021/02/17)
Philippines (Joined 2021/03/20)
The League (Joined 2021/8/16)
Democratic Socialist Assembly (Joined 2021/9/15)
Last edited by Partnership for Sovereignty on Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:33 am, edited 14 times in total.
The Partnership for Sovereignty
Self-determination, Regional Sovereignty, and Respect

Want drafting help or PfS notifications? Join our Discord!
Read about our Writers Corner resources


User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9036
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:58 pm

Will there be a new tripartite shield added to the logo for every new member region? :P
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
Jakker
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2916
Founded: May 17, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jakker » Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:03 pm

A lot of this sounds very vague. Can you clarify what it means by "proposals that manipulate/mislead?"
One Stop Rules Shop
Getting Help Request (GHR)

The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.

User avatar
North Prarie
Diplomat
 
Posts: 932
Founded: Nov 04, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby North Prarie » Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:31 pm

Things you love to see: it.

Ecstatic that this idea is finally a reality! I'm ready for a new era of defender cooperation, where we can hopefully bring even more regions, people, and ways of cooperation into the fold.
Last edited by North Prarie on Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
North Prarie. Prarie. Proud TSPer. DemSoc.
Hosting Experience
Prarie Classic Baseball Tournament
Copa South Pacifica 1
WPIC 5
Sporting Acheivments
Round of 16 at Handball World Cup 20
Women's Hockey Round of 16 at Prescott Winter Olympics 13
Prarie Classic Baseball Tournament Champions

Prariean Airlines-Pompeii Industries Luxury Cars-Phoenix Luxury Hotels (V2 Coming Soon)-Stonebridge Simbacat International Airport-Embassy Program
SBT BottomLine-President Valieant welcomes first child Pax, Social Democrats gain big wins in Parliament elections, Lions win NPBL, Cavaliers win Prarie Hockey Cup, NPFA announces slow move away from world affairs

User avatar
HumanSanity
Envoy
 
Posts: 344
Founded: Feb 06, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby HumanSanity » Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:49 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Will there be a new tripartite shield added to the logo for every new member region? :P

Idunno, the three shields are pretty basically no matter what.

Jakker wrote:A lot of this sounds very vague. Can you clarify what it means by "proposals that manipulate/mislead?"

You'll notice the language of Article I establishes the purpose of the organization but does not establish binding terms for creating recommendations, something which is done by the vote of the participants in Article II. Manipulate/mislead could mean many things. If the language in Article I.3 is relevant, the recommendation published will certainly explain why.

North Prarie wrote:Things you love to see: it.

Ecstatic that this idea is finally a reality! I'm ready for a new era of defender cooperation, where we can hopefully bring even more regions, people, and ways of cooperation into the fold.

I too am excited for this!
HumanSanity
Minister of Defense of the South Pacific
Former Delegate of 10000 Islands and Chief Executive of Renegade Islands Alliance

User avatar
Qvait
Envoy
 
Posts: 248
Founded: Mar 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Qvait » Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:52 pm

This is the beginning of a beautiful new era.
A blue jay from the South Pacific

2× MoFA /// 1× CRS member /// 1× MoRA


My History

User avatar
Flanderlion
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1965
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:11 pm

Jakker wrote:A lot of this sounds very vague. Can you clarify what it means by "proposals that manipulate/mislead?"

I think the vast majority of your resolutions would fit the criteria.
As always, I'm representing myself.
Information
Wishlist

User avatar
Jakker
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2916
Founded: May 17, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jakker » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:20 pm

Flanderlion wrote:
Jakker wrote:A lot of this sounds very vague. Can you clarify what it means by "proposals that manipulate/mislead?"

I think the vast majority of your resolutions would fit the criteria.


Haha I am sure that anything I write would be interpreted as such. I fully expect TSP and XKI to continue to push their extreme views in the SC. I am sure this was their way to get TRR because they were upset that sometimes the region did not vote as quickly as they would like or against their extreme propaganda.
One Stop Rules Shop
Getting Help Request (GHR)

The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.

User avatar
Qvait
Envoy
 
Posts: 248
Founded: Mar 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Qvait » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:29 pm

Jakker wrote:I am sure this was their way to get TRR because they were upset that sometimes the region did not vote as quickly as they would like or against their extreme propaganda.

This statement couldn't be any further from reality.
A blue jay from the South Pacific

2× MoFA /// 1× CRS member /// 1× MoRA


My History

User avatar
Aumeltopia
Attaché
 
Posts: 70
Founded: Apr 02, 2017
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Aumeltopia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:45 pm

I look forward to seeing the Partnership for Sovereignty flourish as a Gameplay bloc that is actually a force for good -- for positive reform, for writers' interests -- in the World Assembly. It'll be a refreshing contrast to the strategy raiders seem to have adopted towards the WA recently -- one of not respecting the process and attempting to use the WA as merely a tool without regard for the consequences.
Last edited by Aumeltopia on Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
aka Somyrion

Auphelia wrote:Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

User avatar
Makdon
Envoy
 
Posts: 309
Founded: Nov 14, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Makdon » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:46 pm

Jakker wrote:Haha I am sure that anything I write would be interpreted as such. I fully expect TSP and XKI to continue to push their extreme views in the SC. I am sure this was their way to get TRR because they were upset that sometimes the region did not vote as quickly as they would like or against their extreme propaganda.

Given that TRR will continue to vote based off of our internal citizens vote, I'm not sure how TSP and XKI have "gotten" us.
⁝ Former World Assembly Officer of The Rejected Realms ⁝ 2 x SCR author ⁝ Question Mark ⁝

User avatar
Jakker
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2916
Founded: May 17, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jakker » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:00 pm

Makdon wrote:
Jakker wrote:Haha I am sure that anything I write would be interpreted as such. I fully expect TSP and XKI to continue to push their extreme views in the SC. I am sure this was their way to get TRR because they were upset that sometimes the region did not vote as quickly as they would like or against their extreme propaganda.

Given that TRR will continue to vote based off of our internal citizens vote, I'm not sure how TSP and XKI have "gotten" us.


I look forward to then seeing cases when TRR votes differently than TSP and XKI. I wonder what would happen if Condemn Souls came up for vote again with this agreement in place.
One Stop Rules Shop
Getting Help Request (GHR)

The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.

User avatar
Kyorgia
Envoy
 
Posts: 265
Founded: Jun 07, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kyorgia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:03 pm

Jakker wrote:
Makdon wrote:Given that TRR will continue to vote based off of our internal citizens vote, I'm not sure how TSP and XKI have "gotten" us.


I look forward to then seeing cases when TRR votes differently than TSP and XKI. I wonder what would happen if Condemn Souls came up for vote again with this agreement in place.


Hopefully the citizens of TRR will know the right way to vote as well
Kyorgia Kyosson-Hartwell Vonimof


Altasund - I'd def fuck kyo

User avatar
Qvait
Envoy
 
Posts: 248
Founded: Mar 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Qvait » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:13 pm

Jakker wrote:I look forward to then seeing cases when TRR votes differently than TSP and XKI. I wonder what would happen if Condemn Souls came up for vote again with this agreement in place.

Maybe, if it's not written as a congratulatory condemnation.
A blue jay from the South Pacific

2× MoFA /// 1× CRS member /// 1× MoRA


My History

User avatar
Alfonzo
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 171
Founded: Dec 27, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Alfonzo » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:22 pm

Jakker wrote:
Flanderlion wrote:I think the vast majority of your resolutions would fit the criteria.


Haha I am sure that anything I write would be interpreted as such. I fully expect TSP and XKI to continue to push their extreme views in the SC. I am sure this was their way to get TRR because they were upset that sometimes the region did not vote as quickly as they would like or against their extreme propaganda.

But Where?
Last edited by Alfonzo on Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
✯ ✯ ✯ In War, Victory. In Peace, Vigilance. In Death, Sacrifice: TGW✯ ✯ ✯
Tlatoani/Founder of Lake Obsidian | Native of The Embassy | Member of the Kyosson Family in The Rejected Realms
Made ya look!

User avatar
Parxland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 454
Founded: Apr 21, 2020
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Parxland » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:34 pm

Kinda sad to see this is necessary with current events in this game. Glad to see a response to it. So can new regions join? What's the requirements? Can individuals join?
Last edited by Parxland on Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- < D O O M > -

User avatar
A Bloodred Moon
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Jan 13, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby A Bloodred Moon » Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:56 am

Jakker wrote:A lot of this sounds very vague. Can you clarify what it means by "proposals that manipulate/mislead?"

Whatever is written by a raider will be marked as such, I assume. This is XKI, after all.

HumanSanity wrote:You'll notice the language of Article I establishes the purpose of the organization but does not establish binding terms for creating recommendations, something which is done by the vote of the participants in Article II. Manipulate/mislead could mean many things. If the language in Article I.3 is relevant, the recommendation published will certainly explain why.

So, in essence, it doesn’t have to be openly defined as “whatever XKI or TSP doesn’t like” but it is intentionally left vague so you can make up excuses as you go? And since each delegation has one vote, there are currently only three votes to be cast, and 60% is necessary to pass a recommendation, TSP and XKI can force their extreme defender views through without TRR (which, to my knowledge, holds a far more moderate view on defending) getting any say in it at all.

Qvait wrote:Maybe, if it's not written as a congratulatory condemnation.

A dishonest argument. All condemnations are ultimately badges - that is their purpose. TSP is far too extreme in their defender views to ever accept awarding any badge to a raider - and neither is XKI.
Last edited by A Bloodred Moon on Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Armaros

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2957
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:50 am

"Blah blah blah blah defenders bad blah blah blah XKI bad blah blah blah TSP bad blah blah blah extremist defenders blah blah"

Anyways, this pact looks great!
Last edited by Honeydewistania on Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
she/her

Radiohead wrote:No [x42]

User avatar
Big Bad Badger
Envoy
 
Posts: 245
Founded: Apr 25, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Big Bad Badger » Wed Jan 27, 2021 6:01 pm

The GCR+10KI Sovereignty Accords!!!! Yay for all! In celebration, I am going to take TWPAF out for some raiding in your honor!
Mr. Badger

I've been told that raiding requires booze and a lack of pants! --Neenee

User avatar
Quebecshire
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 384
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Quebecshire » Wed Jan 27, 2021 6:32 pm

Big Bad Badger wrote:The GCR+10KI Sovereignty Accords!!!! Yay for all! In celebration, I am going to take TWPAF out for some raiding in your honor!

Hi there,

Founder of a UCR here, and maybe this won't age well if they reject us, but we actually applied to join earlier this afternoon.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific
Consul and LDF Command of The League
Warden in The Order of the Grey Wardens
Public Relations Director of NationStates Today
Player Résumé
"Quebecshire has proven time and time again that he is perfectly capable of standing in front of a room, full of people who hate him and continuing to defend his views." - Redacted
"Quebec may be more regionalist than I ever was, which is basically the highest compliment I’m capable of giving." - HumanSanity
"Wow….. I never thought I would hear a moralist defender announce themselves so loudly." - Wayneactia
"I find it disappointing that Quebec has posted without saying cope." - Fauxia

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12438
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:48 pm

I'm glad to see this. Hopefully it turns out to be the force for good that it has the potential to be, and hopefully I remember how to recruit so we can join.
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4796
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Fauxia » Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:18 pm

Big Bad Badger wrote:The GCR+10KI Sovereignty Accords!!!! Yay for all! In celebration, I am going to take TWPAF out for some raiding in your honor!

Color me skeptical.

Jakker wrote:
Makdon wrote:Given that TRR will continue to vote based off of our internal citizens vote, I'm not sure how TSP and XKI have "gotten" us.


I look forward to then seeing cases when TRR votes differently than TSP and XKI. I wonder what would happen if Condemn Souls came up for vote again with this agreement in place.

I don't have a crystal ball, although I think the fact that TRR voted unanimously in favor of Condemn EWS should give you an idea of how this works.

What I do know is that your preemptive whining does not do much good for any proposals you write.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.
Sandaoguo wrote:GP is a den of cynics and nihilists
My opinions do not represent any NS governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), any RL governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), the CIA, the NSA, the FBI. the Freemasons, the Illuminati, Opus Dei, the Knights Templar, the Organization for the Advancement of Cultural Marxism, Opus Dei, or any other organization. Unless I say they do, in which case, there is a nonzero chance.

User avatar
Blight-Bane
Attaché
 
Posts: 72
Founded: Sep 13, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Blight-Bane » Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:30 pm

Jakker wrote:I wonder what would happen if Condemn Souls came up for vote again with this agreement in place.

Defender clickbait.

User avatar
Partnership for Sovereignty
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Jan 20, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Partnership for Sovereignty » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:42 pm

The Partnership for Sovereignty is proud to announce the admission of The Union of Democratic States as its fourth member.
The Partnership for Sovereignty
Self-determination, Regional Sovereignty, and Respect

Want drafting help or PfS notifications? Join our Discord!
Read about our Writers Corner resources

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Gameplay

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Otis Milburn, Wintermoot

Advertisement

Remove ads