The West Pacific

I have no wish to divert this discussion but The Lexicon is a Founder region, founded by 5 nations.

Essentially, what The Lexicon is or is not or might become is no-one's business but ours and our Citizens!

Hmm....maybe that ought to apply to The West Pacific too.
Which I believe is the stance the Cabinet has previously taken on this very matter.

So why are we still discussing this?
Hot air and political grandstanding needs to be released somehow.
 
I have a little theory about governments in other regions and how those governments should be viewed: People generally get the governments they deserve. If people in a region want a particlar style of government, then let them have at it. If they don't like the government, then they can work their rear-ends off to change it.

If you try to 'help' another region to form a particular style/type of government without the consent of a real majority in that region, you are only inviting someone to do the same you your own region (with more than likely disasterous results for all involved). Conflicts in one region tend to spread to regions that injudiciously try to alter the natural course of things.
 
the theory is understandable but do you truly feel that a delegate invited to the region to be a neutral third party during a constitutional accord, then shutting down the convention and seizing power in the most ruthless of means is the will of the majority in the West Pacific?

we're not talking about regime change, we have no problems with regions that disagree with us but a friend being held hostage.
 
the theory is understandable but do you truly feel that a delegate invited to the region to be a neutral third party during a constitutional accord, then shutting down the convention and seizing power in the most ruthless of means is the will of the majority in the West Pacific?

we're not talking about regime change, we have no problems with regions that disagree with us but a friend being held hostage.
That is a strongly biased and warped account of the events.
 
Okay, so the Lexicon was a bad example... *clenches fists* Have you even taken notice of the other totalitarians? The Pacific? The USSR? Not to mention the Rejected Realms are a dictatorship!
 
Are you aware that nations must recieve more endorsements than anyone else in order to become delegate?

The Pacific, The East Pacific and The West Pacific do not claim to be democracies. That puts The North Pacific and The South Pacific in the minority, comrade.

In a founderless region, dictators are elected democratically. That is the way the mechanics of the game have been set and that is most likely the way they will stand. To claim that WPT should be overthrown because it is undemocratic is simply absurd.

Just so you can understand The West Pacific, this is how the current government works:

Delegate/First Minister (Eli)
Council of Ministers
Council of Nations
Those who do not participate

Now, the delegate/first minister is like TNP's top authority. His powers have limits and I will explain them as I go along.
The Council of Ministers decide on matters such as security and diplomacy. The first minister is a member of the CoM and, as such, discusses and decides these things with them.
The Council of Nations was thought up by Eli and 'written up' by me. Basically, the way I went about making it was a very delicate procedure of copying and pasting TNP's Registered Assembly and then cutting out the jargon. They are the ones who vote on legislature. The first minister can veto their ruling but his veto can be overruled by a 3/4 vote. He hasn't vetoed anything and has generally left CoN to do as it pleases with rare input or comment.
 
ALlow me to speak from my long history.

I was born in the West Pacific.
I served for two and a half years in their military and foreign service. I loved that region and I still do.
We survived two coups and several attempted ones. The last two came too soon and were too well supported. It is difficult and the region is reeling.

I have lived there long enough and I am a patriot of there, and I enjoy my adoptive reion here. The bottom line is that WP tirelessly supported you when you had great bight and then again with pixie. There is a GIE with an elected leader organizing the resistance. If TWP supported Northern Democracy, I see no reason why the North shoudl betray its friend.

Before anyone tries to re-write history saying we didn't help...I know we did for I was physically involved in all the attempts at restorign this region.

Thus we should resolve to support democracy and the legal government of TWP, not support a tin-pot foreign dictatorship that owns the delegacy.


I think my points were made.
 
I'm a patriot of the North Pacific and introduced this topic to much resistance. As much as I would love some sort of action from our region, it would not be prudent at this juncture.

Yes your region stood by is in the darkest of times but your region was united and democratically made that choice. Today's North Pacific is a mosaic of talent from all over the NS world. Some are more sympathetic to that which you and I abhor and most were not here during our rough times. I apologize for our inaction but it is the right thing to do. We're all fighting for democracy here and a mobilized effort of aid from the North Pacific would not be democratic.
 
Before anyone tries to re-write history sayign we didn't help...I know we did for I was physically involved in all the attempts at restorign this region.
So, finally it is admitted, despite the vehement denials of TWP''s involvement at the time.

Yet strange how loud were these same people who decried what they deemed the 'interference of outsiders' - obviously this only applied to 'some' outsiders.
 
It was not really a democratic decision....true the cabinet and the council overwhelminbgly passed a resolution condemnding the NPO, but there was dissent of our activity in TWP's ranks. However, it was the LF that made the decision to go and all tries on the ADN's website all the infamous "Takes"
 
It was not really a democratic decision....true the cabinet and the council overwhelminbgly passed a resolution condemnding the NPO, but there was dissent of our activity in TWP's ranks. However, it was the LF that made the decision to go and all tries on the ADN's website all the infamous "Takes"
I'm sorry LF meaning?

So, finally it is admitted, despite the vehement denials of TWP''s involvement at the time.

Yet strange how loud were these same people who decried what they deemed the 'interference of outsiders' - obviously this only applied to 'some' outsiders.

Their involvement was as private citizens, much like the invaders the regime invited to prop up the delegate, not in appointed positions of power and even the delegacy like Moldavi.

But this is all old news.
 
Nevertheless, is this stupid thing still going on?
If your refering to the fact that there are currently two factions residing in The West Pacific, inhabiting seperate forums, then yes it is still going on.

Whether they would consider it stupid is another question...
 
Hm.... Rewind 1 year, change West to North, and we've got the same ball game...


IMHO, it would be best if the organized "The North Pacific" stay out of the debate and let the parties interested resolve the issue on their terms without outside influence.
 
Nevertheless, is this stupid thing still going on?
If your refering to the fact that there are currently two factions residing in The West Pacific, inhabiting seperate forums, then yes it is still going on.

Whether they would consider it stupid is another question...
Or a war, for that matter.


NH, I must disagree with you there. TWP is not eating its own tail, as you said, but simply in a transitional period that should prove to be brief. Whether this transition will end with Eli keeping the delegacy and GiE slowly fading away or with the two making a compromise is yet to be seen but I suspect one or the other will come soon.
 
Hm.... Rewind 1 year, change West to North, and we've got the same ball game...


IMHO, it would be best if the organized "The North Pacific" stay out of the debate and let the parties interested resolve the issue on their terms without outside influence.
Quite. The easiest way to make someone else's problem your own is to make that problem your own by actively getting involved. Sure, people can give advice, but in touchy situations the messenger tends to meet an untimely demise as a result.

It's not nice to get involved in something unless you are invited.
 
Back
Top