Embassy of The Meritocracy

[Cortath]

Sir said:

That's the Meritocracy... There IS no common ground. That's why they kept to themselves so long. It's more weak than a confederacy. They can't make any of their members do anything. Thus, those senators from regions sympathetic to us will help us, and those from regions unsympathetic will harm us.

Treat anything the Meritocracy does as a real life UN resolution. Non-binding. Yes, the various puppet-nations will abide, but the UN-Nations that are the rulers of various regions shall not stay their hand by order of a foreign government.

Might I add, that many Meritocrats (most, I would say), myself included, were Meritocrats first, and became associated with defenders second. With all due respect to all organizations, with the way the Meritocracy operates, I am very much inclined to respect its well thought out and well reasoned laws than virtuallly any other organization in the game.

[Sir Paul]

Cortath said:

Might I add, that many Meritocrats (most, I would say), myself included, were Meritocrats first, and became associated with defenders second. With all due respect to all organizations, with the way the Meritocracy operates, I am very much inclined to respect its well thought out and well reasoned laws than virtuallly any other organization in the game.

I'd like to note that have mentioned on several occations that the Meritocracy is one of the most respected regions in the game, and I whole-heartedly feel that. I actually hope to retire there someday... But back to the point, you note that you are inclined to respect its laws over the laws of other regions. I believe what is trying to be pointed out is that many in the Meritocracy also have allegences to other regions (ie the ones they found/run). If a Meritocrat has a region that they were invested in, and the region was in trouble, he would do was was necessary to protect his interest. Now, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that the current order of the day from the Meritocracy is nuetrality in this conflict. We are confident that some people who have ties with the Meritocracy, are currently attacking (and some defending) the NPO under the banners of other regions. Are all Meritocrats required to abstain from action in this affair, or can they get involved if they don't claim Meritocratic authorization?

[Cortath]

Sir said:

I'd like to note that have mentioned on several occations that the Meritocracy is one of the most respected regions in the game, and I whole-heartedly feel that. I actually hope to retire there someday... But back to the point, you note that you are inclined to respect its laws over the laws of other regions. I believe what is trying to be pointed out is that many in the Meritocracy also have allegences to other regions (ie the ones they found/run). If a Meritocrat has a region that they were invested in, and the region was in trouble, he would do was was necessary to protect his interest. Now, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that the current order of the day from the Meritocracy is nuetrality in this conflict. We are confident that some people who have ties with the Meritocracy, are currently attacking (and some defending) the NPO under the banners of other regions. Are all Meritocrats required to abstain from action in this affair, or can they get involved if they don't claim Meritocratic authorization?

I know the sentiments. I intend to retire to the Meritocracy some day too, although, frankly, to go on a tangent, my nation in the Meritocracy is now, just as important as my other.

Indeed. We all have seperate allegiances, and the Meritocracy does not impose its will upon the nations of its Senators. Are all Meritocrats required to abstain? No. Yes, they can get involved if htey don't claim Meritocratic authorization. Most Senators (of the 80 something-odd of us), will respect that nuetrality, however, I admit, some of us will take action. Some, such as Camozayo, who is also in USSR, will defend the NPO with Moldavi, while perhaps others, such as Pope Hope and Vazquez will not. However, only a very small minority of the Meritocrats actually will paritipate one way or another, with no penalty, as we respect that choice. Most Senators, myself included (although one could cynically say it's because my UN nation is a Delegate), will respect that nuetrality.

I think there are major problems with how the Meritocracy is perceived and one of them it is perceived as a gathering ground of armies by proxy, or something of the sort. It is not that. If it was, I would leave, as would most. The Meritocracy is its own organization, with its own path, beyond the military. To brag a bit, we have some of the greatest minds, intellectuals, of Nationstates, in the game (after all, we admit by merit, no pun intended). The Meritocracy exists for its own sake. It does not exist to protect its members, as perhaps the ADN does, nor does it exist to provide stability to a region, as perhaps the NPO does. The Meritocracy exists because some of the intellectuals of nationstates (call us elitist, if you will), willed to exist and thus made it, as a gathering ground of those who chose fit. Granted, many of its members do command armies of nations, and they may well use them, but the Meritocracy is neither the forum for coordination of such armies, nor does it endorse the use of armies. Our charter says we are neither invader nor invader, and so we are.

If you choose to find value in the Meritocracy, don't find value in its "military". It has none. Granted, as I said, some of its members have armies, but if you value the Meritocracy, value it for what its members value it for, for being, well, a meritocracy.

[Sir Paul]

I couldn't have put it better. I've always view the Meritocracy as the Watercooler in the executive washroom. I'm unsure as to why they have been entering into military alliances and forming legions, but that's a discussion for another day.

I hope that my fellow senators will understand that as good libertarians, the orginization would never use force. Against us, or against their own members.

[SardaASSK]

The legions were formed for emergencies. For example, should I be deleted as founder of the Sardaukar Confederacy (A Meritocratic Province), we would be vulnerable, and to secure my delegate's delegacy the legions would move in and prop him up. That is the legion's official role. Past Consuls and Lictor have requested action on unofficial operations, but these are strictly unofficial and engaged upon with no semblance of relation to the Meritocracy itself.

Why we need the ADMA, I don't know. We already cooperate extensively with the ADN, so the personal motivation behind it is to me, still a mystery... especially if the ADN is happy to violate its requirements.

But as you say Sir Paul, our forces are for internal application. As an organization, we would never and could never garnish enough Senate votes to support action against the NPO or anyone else. There are near 100 Senators in the Senate, and the majority of them are isolationist when it comes to the Meritocracy itself, only a few of our past leaders are so vocal and energetic. Though I think Unistrut has revitalized the Meritocracy to a certain extent, he's also stretched our involvement over the world political scene. Something I have no problem with really, but the good ol' days of isolationism still beckon...

[Black Adder]

Yes its wonderful how the Meritocracy embraces its policy of Sovereignity for its membership. That is not the issue.

CrazyGirl is bound by this treaty not only by her status with the Met but by her status in the ADN. While she may be untouchable given Meritocracy Laws she is doubly bound by her rank in the ADN and the Met hasn't questioned or demanded any answers. The treaty isn't being enforced even from a signatory to signatory point of view.

The template offered for the ADMA is in my view unusable and does nothing but tie our hands and leaves your membership to do as it will carte blanche.

I'd prefer a non aggression treaty endorsed by all the membership of the Meritocracy individually at this point. Anything other than that I fail to see as being of any use. If you have a better idea I should like to hear it. I'm also interested to see if the Met intends to demand answers from its signatory partner the ADN for its actions recently against us.

[SardaASSK]

Such is why I voted against the ADMA. I wont go into length here, but I believe the ADN should suffer some recourse for their acts... but then again, the ADMA is so loose... which was one of the arguments FOR it's passage.

[Cortath]

I think what needs to be clarified is that the Treaty on Justified Warfare is not about the Meritocracy. It is about each individual signatory. It much more akin to say, the Geneva Conventions. It is not a biparty agreement, but something each individual region/organization chooses to ratify or not.

Let us re-examine the Treaty:

The Alliance-Meritocratic Convention on Justified War

Recognizing our organizations as those who sympathize with the just causes of the free and peaceful regions of the world, we, the delegates of the Alliance Defense Network and the Meritocracy, declare the following:

Section 1

The global community shall recognize any nation, region, or treaty organization that invades another without a justified reason as an aggressor, and an enemy of the free world.

We define a treaty organization as any arrangement that binds nations within different regions.

Region crashing, or attacking another region with the aim of seizing the UN Delegate\'s regional control settings and implementing a superior number of UN nations, is only justified if the attack is justified under one or more of the following criteria:

1) The invasion is attempted in retaliation for a previous attack orchestrated by nation, region, or treaty organization being invaded.
2) The invader can offer written proof of their adversary\'s plans to attack them.
3) The invasion is attempted to regain the delegacy for a UN Delegate who was ousted by an aggressor.

Section 2

During times of conflict, the following actions are not to be condoned by the free world, nor implemented by the nations that represent it:

1) Attacking a nation, region, or treaty organization without convincing evidence of their involvement in the conflict.
2) Spamming a regional message board.
3) Attempting to hack into the NationStates website to achieve a military objective.
4) Framing another nation, region, or treaty organization for an operation the nation, region, or treaty organization was not involved with.

Section 3

The following nations, regions, and treaty organizations pledge to adhere to this agreement:

Signatories...

Regarding the actions of Crazygirl. I believe, in her eyes, that what she does against the Pacific in his retaliation for recent aggression in the North Pacific. The issue, in my humble opinion, is far too muddled to ever mount a successful prosecution by any party, and I would not seek it.

[Black Adder]

Forgive me as you will most likely take offense here but what exactly is the Met seeking from us? I can see we view responsibilites radically different so I'm more reluctant than ever to enter into any agreements with the Met at this point. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you wish to be treated as a bona fide organization with a population who is willing to adhere to its commitments and a leadership prepared to do so. When it comes time to make someone answer one may as well stick a nail in a fog since everyone disavows and claims inability to act due to respect for sovereignity.

We are non expansionist. We are not non interventionist any longer. Is the only way to get some form of protection asking your body to sign individually? Lets start with that. We want a binding agreement that is enforceable. We have our own code of ethics that has served us very well despite what the propaganda machine out there is generating against us. We aren't interested in promises, we want agreements.

[Mammothistan]

I recall the Meritocratic Tribune ruling a few months ago that military personnel of a (in this case, it was a nation) were actually not representative of their home nation and said nation could not be held responsible for their actions, even if they intentionally attacked another nation. Just a glimpse into the Meritocracy's frame of mind, Comrades.

[Cortath]

Black said:

We are non expansionist. We are not non interventionist any longer.

I am puzzled by these statements. Could you clarify?

[Black Adder]

Non Expansionist- We do not seek to Empire Build.

Non Interventionist- ie) Isolationism. We are not going to turn a deaf ear to pleas for assistance anymore. We're tired of the outside rolling over everyone because they deem it just. We're tired of the attacks against us and will begin aiding any of our Treaty partners to the bitter end.

Don't worry. We don't seek to cause trouble. We will however not stand by idly anymore as our opponents wreak havoc elsewhere. I would place the cause of the shift in policy squarely on the shoulders of some mutual acquaintances.

[Cortath]

Black said:

Non Expansionist- We do not seek to Empire Build.

Non Interventionist- ie) Isolationism. We are not going to turn a deaf ear to pleas for assistance anymore. We're tired of the outside rolling over everyone because they deem it just. We're tired of the attacks against us and will begin aiding any of our Treaty partners to the bitter end.

Don't worry. We don't seek to cause trouble. We will however not stand by idly anymore as our opponents wreak havoc elsewhere. I would place the cause of the shift in policy squarely on the shoulders of some mutual acquaintances.

Who are your Treaty partners, and have they been attacked?

[Sir Paul]

We entered into a Mutual Aid Pact with ALSO. When they were attacked, we rallied to save them from a mod action and an ADN invasion. USSR has long been a treaty partner, and they were attacked, but founder RedCommunist was able to eject the offending nations.

[Cortath]

If your idea of "intervening" is defending those you believe to be your allies, I believe "intervention" isn't quite the right term, frankly. To me, intervention is usually going some place where you are not welcome, or where you would not usually go. Defending your allies, is well, that, defending your allies.