Re-evaluating our existing Embassies

Blackshear

Blackshear

TNPer
We currently have 52 embassies in the Embassy Row Forum. Ten of these have seen a post this calendar year. I think it's time to clean things up.

A few thoughts:
  • Several embassies have been closed by previous delegates. I believe these should be archived elsewhere.
  • Any embassy that has not had any activity this calendar year should be closed (and archived). Regions can reapply in they choose.
  • An exception should be the embassies of the game-created regions. I would like an opportunity to jump start relations with our inactive brethren. If this doesn't garner results, we can review our approach down the road.
  • In light of our approach to recent embassy applications, we should review the active embassies and decide if these are relationships we wish to continue.

Agree? Disagree? Alternate suggestions?

If the majority are okay with this approach, I'll post the embassies up for closure and/or review later this weekend.
 
I will create a special Embassies and Consulates Archive so the closed embassies and consulates will be placed there as read only to all. (It will help avoid confusion I would think with foreign envoys who may not be aware that their region's outpost had been closed.) It will also have a autotool for whoever moderates that area to close and archive an embassy or consulate thread.

We need to decide when we're granting a consulate rather than an embassy. As I suggested before, I think that would be more diplomatic and less harsh in some instances. We should also settle on a policy about reopening, since many regions with whom we had good diplomatic relations also ran into activity problems just as we did.
 
Alright. We'll move to the next step. I'm going to need a dedicated chunk of time to pull this together so it's not going to happen today, but it will happen.
 
I have closed 19 inactive embassies and moved 38 closed embassies to the archives.

Not including the game-created regions, we currently have embassies with Europeia, 10000 Islands, Eastern Islands of Dharma, The New Inquisition, Equilism, Equinox, and The Kodiak Republic.

I know it's not a two second task, but if you could check out these embassies and offer your feedback so we can proceed, I would be grateful.

P.S. I don't support the two-tiered Consulate/Embassy system. To be honest, I'm not worried about hurting the feelings of regions that haven't dropped by in 1-3 years. Additionally, the re-application policy is simple: if a region regains activity and wants to resume relations, find the embassy application topic and apply again. It mirrors the policy we have for lapsed RA members and I think it works.
 
I visited all of the listed embassies and it is my pleasure to offer the following feedback: close them immediately.
 
er, just my thoughts, let's keep all the embassies in the forum only and deconstruct all embassies in-game (except for feeder regions) UNTIL they actually do something useful or beneficial to the region. From what I've observed, it is only benefiting the UCRs and not TNP, at least it has to be a mutual-benefit thingy before we construct one in-game.
 
Now, this disdain for regions that most of the nations in Nationstates actually populate is not consistent with the values The North Pacific has represented as long as I've been around.
The intolerance, is for me not an acceptable standard. Nations are certainly free to hold and express their values for just the feeder regions, but so-called "user-created" or "founder" regions are just as much of the game as those regions that do not have founders at all.
If a region, founded or not has had a useful and beneficial relationship with TNP, and wishes to re-establish or maintain activity in our diplomatic relationship, then we should welcome that desire and try to reciprocate
This is also why I disagree with the current policy against the option of consulates. I think that it is a viable option for developing relationships with regions we haven't had a relationship with, or where the relationship is not currently and mutually beneficial.
 
Noted.

My experience with consulates is that every region offered one is insulted. It has a second-rate taste to it that most self-respecting regions are not interested in. Additionally, I support simplicity and, based on the correspondence I receive as Delegate, so do the majority of players.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
1. Now, this disdain for regions that most of the nations in Nationstates actually populate is not consistent with the values The North Pacific has represented as long as I've been around.

2. The intolerance, is for me not an acceptable standard. Nations are certainly free to hold and express their values for just the feeder regions, but so-called "user-created" or "founder" regions are just as much of the game as those regions that do not have founders at all.
Click to expand...
Since I'm on my phone and unable to copy and paste, I've numbered the quoted paragraphs for ease of response.

1. I am aware that not kowtowing to user-created regions is not representative of the North Pacific's past. Self-reliance has never been high on our list of regional priorities; nor has unity with our sister Pacifics. For Christ's sake, we refused to recognize the legitimate government of The Pacific for years. I'm glad that the good people of The North Pacific are starting to move in a different direction and are finally breaking free of the drudgery that is "we've always done it this way." However, I can see why one of the primary architechts of the status quo would have an interest in keeping things the way they've always been.

2. I'm sorry to note that Grosseschnauzer finds the current regional paradigm shift towards independence from foreign interference to be "unacceptable." Our vice delegate may prefer for us to keep our opinions to ourselves, and in that respect, I am glad to disappoint him. As for the UCRs being equal to the Pacifics... That idea is laughable in its sheer absurdity. The User-Created Regions feed off of the Pacifics as surely as a tapeworm feeds off of it's host. Once again, I see no point in allowing the groups that wish to rob us of our nations to have any sort of access to our citizens. Remember, these nations that are lured away by the Userites would otherwise be active contributors to their home region, our region: The North Pacific. Perhaps our vice delegate thinks it a good idea to leave our doors unlocked while there are known theives about, but I certainly do not.
 
OPA, your partisan drivel does not interest me, and the prism through which you look at my comments mislead you to false assumptions and conclusions.

Your statements on the embassy issue represent a narrow partisan point of view built out of the attitudes and beliefs of another community, and not the community of The North Pacific.

If the status quo is supporting the authentic and native traditions of The North Pacific community, and not those of some other community (irrespective of which one), then that status quo I am guilty of supporting. But those traditions of The North Pacific are what I have always supported; I haven't looked to The Pacific, or The East Pacific, or The West Pacific, or The South Pacific, or any other region to be a source of our traditions.

I do not accepted your tone of disdain and bias against founded regions. Likewise, I hold no bias for unfounded regions, either. All of those regions, founded and unfounded, game created or user created, are free to pursue whatever customs and traditions they wish, no matter how hare-brained they may even seem to be to me personally. All I ask is that our regional traditions be honored and respected within our home region, I don't have any interest in promoting the beliefs and traditions of other regions here.
The history of The North Pacific has taught us again, and again, and again, that the natives and citizens here will reject all attempts to subvert our democratic traditions. I'm not interested in your promotion of Francoism and Moldavism, your perfectly welcome to believe in them, our Bill of Rights protects your right to observer such beliefs; but they equally preserve my right to rejects those -isms in favor of the authentic democratic system that exists here.
And in the context of the discussion on embassies, I do reject the notion that only the Pacifics and the other game-founded regions are worthy of having embassy relationship with TNP, there are other regions that have been our friends over the years, and should those other regions be active and want to exchange embassies as well, then I don't see any reason why those relations should not exist. That is a far more open and democratic view of appropriate diplomatic relationships than the tone you've been advocating. I have no divided loyalties, I have never been part of any Pacific other than The North Pacific, and the well being of The North Pacific is the limit of my concerns.
 
My opinion is that we should maintain an Embassy with all regions that we currently have Embassy with. It is my view that good relation with these region will be beneficial to TNP's stability and cultural growth.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
<snip>I have no divided loyalties</snip>
Click to expand...
The implication being that I do, of course. Please, Mr. Vice Delegate, stop hiding behind your thinly-veiled statements like a coward and come out with it. Who, exactly, are my loyalties divided between?

I do not understand your attempt to discredit me by stating that my stance on foreign policy does not fit regional tradition. A break in tradition is exactly what I'm proposing! Something new, progressive and beneficial to our region is my stance. Your stance is more of the same old thing. We've seen what "regional tradition" can do for us: 42 embassies over a year inactive.

There is one thing we agree on: that North Pacificans will always reject those that wish to subvert the democractic process. Why you made this statement in a thread about foreign policy eludes me. If you were suggesting that I wish to subvert the democratic process, well... You give me far too much credit.
 
I do not support embassies for the sake of embassies. I believe in what some may view as a selfish foreign policy. If a region has something to offer us, regardless of its origin, then I support maintaining diplomatic relations with them.

I'll let the discussion run a couple of more days and invite others to add their thoughts.
 
While I do not agree with having diplomatic relations with UCRs as a matter of principle, I do recognize that there could be a practical value in keeping up the appearance of a friendship with some of the Userites. I am a principled man, but above that, I am pragmatic. When we begin to use the UCRs to further our own regional goals, we begin to dismantle them.

I support our brave new direction in foreign policy and I hope with everything I have that all patriotic citizens of the North join me in supporting this: The Blackshear Doctrine.
 
OPA

I don't need to say anything further.

Your signature says it for me:

Comrade Franco ruled with his people at heart

Dedicated to the memory of Ivan Moldavi, the last hero of the North Pacific
Click to expand...

As to inactivity in the embassies on the forum, first, that is a two-way street, successive delegates with their own agendas more or less neglected our diplomatic corps for years; second, there was a long-term decline in inactivity throughout Nationstates, and third, your view of what constitutes regional tradition is clearly different than mine.

And do not cite me to what Delegates have or have not done with respect to embassies and foreign policies as proof. The current system allows Delegates to have complete flexibility in those decisions, and if you want to hold anyone to account, then hold those individuals who have been Delegates under the current Constitution to account. I have already stated that I think that aspect of the executive power in the Constitution is flawed and creates more problems than it solved, and we do need to come up with some framework for the Executive Branch that isn't so free-flowing that it leads nowhere.

The free-flowing structure has proven to be a solution worse than the problem it purported to resolve. What is clear however, is that some sort of framework is needed. There are certainly a wide range of options to consider consistent with out regional principles as represented by the Bill of Rights. Trying to forge a workable consensus however, will be a challenge.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I don't need to say anything further. Your signature says it for me.
Click to expand...

My signature? Really? One line is in remembrance of one of the most accomplished players in NationStates history whose life was tragically cut short. The other line is in tribute to one of the most honest, straightforward and moral men that I've ever known and you accuse me of having divided loyalties? I asked you to come out with it and state exactly who my loyalties were divided between. Instead, you chose to once again hide behind innuendo and implication. This speaks volumes to your character. The invitation remains open, Mr. Vice Delegate, if you somehow gain the fortitude to say what you really mean instead of hiding between the lines.

The rest of your post is as unnecessary as it is incoherent. I think what you're getting at is that we need to legislate and/or codify what the delegate may do with respect to foreign affairs. In fact, I think that what Blackshear is currently doing is exactly right. He is consulting with the RA, noting our suggestions and opinions, and acting in a manner that will satisfy the majority of expressed opinions. What problem do you have with that? It is consistent with our democratic tradition and it eliminates our hallmark inefficiency.

I am saddened to see that Grosseschnauzer did not offer his opinion on the Blackshear Doctrine. I hope that his next post will rectify that unfortunate oversight.
 
I'm going to keep our existing, active embassies as they are. I would suggest, in the future, 6 months inactivity is grounds for closure.

Next step in the diplomacy game is to get our faces out there. I'll need some help with foreign relations. Time to start up an Ambassador application topic.
 
All of them would be closed if that was the criteria. A monthly update is usually the best we get. I'd support a shorter requirement (2-3 months), but understand some are more lenient than I am.
 
I actually support the "six months until closed status" idea. I, too, would prefer a shorter time until the embassy is closed, but I think we would do well to remember that sometimes we must give our friends a little more of a leash than we think they ought to have, especially with respect to embassy activity.
 
Howzabout 3 months gets you a written warning (both a post in the embassy and a PM to the last posting representative) and if there is no response within 30 days we shut the embassy down?
 
Alright. This will be the policy I adopt. I'm not the biggest fan of making official laws for everything but perhaps posting some guidelines and expectations in the diplomatic area (perhaps in the application thread itself) might be worthwhile.
 
I'm not sure we needs a law for this. Foreign policy is usually dictated by the delegate and his or her cabinet. It's usually different to each governments.
 
We definitely don't need a law. Some guidelines might be useful though. That said, we're in the waning days of the current term so I'll just try and finish off the existing projects before taking on new ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top