Wolves of the North/LWU

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
As i hope the members of the Cabinet have noticed, Lone Wolves United, through Blue Wolf, has announced that they are creating/basing a raider group within this region, notwithstanding TNP's historic and current policies.

One of those historic an current policies is the fact that we protect the sovereignty of regions, and the right of regions to democratic self-rule. While we protect the right of free speech and association, we cannot be seen as condoning actions by any group that infringe upon regional sovereignty.

This follows on the footsteps of a proposed amendment Blue Wolf has introduced in the Regional Assembly that would immunize any activity by raiders from within TNP, or elsewhere.

Obviously, this is a topic that we do need to discuss; what action or reaction may be appropriate at this point; and how to preserve regional stability and community notwithstanding this development., and whther any actions should be submitted to the Regional Assembly.
 
As you can well imagine, this pisses me off to no end.

I need to attain mutual defense treaties with other regions and I have to explain that we have a power block of raiders in our own region!!!

The NPA needs to increase it's numbers and now we have to compete with Raiders in our own back yard.

I think we need to have a set of balls big enough to tell these individuals that they are not welcome here and that Raider Activity is not tollerated within our region or within our governement.
 
I have made it very clear to Blue Wolf that I will not tolerate any attempt to destroy the fabric of security and stability in our region, to the point that I will ban and eject members of their group even if it is deemed illegal. However, so long as they do not attempt to claim governance or over the region, make any threats against the state, or claim they are government-sanctioned, I personally will be unable to do anything, I'm afraid.
 
Dalimbar:
I have made it very clear to Blue Wolf that I will not tolerate any attempt to destroy the fabric of security and stability in our region, to the point that I will ban and eject members of their group even if it is deemed illegal. However, so long as they do not attempt to claim governance or over the region, make any threats against the state, or claim they are government-sanctioned, I personally will be unable to do anything, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
DON'T ABUSE YOUR POWER. We have the Oath still and publically approved ejection should it come to it. Do it and you'll be the enemy.
 
I am just stating how much I care for this region, Mr. Speaker. While I have no intention of sinking to the level of these raiders, I will state that TNP will not be threatened by them under my Delegacy.

EDIT: I'm sorry if you take offense to what I said, as much as my personal feelings are on the matter. I want to do this legally, and it will be done that way. As I said though, this is how much I care for this region. I don't want to see her attacked by opportunistic raiders, I don't want repeats of the darker parts of our history.
 
Dalimbar:
I am just stating how much I care for this region, Mr. Speaker. While I have no intention of sinking to the level of these raiders, I will state that TNP will not be threatened by them under my Delegacy.
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from but where has BlueWolf threatened the region or stated any intent to overthrow our government? I love our dilligence and duty to the region but we can't sell ourselves out, if they want to destroy us let them do it themselves. I will not destroy the North Pacific for them.
 
One reason why we needed this threat is to have a discussion about how to address this effectively, both short-term and long-term.

If (and when) evidence comes forth, then we'll have the Security Council review such evidence to see if immediate action is warranted. Otherwise, we at that time, will look at a criminal proceeding, once we get the time frame for trials fixed. But that is not to say that the members of the Cabinet cannot address this in an intelligent way in the Regional Assembly once we have an understanding of the impact this is creating, or could create.

I find it astounding that within days of putting forth a vision to move this region forward, a group of selfish individuals take this route. We need to use it to unite the rest of the Region.

I am working on the statement on the task force that I mentioned in the State of the Region message, and the legislation that I mentioned. In addition, it would be useful if the Cabinet would speak to the proposal Blue Wolf submitted to the Regional Assembly. It needs to be more than just me addressing that proposal, and anything else he puts forth.

I will also tell you all that I also warned Blue Wolf two days ago when he asked me about how I thought the region would react to this. OPA's reaction was exactly the kind of reaction I predicted to BW.

Nem, as Prime Minister I have authority to formally initiate military agreements on the MoD's behalf, so if you develop anything, let me know.

Let's not overreact and let's focus on developing a coherent strategy to deal with this.I think if we focus on this for a couple of days, we can work a good plan out.

As some of you know I intend to appoint a director for the Task Force, and my current intention is to appoint Tresville as that director. (He's agreed to be DMoC under Upper Kirby as well.)

At the moment, that's all I want to say until we hear from the other Cabinet members. Let's keep the conversation going. Let's get some constructive deas on the table.
 
I understand duty and love for our region but ignoring the rule of law is not duty, placing the region in danger simply from paranoia is not duty. BW, along with Fedele and the LWU proved themselves to me during the Lexicon. If their only crime is disagreeing with us over a certain aspect of this game, then the crime lies not with them but with us.
 
Mr Sniffles nothing I said, said anything about ignoring the rule of law.

I in fact made clear we would follow our law.

But you cannot ignore the fact that same set of laws makes TNP, through the NPA, a defender region. (I quoted the passage to you in the SC thread, and I am not going to repeat myself.

We are going to have a discussion here. We are going to figure out what sort of tactics they might employ that would create a potential threat to the security and stability and community of TNP, and how to respond to such tactics.

Mr. Sniffles, apparently every official of TNP that I have heard from that had a conversation with BW about this basically told him the same thing, and he went ahead anyhow.

As to the Lexicon and how LWU behaved, there's more than one way of viewing it. I think there's more than one potential interpretation, so the proverbial jury is still out on that one.
 
sorry to speak out of place, but I want to make a point purely as admin of the forum.

This could be nipped in the bud.

The MOEA has the authority to close any consulate, without reason. If a reason were demanded I would have thought that running a non-TNP military organisation out of a consulate in our region would be reason enough.

Should the North Paciic Wolves be promoted elsewhere, as admin I have the right to perform any housekeeping tasks on the forum I see necessary. That includes moving or archiving threads. This does not impinge on freedom of speech, since I would not be stopping BW speaking. I would just by tidying up the forum as I saw fit.
 
Dalimbar:
I have made it very clear to Blue Wolf that I will not tolerate any attempt to destroy the fabric of security and stability in our region, to the point that I will ban and eject members of their group even if it is deemed illegal. However, so long as they do not attempt to claim governance or over the region, make any threats against the state, or claim they are government-sanctioned, I personally will be unable to do anything, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
What the hell would be the point? That would just cause more problems and lead to probable and possibly successful, impeachment by BW. It makes absolutely no sense and is frankly, irresponsible.

As for the issue, I would not approve of LWU running an invader group out of our region, The North Pacific is not a sponge to be used by whoever the hell wants to and we should not allow it, if only for the sake of our own pride.
 
Well, that's one specific course of action that has been suggested, closing the LWU Consulate.

Are there any others?

I'm a bit relunctant to revisit the issue of the "Defining Treason" legislation, but is that now something to be reconsidered? (I am not saying we should, I am just throwing that idea on the table.)

Other that what has already been adopted as law, is there anything further that can be considered to address how we define "duality?i" No doubt Blue Wolf believes he can rely on the same definition that Fulhead Land has, and in spite of Poltsamaa's rhetoric on the subject in the trial threads, I think it is fair to say that the laws previously adopted in TNP don't take the same approach.
 
[sarcasm]If you can't beat them.....

Let them run their organization out of our region and our forum but demand that they become NPA members as well in return for the right to do so. I'll order them to the homeland buffer and nail their feet to the ground so to speak![/sarcasm]


But more seriously, we have to take a stand for what we as a region believe in and have worked towards. If we don't we will be the laughing-stock of NS and lack any credibility. Yes they may have been helpful during the Lexicon Action but there needs to be limits placed. Let them take part in our region and our politics but draw the line somewhere and right here seems like a good place.

I know it has not yet been mentioned but I can not get behind any move to ban all non NPA militant groups because then we would have to do likewise to the Gryphons (If they are active). I think anything that is done, needs to be done on a behaviour basis rather then a structural basis.
 
Nem:
[sarcasm]If you can't beat them.....

Let them run their organization out of our region and our forum but demand that they become NPA members as well in return for the right to do so. I'll order them to the homeland buffer and nail their feet to the ground so to speak![/sarcasm]


But more seriously, we have to take a stand for what we as a region believe in and have worked towards. If we don't we will be the laughing-stock of NS and lack any credibility. Yes they may have been helpful during the Lexicon Action but there needs to be limits placed. Let them take part in our region and our politics but draw the line somewhere and right here seems like a good place.

I know it has not yet been mentioned but I can not get behind any move to ban all non NPA militant groups because then we would have to do likewise to the Gryphons (If they are active). I think anything that is done, needs to be done on a behaviour basis rather then a structural basis.
Click to expand...
So ban people who disagree with us? Oh sure and this has nothing to do with your defender sympathies?
 
I guess you didn't read this closely enough,

Please re-read my post then amend your comment.

No where in there did I say ban because they disagree with us. I believe I implicitly stated in that last paragraph that I CAN NOT GET BEHIND ANY MOVEMENT TO BAN ALL NON NPA MILITANT GROUPS. I said groups, not nations.

And yes this has everything to do with my defender sensibilities because the North Pacific is historicaly a defender region.
 
I don't exactly get what it means to run an invader organization out of a region in which you don't control the WFE or even really the HQ. So they park their nations in a feeder? How the heck is that different then what invaders do *anyways* to hide what nations they're using to invade? Aside from the bad PR on the forums, what does BW plan to do that actually affects TNP in any way?

That said, I'm all for something that sets TNP firmly on one side of the defender/invader fence. And honestly, I believe this does it:
3) Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
That applies to ALL nations in TNP, not just those in the RA. So assuming the NPA is operating, invaders operating out of TNP doesn't really work.

We could probably *really* easily pass something in the RA that affirms TNP is a region dedicated to the defense of itself and others, and will not tolerate the presence of invader nations within its borders. Cause I always thought that was something we stood for too.
 
Defender hard-lining grew out of favor when the ADN started leaving a foul taste in everyone's mouth and RLAers started nuking forums, to be replaced by a splendid isolation and cosmopolitanism. I think the latter is ultimately better for us, but a calamitous cavalcade of furious furverts in our midsts is not necessarily desirable.

[sarcasm]If you can't beat them.....

Let them run their organization out of our region and our forum but demand that they become NPA members as well in return for the right to do so. I'll order them to the homeland buffer and nail their feet to the ground so to speak![/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Why not?

If this were the case, would they comply?

If they didn't, would the government be within its rights to punish lawbreakers?
 
If I may....I'd like to point out a few things.

We really need to remember that Invaders rarely stick to anything. Most people that "just want to have fun" and cause havoc rarely stick it out. The few that do always leave once things get boring. My point, we have bigger things to worry about.

We can take care of this issue and the one in reference to the court by simply ending Duality. It is what makes our court ineffective and draws in the opportunist that want to take advantage of the rights we provide. Make the player responsible for his/her actions. With a proper revamp of the judicial system, we give the power back to the court and depend less on the SC. This also takes the pressure off the PM seat as said person will not be forced to act in order to preserve the union

BW (like Insane Power) will bring about his own demise...and forcing this issue on us is exactly how it will happen. His proposal has lead to another proposal that Mr. Sniffles and I are currently working on. It should end duality and end the Invader/Defender issues that we have. The NPA would be a standing Army and not a defender Army.

Please remember that our ideals will always match those of defenders....they are good ideals. We should always worry... when we start talking about kicking people out and alienating groups....those are not ideals we founded this government on.

:2c:
 
FEC, Section 4 of Law 7 includes this statement:

The North Pacific Army is established as a mobile army of UN nations pledged to the greater good of The North Pacific.

First and foremost, its duty will be to defend The North Pacific from any hostile or aggressive attack from any party.

In times when the first duty is not called upon, the North Pacific Army, in recognition of the dangers and damage invaders cause to the welfare of innocent peoples and regions, is granted the mandate to counter the forces of such invaders/griefers/crashers.

In this manner, the NPA is, at its core, a defender organization. In the best interests of the general populace, it shall enter and defend regions against aggressive attacks. It does not seek to be imperialistic or controlling. Instead, it aims to maintain or return control of the region to the region. It will not attempt to interfere in regional affairs besides trying to repulse or expel invader forces.
Click to expand...

I believe that, since the NPA is declared by law to be the military of TNP, and is a declared by that same law to be a defender organization, that makes TNP a pro-defender region. How much more explicit would we need to be?
 
We are a democracy...we don't have to say that we are Pro defender...hopefully we always will be. Point: choosing a side is what is causing the problem. We are The North Pacific and we believe in democracy....do we really have to stamp DEFENDER REGION all over us?

BW and others are correct about their continued reference to us being a feeder and responsibility to our new members....read this...
Fully cognizant of our role as a Feeder Region within the online game of NationStatesTM, and acknowledging that our character as such involves interaction with players new to that game,we avow to play fairly, educate where necessary, applaud when appropriate, and above all to remember that this is a game.
Click to expand...
In the first few terms we had to be somewhat hypocritical in some areas due to the overwelming and consistent attacks. We couldn't exactly reveal what was happening behind the scenes because it would only cause more conflict and division. At the time we could not afford more chaos than what we already had. I believe we have reached a point where we can fully adhere to the beliefs we founded this government on. DD was right, in the past I had to act like a "conniving snake"....I'll take one for the team any day if it preserves the union...I believe it is worth preserving. This Cabinet doesn't have to do the same.

I suggest making it clear that no Invader (and hopefully Defender) Org can operate strictly from this region as BW's Wolves of the North claim to without RA approval. Give them the right to exist...but not operate strictly from here. If they fail to do so then let them face the consequences....then watch the wolves run. Besides...from intel that I am receiving and trying to compile...some revelations in regards to that group may sway the entire public against them. Lets not give them more credit than they deserve. This should be an issue about rights of our people to petition and asemble...not one strictly about an invader group. This is the time to make that clarification. My :2c: on that.

On a related note:

I'd also like to point out, that even in my hay day as MOD and Army MOD... our citizens were never that active....most nations we were able to mobilize was like 12.....and thats coming to a 4 year span now. A standing Army may actually be good for us.....remember Gatesville and 10k....they were always able to send a large number of UN's to a cause. We would be able to support our Allies in greater number and force (That looks good). Plus the new Influence level is a great plus for feeders. We wouldn't have to worry about danger to the delegacy long as the vets remain in the top 3,4,5 spots. Even a rogue delegate couldn't kick us.

In my opinion, we should concentrate more on securing the RA (why the RV buffer was ever removed is beyond me), ending duality and finally giving the court the power it should have, assuring that the RA votes on all alliances (which was removed and now allows our foreign policy to be determined by 1 person..see TNP Law 9 - Ministry of External Affairs - Section 2), boosting forum fun and activity (the MOC and I are working on that via our resources..and the PM has also proposed a few ideas to do the same), keeping Ministries active and general communication with our newer members.

I've accumulated about 6 cents with this post. Hope I made some sense here.
 
I personally have no real stance pro defender or pro invader for TNP. Honestly, I think it would be fun to have both, managed separately, and actually teach both sides. Perhaps BW would take his group into the University setting? (Having both on the same forum would be amusing for all those that wanted to spy on the other half ;))

But aside from that, the way the Constitution stands it's pretty clear invaders cannot operate from within TNP legally. They are members of the RA with nations they agree not to raid with and they agree not to threaten TNP directly.
 
We are a democracy...we don't have to say that we are Pro defender...hopefully we always will be. Point: choosing a side is what is causing the problem. We are The North Pacific and we believe in democracy....do we really have to stamp DEFENDER REGION all over us?
Click to expand...

On the contrary, we do have to say it for two reasons. the first is that truths need to be uttered, or they get forgotten. The second is that new players are coming into the region all the time, and they will never know that we are pro defender unless they are told.

Somehow we seem to have got it into our head that being a democracy means not standing for anything ... or perhaps rather we think it means standing for EVERYTHING, which amounts to the same thing.
 
Tresville, regarding the current system that merged registered voters into the Regional Assembly -- Hersfold proposed it in the name of simplification. I'm not sure that it did, and I preferred the system we put into place before the Constitutional Convention.

As to approval of treaties and agreements, one has to look at both Article II Section 4, as well as the law on all forms of treaties and agreements. as well as Law 9. The pendulum has swung from one end to the other, and the most recent efforts have tried to draw a middle line. Any treaty that involves an alliance, or that makes any reference to military or the use or lack of use of force is governed by the military agreement provisions of Law 9, which requires action by the MoD, the Securitu Council, and either or both the Cabinet and the Regional Assembly, so the scope of the MoEA's sole authority is subject to that process.

As to security concerns, one of the changes made in the registration system is the requirement of continuous verification that an RA member remains eligible and has a nation within TNP. We still haven't implemented that properly. I do not think verification once every three months is sufficient, but it may be a manpower issue that has to be addressed. The second change which made clear that all applicants may be subject to inquiries and investigation prior to approval should address at least some of the security concerns. Perhaps we need a questionnaire as to prior participation in the game, and where?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Tresville, regarding the current system that merged registered voters into the Regional Assembly -- Hersfold proposed it in the name of simplification. I'm not sure that it did, and I preferred the system we put into place before the Constitutional Convention.

As to approval of treaties and agreements, one has to look at both Article II Section 4, as well as the law on all forms of treaties and agreements. as well as Law 9. The pendulum has swung from one end to the other, and the most recent efforts have tried to draw a middle line. Any treaty that involves an alliance, or that makes any reference to military or the use or lack of use of force is governed by the military agreement provisions of Law 9, which requires action by the MoD, the Securitu Council, and either or both the Cabinet and the Regional Assembly, so the scope of the MoEA's sole authority is subject to that process.

As to security concerns, one of the changes made in the registration system is the requirement of continuous verification that an RA member remains eligible and has a nation within TNP. We still haven't implemented that properly. I do not think verification once every three months is sufficient, but it may be a manpower issue that has to be addressed. The second change which made clear that all applicants may be subject to inquiries and investigation prior to approval should address at least some of the security concerns. Perhaps we need a questionnaire as to prior participation in the game, and where?
Click to expand...
Is FEC still on that for an updated RA list? I'd be glad to help as nothing quite excites me as a fresh RA list.
 
Tresville, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

The RA/RV thing, and alliances have nothing to do with this discussion and you happen to be totally wrong on both accounts anyway, as Grosse has sort of explained.

:eyeroll:


On topic, I suggest we make it clear that unless RA approval is gained then they cannot operate legally from TNP. Since they are unlikely to gain that approval, it isn't an issue as we will have the legal upper hand, and can take it to the courts if necessary (although that will drag this out for a few months).

If, on the other hand, this is a move by LWU into TNP it could be considered an invasion or act of aggression against TNP, that is to say, potentially war. I have informed BW of that and will see how he responds.

Also, I note that Dark has been appointed their foreign affairs person, considering her position in the NPO Senate I do wonder if they are involved as well- possibly something the NPIA can look into. At the moment we obviously don't want to say anything publically on that line, as it is only speculation at this point.
 
Haor Chall:
Tresville, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

The RA/RV thing, and alliances have nothing to do with this discussion and you happen to be totally wrong on both accounts anyway, as Grosse has sort of explained.

:eyeroll:
Click to expand...
:offtopic:
You are entitled to your opinion as am I. I think that I specified that it was a "related note" since I was trying to explain that perhaps we should deal with this quickly and spend our time on more important matters.

You said that I "don't have a clue " and am "totally wrong on both accounts" without ever stating any fact to support your accusation. Thank you.

I won't be coaxed into a heated argument with you, nor will I waste any more time in replying to any of your posts that simply (IMHO) seek to undermine and make me look bad. Frankly, I see it as counter productive. If I had been the one to make that statement I probably would have been warned my someone...no matter.

nuff said.

Anyway, I stand by my suggestions and will go along with whatever the Cabinet decides.

I recommend formulating a precise response and course of action on this issue from the cabinet. A vote should be in order.
 
We need to informally reach agreement on what needs to be done by the Cabinet, including any preferences as to RA activity.

Let's get some specific language and motions on the table.
 
I say we 'formally' allow them to exist, with the caveat that they join the NPA. A stable society cannot exist with several competing armed groups, nor can it last long if they are not under civilian (and democratic, i.e. gummint) control. They'll either call our bluff, in which case isn't so bad, really, we'll have people in the NPA counteracting WotN/LWU raids, or they'll refuse, in which case we'll know what to do. In the meantime we keep an eye on them. Get their organized riddled with spies, or the impression of such, and it won't live well for long.
 
Emperor Matthuis:
Ask them to join the NPA?

So what the hell would we do if they decided to accept?
Click to expand...
It's a bluff but in light of our recent political posturing, there's nothing to do but ban them. Ban them all from the region and the forum. They have nothing to provide, they contribute nothing to our values, why we have not annihilated their organization already is the question at hand.
 
mr_sniffles:
Emperor Matthuis:
Ask them to join the NPA?

So what the hell would we do if they decided to accept?
Click to expand...
It's a bluff but in light of our recent political posturing, there's nothing to do but ban them. Ban them all from the region and the forum. They have nothing to provide, they contribute nothing to our values, why we have not annihilated their organization already is the question at hand.
Click to expand...
Posting again because forum moderation has suddenly again become involved...

Speaker Mr_Sniffles, nobody in the topic where the "political posturing" was going on even remotely suggested anything close to what you have just stated. NOBODY will be banned from this forum for any reason other than moderation issues. Ever. Any suggestions to the contrary will not be entertained even for a moment. Anybody implying that the administration of this forum is entertaining such an idea will be issued moderation accordingly.

*Hersfold storms out of the Cabinet Halls once again.
 
Hersfold:
Speaker Mr_Sniffles, nobody in the topic where the "political posturing" was going on even remotely suggested anything close to what you have just stated. NOBODY will be banned from this forum for any reason other than moderation issues. Ever. Any suggestions to the contrary will not be entertained even for a moment. Anybody implying that the administration of this forum is entertaining such an idea will be issued moderation accordingly.

*Hersfold storms out of the Cabinet Halls once again.
Click to expand...
So you say.
 
So you say.
Click to expand...

Nope, so I say. And pretty soon I will be root admin of the forum.

In the whole history of this forum there have only ever been two reasons for banning. One is as a moderation, the other is when the person has requested themselves that they be banned - as one player requested when they needed to give up Nationstates but lacked the will power to do so.

Nobody has ever been banned by virtue of being a raider. Under the current constitution such an action would not be undertaken.
 
Ejection/ban in gameplay has usually been directed towards Nationstates gameplay rather than this forum. If the government found it neessary to eject a member from a status in the region that addresses masking issues, forum administration would remove masks and/or permissions, depending on what the circumstances are. Sometimes it has effectely reduced a forum user to very limited forum access; but usually, the forumuser has also come under forum moderation at the same time. which usually explain the actual change in forum permissions and access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top