Embassy of The Meritocracy

[Black Adder]

And noted Sarda. Let's turn our attention to the current issue at hand shall we? The proposed Treaty.

[SardaASSK]

Thank you BA, and I'm sorry, I felt Argyres post and then Cap's both warranted a response.

That said, I fully support the inclusion of the NPO in this treaty. I know I can't reverse it for the Senate, so I'll always support making it as better as possible (lol), and including the NPO would be a great step in my opinion.

Well, anyone surprised? A few people jumped to conclusions... EH?

[Pierconium]

Sarda what would you say the odds are that The Meritocratic Senate, bastion of ALL and ADN supporters, will vote in favor of including the NPO?

[ConservativeFront]

*Cough* I know the answer, call on me!

[SardaASSK]

Pierconium, that is admittedly one of the reasons I support it If we're letting the ADN get chummy, the NPO should come in too.

[Pierconium]

Oh I can think of at least one Senator in The Meritocracy that will vote on it for sure.

Capitollium and Sarda might make three.

There might be another 2 or 3 that are sympathetic to the NPO and what Capitollium is trying to do here but beyond that I don't think it has a snowballs chance in hell.

It is unfortunate.

[Cortath]

I will vote to include the NPO in the justified war accord.

[Black Adder]

In reviewing the proposed accord there are some points I would like some clarification in light of recent events from the Met's standpoint.

The proposed preamble states that it recognizes our organization as sympathetic to the just causes of the free and peaceful regions of the world. Does this mean the NPO is recognized as being the legitimate just Government of the Pacific? Does the Met recognize we strive for any region to have the government of their choosing and we desire Peace? Will the Met defend our right to maintain an Authoritarian Government?

Section 1

Given UPS Rail was made delegate how can it be reconciled that there was justification in attacking the regime from the ADN? This was an internal matter that was not an invasion, UPS received the endorsements. To make the claim he did not speak for the NP brings into question the whole perception of legitimacy and game rules. Is there another standard being applied here that is over and above NS rules because I do not see it anywhere.

1.1 This is very open to interpretation. I point to the recent Province mess. Ostensibly the ADN declaration of war was over the invasion of the Province. Irish claims point to a retaliation over interference propping up Great Britain's troops in Northern Ireland by the ADN. These matters tend to be very convoluted, who makes the determination? Do we apply to a tribunal?

1.2 The Invader can offer written proof. Again, this disturbs me. What is the guideline? Too much can be altered or twisted to fit the perspective. Remember Israel is a state because of a UK backbencher named Balfour. How serious do you take a supporter's claims when they have no real power or authority. Again, who makes the determination?

1.3 This could be twisted to fit anyone's political agenda. Many claim UPS ousted everyone and was an aggressor. NS rules state he was legitimately defending his position. Who has the right to override this game definition and impose their own political ideals? I worry that it is too broad and doesn't take into account the uniqueness of a Game Controlled region.

2.1 Again subject to one's perspective. For us to bolster Bight against ADN interference places us in a position where they can attack us justified? We did not move in until a bad moderation decision and saw the ADN making an aggressive run to take the NP. From our perspective we were intervening in an unjustified attack. It would further make the logical step that so inclined we are in a legal position to press attacks against the ADN. Who ultimately makes the decision?

2.2 Spamming regional Message boards in NS (deletable offense) or on an offsite board. Hard to enforce that. We have to prove it was a specific individual acting on orders. To use the other side its hard to be accountable for the actions of one. Again, who hears these claims?

2.3 Hacking the NS website is Illegal. Or are you referring to offsite boards? This has been tried against ours several times.


These are all points I'd like to hear further about. If you explain the official position I would be happy to propose changes that would better fit our current positioning.

At the risk of frustrating the Meritocratic Senator I make the references to ADN actions because they are very much relevant to the negotiations at hand. This document was crafted by the Met and the ADN therefore it illuminates how you will respond to what's written there. While you may not actually respond to a call to arms it does highlight how the Met as a whole feels on some very relevant topics, namely legitimacy, Game controlled regions and support for particular philosophies of the NS game and Government rule as a whole. You presented us with a template now we want you to explain how you arrived at those conclusions.

edit: Clarification on ADN references.

[SardaASSK]

Very good points Black Adder. I hope to hear an official response to them as well.

Especially the first point. If nothing else, everyone involved will have to FINALLY shed their naive view of the NPO as a non-legitimate government, and all members of the Meritocracy will have to abide by that recognition.

[Cortath]

Black said:

In reviewing the proposed accord there are some points I would like some clarification in light of recent events from the Met's standpoint.

The proposed preamble states that it recognizes our organization as sympathetic to the just causes of the free and peaceful regions of the world. Does this mean the NPO is recognized as being the legitimate just Government of the Pacific? Does the Met recognize we strive for any region to have the government of their choosing and we desire Peace? Will the Met defend our right to maintain an Authoritarian Government?

Let me preface my response by stating that this is not an official response, but my own personal one.

No, no and no. I say no the first one because the preamble does not speak of legitimacy of government, merely of the Delegates who are members of the signing organizations. I say no to the second, because this document does not speak of what the Meritocracy recognizes about the NPO as a signatory but rather what the NPO recognizes as just or unjust war as a signatory. I say no to the third because this document is not meant to interfere with internal regional or organizations politics. It is not any signatories duty to defend or attack the internal policies of another signatory.

Section 1

Given UPS Rail was made delegate how can it be reconciled that there was justification in attacking the regime from the ADN? This was an internal matter that was not an invasion, UPS received the endorsements. To make the claim he did not speak for the NP brings into question the whole perception of legitimacy and game rules. Is there another standard being applied here that is over and above NS rules because I do not see it anywhere.

I have no wish to muddy this august assembly with the same arguments we've heard before, so I shall refrain from responding.

1.1 This is very open to interpretation. I point to the recent Province mess. Ostensibly the ADN declaration of war was over the invasion of the Province. Irish claims point to a retaliation over interference propping up Great Britain's troops in Northern Ireland by the ADN. These matters tend to be very convoluted, who makes the determination? Do we apply to a tribunal?

I agree with you. These matters are convoluted. I don't believe this treaty was intended to nor do I reasonably expect it to end, prevent or discourage all wars, merely some. The ADN-Ireland conflict is very complicated, and I agree, I don't believe this Treaty could ever give a peace that both sides would be happy with.

1.2 The Invader can offer written proof. Again, this disturbs me. What is the guideline? Too much can be altered or twisted to fit the perspective. Remember Israel is a state because of a UK backbencher named Balfour. How serious do you take a supporter's claims when they have no real power or authority. Again, who makes the determination?

This seems much more simple. When I read "written proof", I assume this to mean unadulterated, first-hand evidence.

1.3 This could be twisted to fit anyone's political agenda. Many claim UPS ousted everyone and was an aggressor. NS rules state he was legitimately defending his position. Who has the right to override this game definition and impose their own political ideals? I worry that it is too broad and doesn't take into account the uniqueness of a Game Controlled region.

Could you show me the NS rule that states that UPS Rail was "legitimately defending his position"? Perhaps by NS rules, he was legally defending his position, but legitimacy and legality are two very different things in my eyes. Legitimacy is more than mere legality. I find legitimacy, in this context, to be conforming with principles while legality is conforming with law. Whose principles is the question. This treaty establishes some basic principles, and I do not find that UPS Rail, by taking the Delegacy acted legitimately nor did he legitimately defend his position.

Who has a right to override game controls? Why, we do. Every single "government" of any sort constructed overrides game controls. I note that the NPO has a "Senate". Does the game recognize this Senate? No, it does not recognize the NPO Senate any more than it recognizes the Senate of the Meritocracy. We impose our own political ideals by virtue of our organization's/regional governments' very existance.

2.1 Again subject to one's perspective. For us to bolster Bight against ADN interference places us in a position where they can attack us justified? We did not move in until a bad moderation decision and saw the ADN making an aggressive run to take the NP. From our perspective we were intervening in an unjustified attack. It would further make the logical step that so inclined we are in a legal position to press attacks against the ADN. Who ultimately makes the decision?

Again, speaking on TNP matters, I do not wish to rehash the old arguments of who UPS Rail was, and such and such. I'd rather maintain civility, if I have your leave.

2.2 Spamming regional Message boards in NS (deletable offense) or on an offsite board. Hard to enforce that. We have to prove it was a specific individual acting on orders. To use the other side its hard to be accountable for the actions of one. Again, who hears these claims?

2.3 Hacking the NS website is Illegal. Or are you referring to offsite boards? This has been tried against ours several times.

No one needs to hear these claims. This Treaty is not designed to prevent all war. It is not a Treaty built on naïvete, but reather pragmatism. It is the hope that those who sign this treaty will abide by these provisions and neither sanctions spam nor sanction hacking or other means illegal by NS gameplay.

[edit]Edited off the end of Black Adder's quote that did not need to be responded to.

[Capitollium]

Unfortunately my long response was deleted last night as I tried to post as a guest. Thanks, Cortath, for covering.

My colleague is exactly right. These Accords are written so that the major players in the world community committ ourselves to a certain code of standards, and these standards, in most cases, will distinguish between free and peaceful members of the world community and rogue nations.

Free is a synonym of autonomous and should not be construed as to refer to types of government within such free regions.

Granted, there will be loopholes. There are justifications warring parties can make. Obviously, this treaty will not end war, but rather it will simply help us to reach common ground on acceptable conduct regarding war.

I cannot vouch that the ADN or NPO have upheld these treaties but perhaps if we all agree to them, a spirit of respect that will breed peace will be sowed. This is the offer the Meritocracy makes.

(Finally, to those Meritocratic Senators who feel the need to undermine the efforts of this embassy with underhanded remarks regarding petty politics, keep your quibbling within the Senate Halls. The Meritocracy will not have to ratify these accords, we already have. This is not an alliance but an offer for common ground. If your political principles are such that you cannot abide by any world community but one that is so polarized as this, your opinions are decidedly un-Meritocratic and you should consider shutting your mouths and not attempting to represent them.)

[SardaASSK]

(Finally, to those Meritocratic Senators who feel the need to undermine the efforts of this embassy with underhanded remarks regarding petty politics, keep your quibbling within the Senate Halls. The Meritocracy will not have to ratify these accords, we already have. This is not an alliance but an offer for common ground. If your political principles are such that you cannot abide by any world community but one that is so polarized as this, your opinions are decidedly un-Meritocratic and you should consider shutting your mouths and not attempting to represent them.)

My god! I support the treaty and yet you still come after me! If you have a problem with me supporting the treaty, well then, I don't know what to tell you.

Finally, to those Meritocratic Senators who feel the need to undermine the efforts of this embassy with underhanded remarks regarding petty politics, keep your quibbling within the Senate Halls.

Guess what. It's a fact that the only political remarks I've made so far are:

1) The last three Consuls seem Pro-ADN.

2) I support this treaty.

That's it! Nothing more, nothing less!

So, I will finally just say: stop addressing anything I say, at all. I've expressed my opinions, and Argyres felt the need to specifically come after me and begin a cycle. Then you made a comment and now you do again. If you wish to stop the quibbling, then stop starting it anew with every post you make.

And, I will come now to my opinion regarding the respectable part of your post. I believe that anything that improves the spirit of peace and cooperation between the Senate and the NPO, can only be beneficial. Which is why I once again, affirm my support for this treaty.

[Black Adder]

No, no and no. I say no the first one because the preamble does not speak of legitimacy of government, merely of the Delegates who are members of the signing organizations. I say no to the second, because this document does not speak of what the Meritocracy recognizes about the NPO as a signatory but rather what the NPO recognizes as just or unjust war as a signatory. I say no to the third because this document is not meant to interfere with internal regional or organizations politics. It is not any signatories duty to defend or attack the internal policies of another sign

That response concerns me. On one hand you refer to the Meritocracy as an organization and expect everyone to recognize its power as such yet you do not extend the same courtesy to us. To even enter into a contract means you recognize the organization as a whole as opposed to its individual parts. I see nowhere where you've broken it down to the delegates of The New Meritocracy,the Meritocracy and the Sardaukar Confederacy entering into a contract with the Nasicounia, Antarctica, Rejected Realms et al. You accept the legitimacy of the ruling governments as a whole, not just the delegates involved yet you do not extend the same to us? You came here seeking a treaty with the NPO, not the Pacific. You make the very real case we speak for the Pacific and to proceed further without that recognition based on prejuidical reasoning is impossible.

I question the legitimacy of any document where the other party does not question what the other is doing. In effect you've told us this is self policing. If you are in the habit of penning documents with no real weight how serious are they about promoting peace? Its a treaty not a mission statement.

To pen a document placing restrictions on how aggression and attack is conducted by definition does interfere with internal poilcy of the signing states. To imply otherwise is disingenuous and would appear to state you have no real intent to honour the obligations. If the NPO were to sign such a document we would hold ourselves to the terms and expect the other side to as well. Why go through all the trouble otherwise? If its peace you seek its peace you must enforce from those who have vouched it for you.

Could you show me the NS rule that states that UPS Rail was "legitimately defending his position"? Perhaps by NS rules, he was legally defending his position, but legitimacy and legality are two very different things in my eyes. Legitimacy is more than mere legality. I find legitimacy, in this context, to be conforming with principles while legality is conforming with law. Whose principles is the question. This treaty establishes some basic principles, and I do not find that UPS Rail, by taking the Delegacy acted legitimately nor did he legitimately defend his position.

Who has a right to override game controls? Why, we do. Every single "government" of any sort constructed overrides game controls. I note that the NPO has a "Senate". Does the game recognize this Senate? No, it does not recognize the NPO Senate any more than it recognizes the Senate of the Meritocracy. We impose our own political ideals by virtue of our organization's/regional governments' very existance.

Legitimately is legally, you obfuscate. Whether it meets with your political philosophy is entirely a different matter. It shows a real lack of understanding in my view of Game Controlled regions to make the argument otherwise. There is no founder there is no password, a feeder is not a founder region where there is an implied contract of how the political aim is to be striven for. We have no more basis to scream we are the rightful regime should we ever be toppled than the North Pacific did. There is no contract in place saying the Pacific was a democracy, oligarchy or anything else that made people move here based on a founder's intentions. We are allowed to eject to protect the delegacy and the government they choose. Given how rules on invasion differ with a founder region courtesy of the protections you can insert your political ideals into those scenarios. By stating a deposed regime has a right to claim legitimacy in a feeder stretches reality, there is no implied contract and people are dropped there automatically. They generally make no decision to move there hence the term 'feeder'.

You are correct, we impose our ideals on our own regions by our very existance. I wonder why you defend imposing yours on anyone else. I understood the Meritocracy to uphold diversity and not necessarily take a stance on anything.

My colleague is exactly right. These Accords are written so that the major players in the world community committ ourselves to a certain code of standards, and these standards, in most cases, will distinguish between free and peaceful members of the world community and rogue nations.

The major stumbling factor I see here is a great divide in what we see those standards to be. We have widely varying views on gameplay, understandings of game controlled regions and most alarmingly a lack of any real committment to enforce these treaties. The NPO wants peace, we've suffered enough at the hands of many of your members but not at any cost. If you wish to negotiate with us we demand recognition as the NPO being the rightful government of the Pacific. You extended the same priviledge to the North Pacific so its not without precedent. We demand a document written with good faith that we expect to be honoured. We want peace. And this will be a document with very few loopholes, definitions and will leave very little room for interpretation.

I thank you for your quick responses.


edit: cleaned up quotes

[SardaASSK]

BA, for what it's worth, some people have often made a point of using the words "NPO" instead of "The Pacific" and then admitted to the word play. I personally believe it to be under-handed, but I think it's something we can over-come in the interests of general peace.

[RedCommunist]

When you got me to post, now you have done it.

I agree with you. These matters are convoluted. I don't believe this treaty was intended to nor do I reasonably expect it to end, prevent or discourage all wars, merely some. The ADN-Ireland conflict is very complicated, and I agree, I don't believe this Treaty could ever give a peace that both sides would be happy with.

I doubt it would end more then one. Now how is the ADN-Ireland conflict complicated? I watched the whole thing, pretty neutral, and most likely know the most on it from the both sides. Let us sum it up.
-Ireland has NI
-Brits take NI, help of ADN
-Ireland tries to take NI
-Brits get some others to help, USSR and IG take United Kingdom
-Brits hold NI when ADN show up.
*Done with that*
-Terrorist nations who lived in Ireland but did not represent the government take the province.
-Ireland says "w00t" and ADN is pissed.
-ADN declares war on a region who didn't do anything but say they were glad someone hit the ADN.
-IG and Ireland hit some ADN regions, they lose.
-Ireland passwords the region
-Stalemate on the front
-Several peace treaties were made, finally one that could be used.
-Voting on it right now.

Could you show me the NS rule that states that UPS Rail was "legitimately defending his position"?

NS has no rule on legitimately defending or holding or ect... No, that is up to the player. To us he was, to the ADN he wasn't. To us the ADN isn't legitimately running their regions. To them we aren't legitimately running our region. So in other words, we need to stop using the word legit.

Perhaps by NS rules, he was legally defending his position, but legitimacy and legality are two very different things in my eyes.

Two different words, but should legitimately come over legally? I could have marry five people legitimately or it is ok and just in my eyes, but in the eyes of the law it is illegal.

Legitimacy is more than mere legality.

And on the 8th day God created the dicitionary and people still make quotes like that.

I find legitimacy, in this context, to be conforming with principles while legality is conforming with law.

Get a word and use it for all context. If you pick and choose you are going to make yourself look stupid one day. This has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has to do with legal or not. You can't invade someone because you don't agree with them. If so Bush would have invaded way to many countries by now...

Whose principles is the question. This treaty establishes some basic principles, and I do not find that UPS Rail, by taking the Delegacy acted legitimately nor did he legitimately defend his position.

Yes? Who are you to make the choice? Are you a mod? [violet] or Max? Legit should have nothing to do in this game, because it is all opinion when you get to legit. I see he defended his position by all means at his disposal...which the law gave him...so he legitimately defended his position.

Who has a right to override game controls?

No one, because that is why rules are set.

Why, we do.

Hmmmm, so I can make 1,000 UN multis and do whatever I want with the arguement that I am changing game controls (rules)?

Every single "government" of any sort constructed overrides game controls. I note that the NPO has a "Senate". Does the game recognize this Senate?

The game can't think dumbass...it is code on a server.

No, it does not recognize the NPO Senate any more than it recognizes the Senate of the Meritocracy.

It should recognize the NPO over the Merit.

We impose our own political ideals by virtue of our organization's/regional governments' very existance.

I wouldn't say the Merit has virtue; but yes you impose your own political ideals. Does that make you right? Does that mean you can do it, or should?