Treaty Between TNI and TSP

[Unibot]

Whereas some regions and organisations will raid any founderless region, we don't. For example, when Grand Central's delegate got deleted we deployed straight away to help protect our allies and friends in the transition to their new official one, i.e. we defended it.

Oh come on... you used the defense of a raider region as your example that you have a varied policy? The United Defenders League was working with GC to secure itself too. You're an extreme imperialist region, that stacks almost every modern raid with every person you can find to put in the region. What do you think the Belgians or the Catholics are going to think in our region when we get into bed with the people who loaded their regions with your soldiers -- do you think that they're going to like the South Pacific? Are we going to remain in their eyes, a community of friendly people? Or a community of cowards and political slugs that will get together with anyone who says "we won't hurt you" regardless of their extremely dangerous political history.

Or is it enough that they won't physically hurt us? They'll just hurt our friends and our neighbors? Yeah that sure sounds like the region we all love and know.

[Fisch]

I can't help but agree with Uni; having a notorious raider organizations as allies, especially in a founderless region, can't be good.NAY

[Mahaj]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > Solm/Mahaj? I should really work out where people stand on the raider/fenda access; answering this will help

Solm is almost always on the TSP IRC channel.
</blockquote> I can read without posting.

[Mahaj]

I'd also like to stress TNI isn't a narrowly defined 'raider' region.

So its a broadly defined raider region, which raids plenty, talks up how much it hates other GCR's, and acts, as Onder said, with its own imperialist interests in mind? No thanks.

[A mean old man]

I don't think that there has been a deliberate and "silent coup"of TSP by the UDL, nor do I think that SB is totally out of her mind. I do believe that Unibot's bias is heavily affecting his stance on this treaty and that he might very well be influencing TSP citizens (both members and nonmembers of the UDL) to vote against it, and while I don't entirely trust TNI, I think that Uni could afford either to think a bit more practically or to try to tolerate other peoples' attempts to do so on this issue.However, SB, calling out some kind of UDL coup of the Assembly here is a bit over the top. Considering Eluvatar's involvement in this and considering Carta's decision to abstain after he spoke with you, I don't think we've got a case of UDL hivemind takeover in TSP. I just think we have a case of a potentially obstructive bias on Uni's part which he is being too assertive with.Uni's bias is not, however, entirely unfounded; while his ties to the UDL can be easily questioned here, TNI's attitude can also be questioned, and it is easy to go either way on this issue (hence my abstention). Unibot is justified in saying that TNI is a slimy region that we should stay far away from just as much as SB is justified in saying that TNI is a potential ally which has stood against a region which has attacked and disrespected TSP. I'm also justified in saying that I don't know if I trust TNI and that I'd prefer to see more from them before being willing to interact with them in FA. Sometimes these are personal opinions just as much as they are biases linked to our various areas of gameplay. Some of us might be taking them a bit too far, though, and might be letting our connections keep us from seeing things from a different point of view.I think the biggest problem here right now is not TNI and the question of whether we can or cannot trust them, but that people on both sides of this debate within TSP don't trust each other to be fair and, rather than try to talk about it rationally, begin calling each other out on biases connected to organizations and consequentially fighting over this. Both SB and Unibot seem to trust me, and based on what they've both said to me in private, I'm assuming that neither of them are deliberately trying to be unfair here.Please, people, try to leave your various connections and biases at the door and argue as if you're not a bunch of raiders and defenders lumped together in a room and expected to be productive. TSP is a feeder and we're all expected to be practical and reasonably "neutral" here. This has been like watching Republicans argue with Democrats (USA politics)....and what's with all this discussion in the voting thread? Come on. TNP is better at not talking in the voting thread than we are right now. That should tell you something. Get a grip, everyone.EDIT: It is also good to see that a representative from TNI has finally made an appearance. This will be helpful.

[Unibot]

I don't think one can be too "obstructive" when trying to defend the region from getting involved with an international aggressor and a self admitted imperialist. Once upon a time, The South Pacific voted basically by practically a friendly consensus, nowadays, we're willing to scrounge and bully each other to try to get a treaty with a slimy region squeezed through the legislature against a large minority's wishes. Southern Bellz is trying to make me feel as though I am not a true TSPer if I don't support this treaty, but frankly that is bullshit; If there isn't anything more to TSP than it's support of TNI than we can already say we've already bought and sold ourselves to TNI and our region means nothing. Personally I think the region stands for a lot of things and if we get into bed with TNI we won't be able to stand for those things as much. The New Inquistion uses it's political power to push and pressure people into voting on issues this way or that way and has even used it's influence to pressure old allies like Europeia into not getting treaties with TRR and other "FRA" regions -- nothing is below the belt for TNI and we're just beginning to sell our sovereignty away by biting this hook. The motivations behind TNI are never goodwill, they're pressing this to us because they're fishing for a feeder ally -- someone who will support their imperialist agenda.You're so quick to call relevant knowledge on an issue, "bias". Yeah, you know what I am defender.. I try to help out regions across NationStates and TNI is always there to piss on them. I wouldn't be able to hold my head high around my Belgian friends or whatnot if my region got involved with the region that bullied their region. It's not who I am and not who I plan to be. I'd like to be to say that I'm proud of my region and shaking hands with an international aggressor is not something to be proud of.

[A mean old man]

I like Belgium, but what do your "Belgian friends" have to do with the security of TSP?

[Southern Bellz]

Unibot, you can't even admit your blinding bias and excuse yourself. Even your UDL higher ups agree with me that you always put UDL first. Never once have you taken a nuanced opinion in TSP, its always the hard-line defender stance. Then you bring in your UDL stooges like Mahaj who just show up here to support the UDL hardline when they realize they cant waltz in and be delegate in two seconds.Then you LIE about TNI helping coup TSP, IGNORE the call for evidence, despite the fact that TNI helped TSP in the coup. Has HELPED TSP in the warzones, and states nothing but an intention of HELPING TSP.You call them a raider only region when they are trying to enter an agreement where they would be BOUND by their word to defend. Why do you keep lying to everyone in this region? Shouldn't you be happy that a raider leaning region is willing to protect a democratic government?No, you don't care. You dont care about the security of TSP, its tradition of working with all types, or any of the culture. You just care that the defender sphere of influence is tight and secure.I have NEVER made this accusation before Unibot. I worked with Sedge (pre-coup),Dyr, Geo, Bel, Topid, Carta, Elu, and all of them put thought and consider what is the best for TSP. You NEVER do. Every time you treat every issue with the same ignorant blinders on and this debate has really highlighted your inability to not act in an imperialistic manner and use your role in TSP to further the UDL or excuse yourself when you KNOW you can't separate the two. I wish your UDL partners would speak out because you are bringing disgrace to your organization.And it is possible to do both. I did it for years and developed relations with all sorts of people, and THAT is precisely what TSP needs to do.

[Eluvatar]

Southernbellz please don't call Unibot an imperialist.TNI is imperialist.

[Unibot]

I like Belgium, but what do your "Belgian friends" have to do with the security of TSP?

@AMOM: I consider TNI to be less of a security threat than it is a threat to TSP's reputation, honour and possibly internal and external sovereignty. The benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages. Everyone here is so focused on just security, SB has her blinders on and is only focused on security; if it has a lot of bad effects on all other considerations, it's not a proportional evil to get relations with TNI.

Does an ambassador from TNI want to tell me that TNI poses much more of a security threat to TSP than I had originally suspected?

You call them a raider only region when they are trying to enter an agreement where they would be BOUND by their word to defend.

They don't get into bed without looking for something, yes. I seriously doubt it's just going to be a simple as... we won't hurt you if you don't hurt us (as if the SPA would do that)... otherwise they'd do that with most of NS and everyone would be happy. No, no.. they're looking for a feeder that they can put a gigantic sticker on and say "This is property of TNI -- back off FRA" and you're promoting this whoring out to them.

No, you don't care. You dont care about the security of TSP, its tradition of working with all types, or any of the culture. You just care that the defender sphere of influence is tight and secure.

Right, thanks for that. RAAARHHH I'M A MEAN BAD MAN BECAUSE I WON"T SUPPORT THIS TREATY.

Why don't you just motion to declare me an enemy of the state and a criminal against liberty, while you're at it, SB. This is getting really fucking tedious, I'm trying to argue that the relationship would not be beneficial for TSP and you've just got one view..

TNI IS A PROTECTOR OF OUR SECURITY

ALL THREATS TO THEIR RELATIONS ARE THREATS TO OUR SECURITY

ALL PEOPLE AGAINST TNI ARE PEOPLE AGAINST OUR SECURITY

So lock me up then, because I'm clearly a security-hater, a freedom-hater and a god-dahm imperialist for caring about our own internal and external sovereignty and our reputation. I do care a lot about my region and I don't this treaty is a good thing; so fucking help me god.

[Antariel]

I'd like to request a second warning for language for Unibot please. Can we try to discuss this rationally.'squeezed through the legislature against a large minority's wishes.' - That's called democracy. Deal with it.And Uni, please don't try to claim you put TSP first; UDL is your prime concern. I couldn't care less about the Belgium people or the Catholics region; we have no links with them. We do, however, have a history of cooperation with TNI. And that makes this alliance worthwhile, from a TSP, NOT UDL, perspective.I don't think there's been a silent coup, largely because Hil does his own thing. But I don't think we need to accept Uni as arbiter of TSP moral behaviour; we are a NEUTRAL region, and its up to all of us.Bellz, you have admin don't you - please edit your post to remove the bit about warzones, then edit this out of my response - that's not meant to be public.EDIT: 2000th post!

[Charles I. Cerebella]

Now now, clearly I'm not aware of what TNI's intentions are and must defer to Uni's much better knowledge about it. It seems four years of being there, serving in every position and actually being in charge of their policy isn't enough to know that... :unsure:

Rich and diverse, you banned someone from your region because they tried to defend their own region. How'll about "maniacally imposing its psychotic beliefs on people without limitation or tolerance for difference"? Rich and diverse, what a farce.

That is blowing that a bit out proportion when Earth's own reaction was '... I'm not sure why I have citizenship in the first place... just seems a bit silly. Anyways, just ban me. You're wasting your time with a trial.' And I maintain it is a rich and diverse community. We have active people from America, Canada, Britain, Ireland, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. We have a huge range of political beliefs within the region and while most people are raiders within it (which I think is hardly unsurprising) we have a fair few who have never taken part in gameplay in any way and a few defenders who have access to the majority of the forum such as DYP and NC.

I think Europeia is hardly a typical case Uni. They are TNI's closest allies and our greatest friends and the two regions have a massive shared membership. We try to concert our policy with them whenever we can. Pointing out to them that a treaty with TRR could lead to Europeia being treaty bound to fight TNI's troops when she was already pledged not to do by the older TNI-Europeia Treaty is hardly the malevolent actions you would make it out to be. We even stressed that we were more than happy for Europeia to have cultural relations and ties with TRR. The fact is that Europeia withdrew the treaty because they value our friendship as much as we value theirs. It wasn't some power play by TNI in the slightest. Now, I only know this from the perspective of someone in TNI's Cabinet at the time (not as a minister but as an admin, an advisor and someone who drafted one of the messages to the President) so I suppose I should probably defer to Uni's superior knowledge of TNI's intentions.

Something is worth pointing out though. The TNI-Europeia Treaty is a detailed treaty as are most of TNI's treaties. The proposed treaty before us isn't like that. It isn't a treaty of alliance like Europeia's one with TNI, this is a 'Non-Agression and Cultural Treaty' as it says on the tin. There are no provisions for TSP having to provide diplomatic support, there isn't even a provision saying that TSP is bound not fight us. As with the identical treaty with Lazarus this is because TNI is more than aware of the unique nature of the GCRs. This treaty isn't an attempt to draw TSP into UCR politics or even draw TSP more actively into gameplay. As I said in my previous post this treaty is an attempt to lay the foundations for a positive relationship between both regions in spheres such as culture as well as providing in a very material way for TSP's security.

[Southern Bellz]

You dont even get it Unibot, its not about the way you vote, its about the way you reason your votes. Your more concerned with your own personal friends who have made zero effort to get to know TSP than ones who have.The only problem with TNI's reputation you bring up is that they raid, you brought the same thing up with LWU's treaty, and it didn't set TSP reputation on fire.ONCE again, I have to bring up the fact that you said TNI has been involved in the COUP of TSP and yet you do not elaborate after I keep calling for further explanation.This pact is only partly about security, we don't need TNI to defend us. What we need is to strengthen bonds with regions that take interest and get involved with TSP.

[Antariel]

Bellz, I'm still waiting for a response to a detailed post I made asking Uni about stuff in like January, so don't hold your breath. I don't think a neutral region should deny a link to raiders simply by dint of them being raiders. By your reasoning also, why take the risk of upsetting them and NOT making the treaty? Not that I think C.I would do anything

[Eluvatar]

You dont even get it Unibot, its not about the way you vote, its about the way you reason your votes. Your more concerned with your own personal friends who have made zero effort to get to know TSP than ones who have.

The only problem with TNI's reputation you bring up is that they raid, you brought the same thing up with LWU's treaty, and it didn't set TSP reputation on fire.

ONCE again, I have to bring up the fact that you said TNI has been involved in the COUP of TSP and yet you do not elaborate after I keep calling for further explanation.

This pact is only partly about security, we don't need TNI to defend us. What we need is to strengthen bonds with regions that take interest and get involved with TSP.

To ignore the difference between raids and griefs is a guerilla debate tactic. I do not entirely approve.

It is true that TNI has actually griefed regions in recent memory. Given the limited level of backlash against them thus far over this, I am not inclined to say it's in the South Pacific's best interests to stay away from them for that reason, but it's definitely a legitimate argument. And it does not generally apply to many invader organizations.

[Hileville]

<strong class='bbc'>LAST WARNING</strong>



Watch the language being used in this debate.  It is not needed and if there is continued usage of it I will start editing posts and eventually close the thread.  Several people have complained to me about it. 



<strong class='bbc'>STOP IT NOW.</strong>

[Unibot]

Something is worth pointing out though. The TNI-Europeia Treaty is a detailed treaty as are most of TNI's treaties. The proposed treaty before us isn't like that.

Vague treaties are much more powerful than detailed treaties.



For example you never explicitly state that the treaty only is pertinent to the physical region, The New Inquisition. Since you're imperialist, I presume some of your wilder members probably believe The New Inquisition extends beyond its borders to it's colonies. The clauses trying to address this do a very poor job at articulating the specification of the region, The New Inquisition.

We the <strong class='bbc'>regions</strong> of The South Pacific (hereinafter referred to as TSP) and The New Inquisition (hereinafter referred to as TNI)

The above clauses apply only to the <strong class='bbc'>Nationstates regions</strong> of TSP and The New Inquisition.

You'll note it uses the plural of "region" but does limit that plurality to two regions, so the clause could come to mean all the regions of The New Inquisition.



Also in this clause..

Both TNI and TSP agree to peaceful military relations with one another. They agree not to seek to overthrow the delegacy of either region and not to assist any other region in doing so.

You say won't assist any region to overthrow us.. but what about assisting an organization like say, the former, "Empire" (you use the phrase, 'regions and organizations' in the first and second clauses, then omit, 'organizations' for the third). You also aren't obligated to refrain from assisting say, Sedge from overthrowing TSP because Sedge was an individual not a region (at least TRR argues so). In fact, none of this treaty recognizes the overthrowing of the region by individuals.. yet people like SB are clamoring that this would protect us from Dev-like coups... but Dev was an individual and frankly, if TSP is going to be couped again, very few regions or organizations are going to risk the PR .. but doing it as an individual is possible (like, say Frak).



Now even if TNI assisted, say Dev, they would also be required to provide troops publicly under Article III.. but this could be as simple as a few troops for military aid, a quota is not specified. Would TNI support both sides? Well.. Euro did it to save face and just a post ago, our lovely TNI ambassador was explaining how close TNI works with Euro...



Now cue the withdrawal of association with Euro.. and go!

[Charles I. Cerebella]

I am afraid you are really clutching at straws now. Seeing as TNI hasn't had constitutionally mandated colonies in about 3 years I am not sure how it could extend to our colonies. Furthermore as in all previous TNI documents anything that includes colonies as well as the home region was referred to The New Inquisition Empire or contained some enactment clause stating it will apply to TNI and the Empire. It would never hold up in TNI's court that this Treaty would apply to the whole Empire given the lack of any clause or reference to Empire and as such I am sure it would not hold up in Court here. 'You'll note it uses the plural of "region" but does limit that plurality to two regions, so the clause could come to mean all the regions of The New Inquisition.' Again this is stretching your argument to breaking point. Should you search Nationstates for The New Inquisition there is one region that comes up. That is the Nationstates region of The New Inquisition. It's URL is nationstates.net/region=the_new_inquisition. There are no other regions that this could possibly apply for and again would not stand up in a Court. 'You say won't assist any region to overthrow us.. but what about assisting an organization like say, the former, "Empire" (you use the phrase, 'regions and organizations' in the first and second clauses, then omit, 'organizations' for the third). You also aren't obligated to refrain from assisting say, Sedge from overthrowing TSP because Sedge was an individual not a region (at least TRR argues so). In fact, none of this treaty recognizes the overthrowing of the region by individuals.. yet people like SB are clamoring that this would protect us from Dev-like coups... but Dev was an individual and frankly, if TSP is going to be couped again, very few regions or organizations are going to risk the PR .. but doing it as an individual is possible (like, say Frak). 'This treaty would morally oblige us to assist TSP regardless of who or what the perpetrator. The very fact I am saying so now binds us to that. If it is generally considered that the clause is not specific enough then I would be happy to arrange to amend the treaty. (By the way, more generally and not just to Uni, the Treaty passed TNI's Reichstag today unanimously). I'm not going to withdraw any association with Europeia. As I said before they are TNI's closest allies and we very much value our relationship with them. That doesn't necessarily mean we agree on all issues or always have the same line though. TNI unequivocally would not support any region, organisation, individual or anything else trying to illegitimately (i.e. not through the proper legal process outlined by TSP law) take over TSP or threaten its security. That is as plain a promise as it is possible to make in that regard. Should TSP's security be threatened TNI will provide as many troops as is asked for by TSP's government, be that a handful or a full deployment. All of this really goes without saying for the most part and no one else in either region has raised these points. You seem to be resorting to them once all of your other lines of attack have failed rather than addressing the legitimate questions and comments to you that other people raised. That said though I'm a reasonable enough person, as I'm sure the people here who have worked with me in the past will testify, and as such I will happily continue to answer whatever concerns you or others have in as honest a fashion as I possibly can.

[Southern Bellz]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > You dont even get it Unibot, its not about the way you vote, its about the way you reason your votes.  Your more concerned with your own personal friends who have made zero effort to get to know TSP than ones who have.

The only problem with TNI's reputation you bring up is that they raid, you brought the same thing up with LWU's treaty, and it didn't set TSP reputation on fire.

ONCE again, I have to bring up the fact that you said TNI has been involved in the COUP of TSP and yet you do not elaborate after I keep calling for further explanation.

This pact is only partly about security, we don't need TNI to defend us.  What we need is to strengthen bonds with regions that take interest and get involved with TSP.

To ignore the difference between raids and griefs is a guerilla debate tactic. I do not entirely approve.

It is true that TNI has actually griefed regions in recent memory. Given the limited level of backlash against them thus far over this, I am not inclined to say it's in the South Pacific's best interests to stay away from them for that reason, but it's definitely a legitimate argument. And it does not generally apply to many invader organizations.
</blockquote> If you dont 'approve' of my debate tatics, why arent you holding your fearless leader accountable for his?

Ill address your point though: LWU has been accused of the same crimes or worse than TNI, yet we have a treaty with them, and our reputation has not gone to shit. Unibot is making an INSANE claim based only on his extremist views that if you talk to raiders you are a raider.

To highlight Unibot's debate tactics, that you didnt confront him on (I assume because it may have UDL repercussions_

He has LIED, picked selected evidence, and ignored what has actually happened to paint a fake narrative of TNI so he can use TSP as a means to further his UDL goal of isolating TNI politically.

He tried to say that TNI would 'raid' TSP because they are a pure raider organization that doesn't discriminate against targets, when TNI is a mega UCR that identifies as an imperialist organization.

He accused them of trying to drag us into an FRA vs Feeder war, that TNI was involved directly in couping us, that TNI is an indiscriminating raider threat. I mean am I on the conspiracy theory show?

Unibot is the extremist and reminds me a lot of the American right. He simplifies every issue into black in white, it doesn't matter if what he says is true or not as long as it paints a picture that will excite his UDL base. Its sick, and his loyalty is clearly to the UDL first, because he talks about his UDL friends, brings up his major UDL defeats, and even talks about how UDL was going to defend a friend of TNI.

This is really messed up, and I have never been so convinced that someone is manipulating TSP for their own sick, twisted gains.

[A mean old man]

Uni, you've crossed a line.



The fact that your arguments here are so anchored purely in an emotion should be evidence that you should be taking a step back and looking at them. There's obviously a conflict of interest here; you're a defender, and you don't want to see a region you're involved with make ANY concessions whatsoever to an invader region simply because you believe the region in question to be totally evil. You're more concerned with how your "Belgian friends," who have <em class='bbc'>nothing</em> to do with TSP and its security, will react to this, than you are with how this could benefit the region of TSP.



I'm sure that, if TNI tried to push its ideals or an agenda on TSP, the TSPers would notice fairly quickly, terminate relations with TNI, and eventually freeze TNI out of the region. TNI could attack this region whether or not it had a treaty with it; however, attacking a region with which it had a treaty would most likely receive a much more negative response from the general community and would lose TNI a lot of support all-around. TNI is more of a region than it is an organization, concerned with diplomacy as well as militarism. However, you completely ignore the fact that TNI has any kind of working community and see it as a ruthless raider group with a one-way train of thought.



In making these assumptions you are thinking exactly as you believe TNI to be thinking.



I wouldn't be quite so bothered by this if you weren't rallying people to come here and vote against this, these people mainly being from your organization, the UDL. Fisch, while he is a citizen, never contributed anything to TSP but appeared here to vote against this motion. Mahaj has contributed but was absent for some time before appearing to vote NAY on this treaty. Camwood is pushing for citizenship simply so that he may vote against this treaty. There are a number of other examples that others have highlighted.



This is <em class='bbc'>exactly</em> the reason I was wary of the UDL when it first appeared and began getting involved in the feeders, and I thought, after a number of months of seemingly unbiased activity, that I could trust its members to be responsible here. You are currently undermining that trust, Unibot.



This is serious. If you're going to take advantage of and thus abuse TSP's democratic system by bringing a goon squad here, you are worse than the people you are trying to freeze out of TSP's affairs. Back off, Uni. You, for the most part, had earned my trust in the UDL to be fair in these regions, but you're quickly dissolving it.

[Hileville]

I had a real big long post that I was going to put up but I have decided against it. I urge people to read through the Treaty and vote their opinion on the matter. I feel that both sides of this argument have been a little out of line. I wish Unibot would have made posts where he breaks down parts of the Treaty from the beginning. I don't absolutely agree with what he is saying about what has been broken down but it is something for us to take a look at rewording.

I am going to make a few statements now in regards to some things that have been brought up.

First of all if I believed that this Treaty would take away TSP's sovereignty in any way I would have said thanks but no thanks. I never want to see us give up our sovereignty too anyone and would be one of the first to protest such a proposal that would be brought to the Assembly.

This treaty requires TNI and TSP too support each other in the event of a coup of either of the respected regions upon the request of the governments to do so.

Furthermore TSP has no diplomatic ties whatsoever to the regions of Catholic and Belgium so I really don't care what they think of TSP being allied with TNI it has no bearing on our foreign policy. We don't even have embassies with them on forum or in game so lets not bring them up in an argument about it being bad for TSP because of the way they will look at us.

TNI IS A PROTECTOR OF OUR SECURITY

ALL THREATS TO THEIR RELATIONS ARE THREATS TO OUR SECURITY

ALL PEOPLE AGAINST TNI ARE PEOPLE AGAINST OUR SECURITY

I think this is a little of stretch as well Uni. All people against UDL and LWU have not been a threat to our security.

Anyway I am not going to comment any further at this time because what was supposed to be a short post is turning into a long one. I do have one last remark though and that is lets take the raider/defender debate out of our Assembly and back on to the NS forums because I don't like it there and don't want to see it in TSP when we are making Treaties and future legislation.

I urge everyone to read through the treaty and ask questions about don't just let Uni and SB make up your minds for you. That is not the right thing to do when it comes to voting in the best interests of TSP.

[Unibot]

The fact that your arguments here are so anchored purely in an emotion should be evidence that you should be taking a step back and looking at them. There's obviously a conflict of interest here; you're a defender, and you don't want to see a region you're involved with make ANY concessions whatsoever to an invader region simply because you believe the region in question to be totally evil. You're more concerned with how your "Belgian friends," who have <em class='bbc'>nothing</em> to do with TSP and its security, will react to this, than you are with how this could benefit the region of TSP.

Well not exactly, I'd rather not get involved with a group that griefs, since that's a huge stain on our reputation. Out of groups today that grief, TNI is one of the top on that bill. I was worried about LWU but that really hasn't been a problem since LWU hasn't done jackshit as an organization since about the same time as they signed the treaty.

I'm sure that, if TNI tried to push its ideals or an agenda on TSP, the TSPers would notice fairly quickly, terminate relations with TNI, and eventually freeze TNI out of the region.

I don't think so, not from the trends I've seen with other regions. Especially if they get involved with the Regional Assembly, we don't then have the ability to remove them from the assembly without a vote... you can see the problems there. The Pacific doesn't have to worry about these concerns of entryism for obvious reasons but a region like Balder did and frankly didn't take the necessary steps.

I wouldn't be quite so bothered by this if you weren't rallying people to come here and vote against this, these people mainly being from your organization, the UDL.

I'm contacting people on the South Pacific IRC channel.. Solm, Mahaj and Fisch. I've found the normal ruling body of citizens have been really stubborn in these regards, so I lobbied to other citizens. I don't really see the point of having a democracy if the people in this chamber want an oligarchy. It's frankly really annoying to be called an imperialist, terrorist, whatever the <strong class='bbc'>EDITED</strong> else I've been called by SB when I am just trying to do what I think is best for the region and I'm trying to get our memberbase to reconsider this treaty.

This is serious. If you're going to take advantage of and thus abuse TSP's democratic system by bringing a goon squad here, you are worse than the people you are trying to freeze out of TSP's affairs. Back off, Uni. You, for the most part, had earned my trust in the UDL to be fair in these regions, but you're quickly dissolving it.

I don't want TSP, which is my region just as much as it is SB's and yours and Mahaj's and Solm's and Fisch's and Elu's and everyone else in this <strong class='bbc'>EDITED</strong> debate, I don't want TSP getting involved with an international aggressor that will not hesitate to screw us over when they deem it politically advantageous. This is not an abuse of the democratic system, this is the use of the democratic system. SB is free to contact citizens to try to lobby them with her propaganda, there's whole list of them on the forums. There's like 70+ citizens not voting at the moment. The vote was tied and the people who were holding their positions were stubbornly holding it.. so I started lobbying.

I think this is a little of stretch as well Uni. All people against UDL and LWU have not been a threat to our security.

No, that was me mocking SB's logic against my arguments.

Furthermore TSP has no diplomatic ties whatsoever to the regions of Catholic and Belgium so I really don't care what they think of TSP being allied with TNI it has no bearing on our foreign policy. We don't even have embassies with them on forum or in game so lets not bring them up in an argument about it being bad for TSP because of the way they will look at us.

Right.. so the opinion of The South Pacific beyond our embassies mean nothing? The greater opinion of NationStates means nothing?



The greater opinion of NationStates saved Southern Bellz from being condemned and thereby legitimized our cause against Dev to the greater public -- when we all fought long to lobby that decision, the greater opinion of NationStates meant a whole <strong class='bbc'>EDITED</strong> lot. But when it's about a treaty that more or may not help us, we slink back into our chairs.



<strong class='bbc'>EDITED FOR LANGUAGE</strong>

[Milograd]

@AMOM: I encouraged Camwood to become a citizen here before he was even a member of the UDL, for what it's worth.

[A mean old man]

@AMOM: I encouraged Camwood to become a citizen here before he was even a member of the UDL, for what it's worth.

Thank you. I don't want to be right about this, because that would be very bad.

If the first damn thing Camwood does if he gets citizenship before the vote on this treaty is over is vote against it, though, I'm going to flip shit.

[A mean old man]

<a class='bbc_url' href='http://z1.invisionfree.com/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=10560&st=0&#entry22000879'>http://z1.invisionfree.com/theSPacific/ind...&#entry22000879</a>

HOLY S---.

*edited at request of Hile.*