Purpose of the summit

Haor Chall

Haor Chall

The Power of the Dark Side
TNP Nation
Haor Chall
There are a few things which I think we should look at during the summit, firstly in the area of regional sovereignity/governance and defence. Perhaps some kind of formalised agreement which recognises each other as the legitimate ruling governments of our regions, perhaps a mention of mutual defence.

Also, the issue of recruiting and RMB spam. It seems logical to me that we should seek to keep people in the feeders, rather than leaving for UCR's- if a nation born into TNP for example was interested in roleplay, we should direct them to look at TEP as a region to stay in, etc. Whether each feeder recruits from itself, but mentions the others, or we have some joint recruitment body perhaps, I don't know. It may be that this could be merged with the already existing TWP 'comm-rangers'.

And anything else which anyone can think of.
 
I think a majority of feeders are willing to sign some sort of agreement recognizing each others legitimacy and even enter some sort of alliance organization. Recently, for example, The Pacific, The Rejected Realms, and Lazarus entered into the BOSS organization.

However, with that being said I must admit that there are certain feeder divides that must be overcome. Its no secret that in the past there has been bad blood between TNP and The Pacific and it shows even to this day. TNP, TEP, and TWP have, in recent history, improved communication and relations while the other feeders seem to be in either a self imposed isolation or doing their own thing (like BOSS).

A united feeder alliance would certainly be a force, but as to if it will ever happen, I am not so sure.
 
I am unaware of any bad blood between TNP and The Pacific. We have spread enlightenment to all corners of the NS world and some have simply taken longer to convert than others.
 
I think that we have moved on from incidents in the past. Indeed, this summit itself, in many ways, is an attempt for all the feeders to do just that.

Anyway. Knowing very little about BOSS, as far as that side of things go, would it be workable to simply have the other feeders sign up as well, or incorporate BOSS as the foundation of a new agreement?
 
Lazarus will not get involved in a petty squabble between Feeders, nor "convert" to any way of thinking.

This has to be an equal agreement between all partners, not a chance for someone to dictate terms.
 
BOSS (if I may)

Is a pro-sovereignity, anti-UN organisation which contains regions such as the Rejected Realms, Pacific, Gatesville, North America and Lazarus (there are others).

Apart from that I haven't seen much else from it.
 
Posul, KK, thank you both for the clarification.

Posul, you said:

Lazarus will not get involved in a petty squabble between Feeders, nor "convert" to any way of thinking.

This has to be an equal agreement between all partners, not a chance for someone to dictate terms.
Click to expand...



I would hope that none of us has to "convert" to any way of thinking, and that indeed, the entire purpose of this summit was to come up with an equitable agreement between all parties. I would certainly hope that no one assumes he/she will be dictating terms.
 
I'm in favor of treaties between and amog us. For the most part, our interests do not conflict; however, I'm leary of military alliances, having seen a few of those explode over the years.
 
Caer expresses TAO's sentiments regarding military alliances.

The problem with these involves the other alliances you would make with large, userite regions. The last crisis in TWP (the fall of the 2nd Constitution) was, in part, prompted by pressures involving our cooperative military alliances with two large entities that were headed toward a war with each other. TWP would have been obligated to come to the defense of both entities ... and, in effect, we would have been fighting against ourselves in an alliance-imposed civil war.

To form military interdependence would place all of us at odds with the rest of the game and the (dreaded by some) tenets of The Pacific's old Francoist Thought would really come to the fore in a true Feederite v Userite world politic dynamic.
 
I think other than a strategic alliance or two, our region needs to remain independent to enable us to make decisions based on right or wrong and not on an military alliance that may not fit the future's need.

That said we will work for good relations with all.
 
I meant more of a diplomatic, than military, alliance. Obviously the central principles need to be the independence and sovereignity of each feeder in its affairs.
 
Then it seems we have a commonality that merits further discussion.
 
Hence I suggest an Ententé which shall allow the Governments to support each other, with the option of not doing so depending on the situation.
 
Posul:
Hence I suggest an Ententé which shall allow the Governments to support each other, with the option of not doing so depending on the situation.
Click to expand...
That's kinda what already happens now. Do you mean a FORMAL statement of Intent?
 
Indeed it is, TAO. But that we need is something more along the lines of increased communication between like-minded regions for the securement of good relations amongst us and the propagation of amicability between us for the future, so we know when we must stand together and can do so without so much of the hesitation and bureaucracy typically found in most extraregional pacts and treaties. It wouldn't offer any guarantees, but it would put us on the right track as far as future support for each other goes.
 
:ph34r:

I would think a diplomatic statement that emphasizes our commonalities and desire for improved communication and working relations would accomplish what we're talking about. An Entente may be a little more than we need, and a military statement is inappropriate.
 
I suggest we appoint a group to draft language for such an entente.
 
Haor Chall:
I meant more of a diplomatic, than military, alliance. Obviously the central principles need to be the independence and sovereignity of each feeder in its affairs.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what is needed. We need open communications among the feeder regions to map out common concerns and interests, to take steps to reduce tensions if and when they occur, and to look at new ways to address problem endemic to feeders in the NS system.

Does this mean we need an entente? A permanent summit for feeders? Or simply an agreement to keep one another informed of events in an open fashion?
 
A permanent summit sounds like a good idea. But have it rotate from feeder to feeder on a schedule so everyone feels like they have full access and ownership to things.
 
:ph34r:

An agreement in conjunction with a permanent summit would be good. The problem with a permanent summit is that attention spans are about 1-2 weeks in NS; the agreement would be a good back-up for lull periods.
 
If there's to be a permanent summit or anything of that sort, it should actually be on a feeder forum. Seperate forums for summits have a rather dismal survival record; this way it'd be out where everyone can see it.
 
I would have to agree with that, it does put pressure on the host feeder to keep that section of the forum as active as the rest. However, would it interfere with the normal operations of that forum?
 
The permanent summit is a good idea, perhaps rotating around the feeders every 3 or 6 months or whatever. I think Eli's suggestion that we appoint a smaller group to bash out the precise language of the agreement might be a good idea, as I think we've got a general concensus on what we want to do now.
 
Wait, we aren't planning to turn this into an organized method by which we subjugate the player createds to our collective will?
 
Is there a specific purpose beyond the generalized initiative or a special impetus behind this Summit which could give it some direction? Or is it mainly a forum for talking things over?

If so, what issues are at hand beyond RMB cleaning? Any sort of compact on that issue will more-than-likely put us at a Game vs. Player dynamic; a feeder government may not necessarily desire that diplomatic course. Lazarus, for instance, is more reliant upon foregn immigrant than any of the other Game regions.
 
New People:
If so, what issues are at hand beyond RMB cleaning? Any sort of compact on that issue will more-than-likely put us at a Game vs. Player dynamic; a feeder government may not necessarily desire that diplomatic course. Lazarus, for instance, is more reliant upon foregn immigrant than any of the other Game regions.
Click to expand...

I don't see this as pushing us towards a game region vs. player regions stance. The vast majority of regions which spam our RMB's we have no diplomatic contact with what so ever. The regions which we do are, by and large, the more successful regions which inevitably means that most of their recruiting effort will be devoted to telegramming nations not RMB spam.
 
So, as far as a diplomatic treaty goes I think we are broadly in agreement. What are thoughts on Eli's suggest that we move forward by appointing a smaller group to bash out the language for a treaty?
 
I would agree with that, I believe that if we have a permenant area to discuss the concerns of the Feeders that it will be much easier for us to keep informed and unify on certain matters.

If I may, I would like to be in such a draft group.

Perhaps one from each Feeder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top