Handling the new Embassy feature - a discussion

Blackshear

Blackshear

TNPer
With the addition of the new embassy feature to NationStates, I think we should discuss how we want to handle this. I support bringing potential embassies before the Regional Assembly for approval. I also support establishing embassies with the other game created regions first and taking the others on a case by case basis.

Dali approved a bunch of embassies before he left but I must admit to being in the dark about many of them. I think something more formal should be established. I also think we should go through the already approved embassies and decide if they are something we support or not.

Thoughts?
 
I'm not sure it is the matter of the RA to dictate our foreign policy. From what I have read of it's description from the news section of NS, it's suppose to be the same as Embassy on the forum, but with more "acknowledgement" of the relation. I would suggest that this be left at the discretion of the WA Delegate and/or minister responsible for foreign affair.

Small idea though, I think we should only approve embassy request on NS for the region that have active embassy on this forum.
 
I'm still trying to understand exactly what the in-game embassies will have and how they will function. Until we know that it will be difficult to say how we should adjust our embassy row on the forums so that the two will enhance each other rather than sacrifice anything.

I do agree though that other regions should maintain both the in-game and off-site forum embassy framework. As to a process; I do agree that the RA should set up a process to be used by the Delegate; but we should think in terms of the Delegate having the ability to approve embassies to regions generally known to us and for whom we've had good relations, and perhaps having either RA or SC input on request to or from regions that aren't well known.

As I said, I think we need more information, which we should have once one of these in-game embassies open.
 
The new embassy thing will simply and publicly say we have exchanged embassies with designated regions, nothing more.

As Delegate, I have no problem directing our foreign policy but I value the input of the active members of the region. I wasn't thinking of a formal law but simply putting a potential exchange out there for the RA and getting some feedback. RA members represent the region as a whole should be the voice of TNP and not just be restricted to formulating laws.
 
I think that is okay to do. Each delegate should be allow to decides differently on how much they wants to involve the RA in their decision making and I don't see why we shouldn't discuss about this. As long as it is not written as a law that Embassy approval require RA approval.

As for our current embassies request, I think we should reconsidered all request from regions that never have diplomatic relation with TNP on this forum. TNP is a feeder and Embassies with us give them recognition and also possibly recruitment oppotunity. We shouldn't give them away so easily like this.
 
I understand it is the delegate/cabinet's call, but, just something to think about...

Since we are a feeder, putting the name of a userite up for each nation founded here to see is pretty helpful for recruitment. It could give a couple regions a pretty good advantage.

That is, unless each feeder lets half a dozen or more regions have an embassy, like they all have. :P

I think this could have been a pretty cool feature, letting feeder delegates negotiate their space like advertising... But, when it comes to NS long-time players will never reject a request from another long-time player if they know each other... :P

The pending annex feature, the expansion on this, will be cool at least.
 
My personal preference is for in-game embassies (outside of the game-created regions who should get one automatically) to be a rare and earned thing. It could be our highest diplomatic honour reserved for regions that have proven themselves over time through their off-site forum embassies .
 
So here's the list of existing, pending and proposed embassies:

Completed Embassies
The Pacific
The South Pacific
The East Pacific
Eastern Islands of Dharma
NationStates
The Kodiak Republic
The South
Global Right Alliance
Free Thought
Laurentia
Guanxi
Conservadom
South Pacific

Pending
The Rejected Realms

Invitations Received
The Deep South
The Raiding Executive
Borneo and the Pacific
Middle East
Ministan
The Commonwealth of CityStates
Guadosalam
The World
Confederation of Nations
Isola
The Terminus Systems
The North Atlantic Ocean
The United States of Europe
Embassy Exchange
Godless Wasteland
Bonustellus
Island of Ankara
Hauck Hadian Empire
The Imperial Legion
The Walbard Union
Grand Central
Galactic Republic
Deustchland
Hiocra
United Free Enterprise Nations
A Peaceful World

3rd Corner asked me to reject their invitation earlier today

So that's quite an enormous list. I'd like to trim it as soon as possible. My thoughts are to decline all the existing invitations. I don't see any active friends there. As for the existing (and pending) embassies, I'd keep the game created regions and the first three user-created regions. Dharma was helpful in the transition between Dali and myself and has kept a respectful prescence on the RMB. The Kodiak Republic has an existing forum embassy that has been updated this calendar year and NationStates, particularly Mike's Hope, have been a friend to the region from my earliest days in the game.

Feedback?
 
Well, we now know that the in-game embassies involve nothing more than a link to that region's page at Nationstates.net; so I would agree that an active embassy here at these forums should be the pre-condition for most other future requests.
Out of fairness, I think we need to resolve the placement of Embassy Row for embassies and consulates on the forum. Being buried at the bottom of the forum home page index doesn't really help them all that much; perhaps to the "News of the Nations?" with perhaps a name change for the section?
Any other ideas?
 
After the election I hope to specifically address forum organization in a seperate topic. It is a little beside the point in the current discussion.

If there are no objections or alternate suggestions, I will implement my proposal tomorrow.
 
Blackshear, the location of Embassy Row is relevant to my mind with the issue of how to deal with the new in-game feature. I think by raising that point now, it might encourage people to think about what could be done on that one point.

Vilnoia1, with Dalimbar's departure, the partial reorganization of parts of the forum basically has to go on hold until a new Delegate is elected. We've got some other related issues to address as well.
 
Sorry, don't see the connection.

Anyways back to the topic at hand: 10000 Islands, another region we actually have an embassy with has asked if we would be interested in exchanging in game embassies. They seem to meet the requirements outlined above and I will accept on our behalf unless there is a compelling arguement otherwise.
 
As I have repeatedly stated in the past, I stand absolutely opposed to the establishment of embassies with user-created regions. I also support the deconstruction of embassies that were already put into place by the previous regime, unless those embassies are with our sister Pacifics. As Topid stated previously, giving UCRs such a platform on our main regional page makes utterly no sense, especially when these regions exist only to drain our active members from us.
 
OPArsenal:
As Topid stated previously, giving UCRs such a platform on our main regional page makes utterly no sense, especially when these regions exist only to drain our active members from us.
Click to expand...
That is not the message I wanted to get across. I think had I not been involved in a UCR prior to logging into these forums the sheer magnitude and history of this forum would have scared me away from the regional aspect of this game. I almost see UCRs as a vital 'minor league' of regional politics. (Not to say I haven't had fun in the minors, I'd say I've had more fun. But I'm prouder about [and feel it is more influential work] dealing with feeders.)


But I guess that's off topic. My point merely was that linking to two or three regions that have kept active embassies on a region's forums is far more effective as linking to two dozen regions. Nations might pay attention to the handful of regions we found most helpful, but if a region were to accept fifteen or so not many would take the time to check all of those out.

Embassies would be more meaningful if each region cut down on them.
 
I have moved the game created regions to the top of the list on our regional page. After the completion of The West Pacific and Lazarene embassies, no user created regional embassy will appear on our regional page with a click through.

I agree with Topid's point that less is more. An embassy with a feeder should be a rare and special thing. I do like having that honour (or carrot, if you will) as an option to reward our friends.
 
I think we do need to make clear that regions that are not feeders are invited to propose an exchange of embassies on the forums. Some of our best relationships over the years have been such regions, and we shouldn't be implying that they're not welcome to do so on the forums.

Which is why we need to address the forum layout to make such contact meaningful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top