Review of Extant Treaties

[Unibot]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tsunamy" data-cid="113951" data-time="1389714148">
Isn't his really where TSP's "independent" ideology comes in? (Yes, I'm aware this is a loaded question.)

Yeah, again, you'd think so. But there are a lot people in TSP who prioritize the TNI treaty above everything else. It really has been the spoke around which the rest of our foreign policy wheel is built. It's difficult to be "independent" if your analysis of what's within our interests has a huge variable called TNI's interest. That's where I get frustrated with this whole claim that we're an independent region. Yeah, we're independent, up until the point where we do something that might piss off TNI.

 

But, ultimately, what our treaties say -- or should say -- is that we're supporting the status quo. So, we're not going to support raiding other regions, but we're also not going to allow defender groups to raid our allies. If there is fighting between other R/D groups in other regions -- which we have no treaties with -- then we sit on the sidelines.

The thing is, it's not reasonable to tell defender groups, "We're not going to work with you if you work against TNI." The entire purpose of defending is to work against those groups, and TNI is part of the most active group right now (the United Imperial Armed Forces). According to TNI (and acquiesced by the Cabinet at the time), our treaty with them now extends to all members of the UIAF (even though the Assembly never voted on that), so if the Land of Kings and Emperors decides Spiritus is an enemy, suddenly our options are limited even further. We can "sit on the sidelines," but when TNI has a habit of declaring all defender groups their enemies, then we'll always be sitting on the sidelines.


We've been operating without clear communication from TNI about what we're allowed and not allowed to do. (Allowed in the sense of, "If we do this, are you going to dissolve the treaty?") We've been in talks with the UDL about renewing the relations for several months. Under Belschaft's administration, those talks stalled the moment somebody pointed out that TNI was at war with the UDL. We didn't bother to ask TNI their input on our working with the UDL. And nobody stopped to think if it was appropriate for TNI to carry so much influence -- whether they do it actively or have that influence just through the existence of the treaty -- in who else we work with.
 


</blockquote>
 

I couldn't have said it better myself.  We need to focus on TSP's interests, not TNI's -- at what cost does the TNI treaty outweigh the benefits of an alliance with them? At one point does some of our members' infatuation with TNI as an ally become patently irrational? These are questions we need to ask ourselves, instead of simply returning to the old line of "TNI provides troops" as a final and ultimate defense. 

 

Many, many groups can provide many troops. Gatesville can provide troops, GGR can provide troops .. etc. etc. etc. There's more to the discussion than "can they provide troops or not?", or else we'd be selling The South Pacific out to any old thugish group of mercenaries or hackjobs that would like a diplomatic victory with us.

[StGeorgie]

We can't simultaneously be condemning Milograd and refusing any talk of any kind of thawing of relations with him and also be looking into a treaty with an organisation that has repeated and largely without remorse manipulated and infringed upon multiple GCRs.

 

A treaty with a discredited and ineffective organisation like the UDL would be a mistake.

[tsunamy]

So, do we have a document saying that we are to help TNI -- or their allies -- in raiding missions? If it was never approved by the Assembly, it isn't the law of the land.

[Sandaoguo]

We can't simultaneously be condemning Milograd and refusing any talk of any kind of thawing of relations with him and also be looking into a treaty with an organisation that has repeated and largely without remorse manipulated and infringed upon multiple GCRs.

 

A treaty with a discredited and ineffective organisation like the UDL would be a mistake.

 

This isn't a view shared by everybody. The UDL is one of three most active defense forces in the game, so we can't simply ignore them. We also can't hold on to the meme that the UDL is "discredited and ineffective" when clearly a lot of people still take it very seriously. Renewed relations has been on the agenda for a few terms, now, under multiple and diverse Cabinets.

 

So, do we have a document saying that we are to help TNI -- or their allies -- in raiding missions? If it was never approved by the Assembly, it isn't the law of the land.

 

Our current treaty with TNI does not obligate TSP to aid TNI in their military operations unless the actual region of TNI is being attacked. When I mentioned that the Assembly didn't ratify a change in the treaty, I was talking about this post by Hileville where the Assembly was notified that TNI considered the treaty expanded to cover the entire UIAF and not just TNI. The Assembly never voted on that, but it seems to have been acquiesced by the Cabinet at the time.

[StGeorgie]

And the fact that those renewed relations haven't occurred says it all. If it was not worth it then, why is it worth it now?

[Sandaoguo]

And the fact that those renewed relations haven't occurred says it all. If it was not worth it then, why is it worth it now?

 

It says more about how the Cabinet was preoccupied with events in Osiris, so they put UDL relations on the back-burner. The only direct problem we had was with the prospect that we'd be angering TNI by signing the treaty. We were caught in a debate on how to renew relations, not if we should.

[Cormac]

Glen and Unibot are, as usual, distorting the issue.

 

Yes, it is necessary in order for us to be an independent region to be able to pursue our own interests above others' interests. However, it is in our interests to maintain strong relations with the treaty allies we have chosen. This Assembly chose to ratify an alliance with The New Inquisition and now it is in our interests to maintain strong relations with them. Does this limit our foreign affairs and military pursuits? To some degree, yes, but such is the nature of security alliances. Is anyone here actually going to suggest that we won't be limited in our foreign affairs and military pursuits by an alliance with the UDL, and that they aren't going to have a problem with us raiding?

 

Glen and Unibot are arguing that this means we can't work with defender regions and organizations. There's no evidence at all that's the case. It does mean it's not appropriate for us to work with defender regions and organizations on all operations. Yes, TNI is probably going to get a little bit peeved if we work with the FRA or the UDL against a UIAF operation. TNI is unlikely to get very upset, if at all, if we work with defender regions and organizations against others' military operations. NSA can work with defenders, for example, to end a Nazi occupation (it did this recently, in fact, didn't it?). NSA could also work with defenders to end a Black Hawks, Black Riders, Brotherhood of Malice, Sekhmet Legion, etc., etc., occupation. The idea that we can never work with defenders because of the TNI treaty is simply false.

 

What Glen and Unibot really mean is we can't work with defenders against our treaty allies, which by extension means we can't work with defenders against any joint UIAF operation. The flip side of this is that when we have security crises we also benefit from joint UIAF assistance even though we don't even have treaty alliances with The LKE and Albion. Glen and Unibot seem to see this as a problem, whereas most reasonable people would see it as a reality of having treaty allies. Treaties don't mean much if we're actively working against our treaty allies, and working against their military operations while expecting them to work with us during security crises is simply unreasonable. In the extreme. Treaty alliances are about give and take.

 

The fact of the matter is that the treaty with TNI has brought TSP substantive benefit. It has brought us not only the benefit of their assistance during security crises, but also the addition of de facto allies by virtue of their alliance with TNI. Glen and Unibot can dismiss this all they want and make extreme comparisons between the UIAF and Gatesville, or even worse between the UIAF and GGR, but what TSP needs are allies who can actually defend us effectively during times of crisis and there is absolutely nothing wrong with having TNI as an ally except in the minds of extremist ideologues bent on their own extreme agenda. They are insisting we don't need TNI as allies and shouldn't want them, but they're offering us the UDL and The Rejected Realms as alternative allies. Relations with the UDL and TRR have certainly brought TSP something in the past, but I wouldn't call it substantive benefit.

[Hileville]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="StGeorgie" data-cid="113981" data-time="1389726030">
<div>
We can't simultaneously be condemning Milograd and refusing any talk of any kind of thawing of relations with him and also be looking into a treaty with an organisation that has repeated and largely without remorse manipulated and infringed upon multiple GCRs.

 

A treaty with a discredited and ineffective organisation like the UDL would be a mistake.

 

This isn't a view shared by everybody. The UDL is one of three most active defense forces in the game, so we can't simply ignore them. We also can't hold on to the meme that the UDL is "discredited and ineffective" when clearly a lot of people still take it very seriously. Renewed relations has been on the agenda for a few terms, now, under multiple and diverse Cabinets.

 

So, do we have a document saying that we are to help TNI -- or their allies -- in raiding missions? If it was never approved by the Assembly, it isn't the law of the land.

 

Our current treaty with TNI does not obligate TSP to aid TNI in their military operations unless the actual region of TNI is being attacked. When I mentioned that the Assembly didn't ratify a change in the treaty, I was talking about this post by Hileville where the Assembly was notified that TNI considered the treaty expanded to cover the entire UIAF and not just TNI. The Assembly never voted on that, but it seems to have been acquiesced by the Cabinet at the time.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
I should have been more clear.  The treaty did not change.  However all members of the UIAF are/were willing to come to our aid if it is needed.  This happened back w/ the Milograd coup we had UIAF soldiers helping us that we weren't treatied with which is the same as 10KI, UDL, and RRA.

 

I know it was asked earlier in the thread who supported us most during the coup and the answer would be a very diverse group of regions.  I do not have solid numbers anymore and don't believe I kept them but TNI/UIAF (collectively) and 10KI provided the most support.  UDL and Euro were pretty close in what they were able to provide with Euro just over top of UDL.  Now some UDL members objected to helping because of our cessation of relations while others either helped from UDL or other groups they were associated with.  The RRA did in fact deploy troops to help us.

 

I will also add that the NSA has recently worked with both the UDL and Lazarus armies on two different ops.  The idea that we can't work with the UDL or other defender groups is purely a political push for an end game which I and most others in TSP do not want.

[Sandaoguo]

Unibot and I do not share identical opinions and beliefs on this issue.This pattern of throwing together your intellectual enemies into the same person is annoying. Glen-Rhodes and Unibot are very different people, with different agendas, relationships, and beliefs.

[Sandaoguo]

The fact of the matter is that the treaty with TNI has brought TSP substantive benefit. It has brought us not only the benefit of their assistance during security crises, but also the addition of de facto allies by virtue of their alliance with TNI.

 

The question isn't if TNI has benefited TSP. They helped during the Milograd coup, so that question is already answered. The question is if the relationship has really been tested, and I argue that it hasn't. So it's premature to consider our relationship with TNI to be the most important relationship we have. So far, all that's happened is they aided in our coup. That's great, but you and others overstate the importance of that. First, it's important to remember the scale to which they helped. They did not overtake Milograd as delegate, which is the kind of impact it sounds like you guys believe they had. They helped, along with many other organizations, to drain Milograd's influence. Yet we do not view the UDL, Europeia, the RRA, etc., the same way we view TNI. You guys have placed such a strong emphasis on a relationship that's based on one action of importance, ignoring the fact that TNI and TSP rarely communicate and rarely work together.

 

My argument isn't that TNI is a useless ally. I'm arguing that the image promulgated by former Cabinet members and influential TSPers is exaggerated. The relationship we have with TNI has had practical impacts, which many have ignored or dismissed as unimportant. There's been a reluctance to question and analyze the relationship, and when somebody does start doing that, they're met with the kind of responses I'm being met with now. The insinuations that I'm working against TSP's interests, that I have an agenda to kick TNI out of the region at whatever costs. I'm sick of it and I won't let it prevent the current Cabinet from asking the tough questions that need to be asked.

[Cormac]

Unibot and I do not share identical opinions and beliefs on this issue.This pattern of throwing together your intellectual enemies into the same person is annoying. Glen-Rhodes and Unibot are very different people, with different agendas, relationships, and beliefs.

 

You do that on a near daily basis, generally lumping us all under the "anti-democratic" umbrella, but I apologize nonetheless.

 

However, what you do share in common is the distortion that we are not permitted to work with defender regions and organizations because of the TNI treaty. As I've already stated (and hasn't been addressed by either of you), TNI itself worked with the FRA and the UDL during the Milograd coup in April. NSA just worked with several FRA member regions, the UDL, and other defender regions to liberate Coalition of Leftist Comrades without a peep of opposition from TNI. There is absolutely no evidence that our treaty with TNI precludes any foreign affairs or military cooperation with defenders, even defenders with whom UIAF member regions are at war, and your claim that the treaty does preclude such cooperation is disingenous. We can work with defenders, we have worked with defenders. We can't (and shouldn't even want to) work with defenders against UIAF operations but that is a reasonable expectation, part of the give and take of treaty alliances. We can't have our cake and eat it too, expecting security benefits from the UIAF while running around like defenders and opposing their every raid of arbitrary regions to which TSP has no relationship.

 

You seem to be conflating working with defenders and treaty with the UDL. We can work with the UDL, yes. We can work with other defenders as well. Ratifying a treaty with the UDL, when we have a preexisting alliance with a region that has declared war against the UDL, is a bit more problematic. I question the wisdom, in any case, of ratifying a treaty with an organization with which TSP has had complicated relations, to say the least, when nothing has changed in those relations except the passage of time. Perhaps we should try actually working with the UDL a bit more before we jump into a treaty alliance with an organization with which we previously severed all relations. Perhaps we should see if there's even anything here worth a treaty alliance before we jeopardize a treaty alliance that has already provided us substantive benefit for an alliance that might completely implode because of the political immaturity of the UDL.

 

Let me ask you this, Glen-Rhodes: If we ratified a treaty with The Rejected Realms or Lazarus, and then for some reason attacked another FRA member region, what do you think the response of the former would be? In fact, what is the required response under the terms of the FRA Charter? Now, tell me how that's any different than respecting the other regions with which TNI has ratified an organizational alliance except that you like defender regions better.

[Unibot]

I think its also silly to compare UDL's numbers in April when I wasn't around to assist in the liberation, with now. 

 

All of the liberations I've overseen since I've been back have had the same sort of numbers we always had -- contrary to MadJack's repeated meme about how UDL lacks troops or such. Part of the problem was UDL was going through a very difficult and unprecedented leadership change when TSP's coup happened, meaning if the coup had happened a week before, UDL's strength would have been double it would have been. I had resigned less than a week before TSP's coup -- and until then, I had led all of UDL's major liberations. In fact, I had led all of the major liberations, period, in defenderdom for two years. I knew the people who I needed to contact for liberations - I have them memorized, I don't keep an update to date list for fear of spies and converters. Furthermore, even at our weakest point, UDL was still able to field as many as updaters as another one of our beloved allies, Europeia. 

 

If you want a region liberated, you need the experience of people who liberate regions regularly - that's defenders, not imperialists. 

 

 

 

Perhaps we should try actually working with the UDL a bit more before we jump into a treaty alliance with an organization with which we previously severed all relations. Perhaps we should see if there's even anything here worth a treaty alliance before we jeopardize a treaty alliance that has already provided us substantive benefit for an alliance that might completely implode because of the political immaturity of the UDL.

 

The only reason why a TNI treaty would be jeopardized by a UDL treaty is because of the political immaturity of TNI -- as you said in the beginning of your post, then contradicted yourself by explaining all of the reasons why we shouldn't "upset" TNI with a UDL treaty. Either they're immature or they're not, Cormac. Stick to your notes. 

[Unibot]

I will also add that the NSA has recently worked with both the UDL and Lazarus armies on two different ops.  The idea that we can't work with the UDL or other defender groups is purely a political push for an end game which I and most others in TSP do not want.
 

 

 

Many of the pro-imperialist commentators here are pushing for an end-game -- is it a diametric choice between UIAF and UDL or is it not? 

[Cormac]

So you maintain, then, that the UDL cannot effectively liberate regions without you specifically? Duly noted, for whenever a UDL treaty is proposed. Considering you have been the source of the problems between TSP and the UDL, it is a very bad idea for TSP to enter into a treaty that is entirely dependent upon you for its security benefits to TSP.

 

TNI is a region that liberates GCRs regularly, and with skill. It has participated in as many GCR liberations as the UDL has. Given that there is a huge difference between GCR liberations and UCR liberations, that's all that matters. Your "skill" -- if throwing a bunch of noobs into an IRC channel and yelling GOGOGOGOGO can be called skill -- in liberating UCRs has zero bearing on GCR liberations.

 

A UDL treaty would jeopardize the TNI treaty because TNI is at war with the UDL. I see no reason at this moment why a UDL treaty would even benefit TSP, given all the problems TSP has had with the UDL in the past. It's entirely possible the TNI treaty would survive ratification of a treaty with the UDL, but I don't see any reason we should even take the risk. TNI has provided substantive benefit to TSP and the UDL has provided the same benefits, but with added drama that TNI has never brought to the table. We can work with the UDL without a treaty, on a case by case basis and not against UIAF operations. If we find that our working relationship with the UDL is fruitful, we could explore a treaty then. Jumping into a treaty with the UDL now, after everything TSP and the UDL have been through and quite frankly with you resuming activity in the UDL, is nonsense. UDL has given TSP no reason to seriously consider a treaty.

[Sandaoguo]

However, what you do share in common is the distortion that we are not permitted to work with defender regions and organizations because of the TNI treaty. As I've already stated (and hasn't been addressed by either of you), TNI itself worked with the FRA and the UDL during the Milograd coup in April.

I highly doubt TNI, the FRA, and the UDL worked together, rather than worked independently towards a common goal. Either way, it's pretty clear that I'm talking about working with defenders opposite TNI. As in, participate in defense missions on the opposite side of the "battlefield." Because the UIAF is one of the most active groups out there, being forced to avoid meeting them "in battle" is very limiting.

There is absolutely no evidence that our treaty with TNI precludes any foreign affairs or military cooperation with defenders, even defenders with whom UIAF member regions are at war, and your claim that the treaty does preclude such cooperation is disingenous.

It would be an outright lie if I actually said the treaty precludes cooperation with defenders. I'm not concerned about what the treaty says, in all honesty. I'm concerned about the politics surrounding the treaty, because actual treaty text in NationStates means squat when politics is involved. Just look at the various no-safe-harbor clauses that aren't ever enforced, or see the prime example of the Pan-Sinker Security Pact being dissolved because the politics worked against the interests the Balder and Osiris elites.

I don't think it's unreasonable to question if TNI would object to stronger relations with the UDL, or question how TNI would react on high-profile non-antifa missions. A lot of smart and influential people been assuming there would be a reaction, which is partly why TSP-UDL relations have been on the back-burner for months.

We can't (and shouldn't even want to) work with defenders against UIAF operations but that is a reasonable expectation, part of the give and take of treaty alliances. We can't have our cake and eat it too, expecting security benefits from the UIAF while running around like defenders and opposing their every raid of arbitrary regions to which TSP has no relationship.

There's no law of the universe that says this. The UDL has been prepared to allow TSP to meet them on opposite sides of the "battlefield." It's been in pretty much every agreement worked out between us. That's because these are, as you say, security alliances. The primary goal we have is to secure enough people to fight back against a coup. What TNI, the UDL, and other regions and organizations get is the legitimating status of the treaty. That's always been the public expectation of these treaties.

What you're describing is a broader partnership with the UIAF that the Assembly never ratified. First of all, the Assembly never ratified the idea that the TNI-TSP treaty applies to the UIAF as a whole. Second, the Assembly never agreed that TSP would forgo participating in missions against TNI, let alone the entire UIAF. The Assembly signed a treaty that says that TNI and TSP will protect one another against attacks. That's all. The the idea that there is an expectation within security agreement that TSP can't defend against TNI is a political construction.
 

You seem to be conflating working with defenders and treaty with the UDL.

Merely working with the UDL was at one time a point of contention. I am not conflating them, but I have been saying "renewing the TFSP-UDL relationship," which implies more than simply teaming up with the UDL for antifa operations.

I question the wisdom, in any case, of ratifying a treaty with an organization with which TSP has had complicated relations, to say the least, when nothing has changed in those relations except the passage of time.

Lastly, I'd like to correct with misconception. "TSP" has not had complicated relations with the "UDL." Individual members of previous Cabinets have had complicated personal relations mostly with Unibot, but sometimes with other members of the UDL.

Perhaps we should try actually working with the UDL a bit more...

Yes, this is what we've been working towards. It's what I've been talking about when I advocate confidence-building measures. It's also what Belschaft's Cabinet had trouble working towards, because of distractions and, well, the fact that TNI is "at war" with the UDL. When I was Chair of the Assembly in that Cabinet, I advocated a incremental approach to renewing relations with the UDL, and even that was met with skepticism from some other Cabinet members. Beyond the TNI-at-war thing, some Cabinet members couldn't get beyond their personal feelings about Unibot.

Let me ask you this, Glen-Rhodes: If we ratified a treaty with The Rejected Realms or Lazarus, and then for some reason attacked another FRA member region, what do you think the response of the former would be? In fact, what is the required response under the terms of the FRA Charter? Now, tell me how that's any different than respecting the other regions with which TNI has ratified an organizational alliance except that you like defender regions better.

If we were to seek a treaty with TRR and Lazarus, under my tenure as MoFA, these problems would be addressed prior to sending the treaty to the Assembly, rather than months after.

[Cormac]

Bottom line for me:

 

The TNI treaty has provided substantive benefit to TSP. The only people I see complaining about it are two defender ideologues.

 

UDL has provided similar substantive benefit to TSP, but also plenty of drama, and the UDL's ability to provide such benefit is inconsistent and, according to Unibot, entirely dependent upon him.

 

I see no benefit to TSP in working against UIAF operations with the UDL or any other defenders, and neither Glen nor Unibot have made any case whatsoever for how this would be beneficial to TSP.

 

NSA is still quite able to work with defenders, including UDL, not just on Antifa operations but against other raider operations. We are limited only in working against our treaty allies, which includes joint UIAF operations. This literally poses zero problem to TSP or NSA, though it is a problem for Glen and Unibot in their ideological extremism.

 

TSP does not need a treaty with the UDL to work with the UDL, and we should work with the UDL more before considering any treaty.

 

Given all of the above, I continue to be in favor of our treaty with TNI. I don't see any reason for it to be renegotiated, let alone repealed. And I will be a nay vote against ratification of any treaty with the UDL at this time, as I see no reason to jeopardize relations with a valuable treaty ally in favor of relations with a defender organization entirely reliant upon one person who isn't even the organization's leader and who has caused problems in TSP, and between TSP and UDL, numerous times in the past. If we work with the UDL more, I may be in favor of a treaty later. Right now it makes zero sense while our treaty with TNI makes sense to anyone who isn't a defender ideologue.

[Hileville]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">I will also add that the NSA has recently worked with both the UDL and Lazarus armies on two different ops.  The idea that we can't work with the UDL or other defender groups is purely a political push for an end game which I and most others in TSP do not want.
 

 

Many of the pro-imperialist commentators here are pushing for an end-game -- is it a diametric choice between UIAF and UDL or is it not? 


</blockquote>
I have never said that.  I will say I do not believe TSP is ready for a Treaty with the UDL.  I think more work needs to be done to repair relations between the two groups before we go down that road.  Until such a time that we work on rebuilding those bridges that you were mostly responsible for burning I will not support a treaty with the UDL.

[Southern Bellz]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">I will also add that the NSA has recently worked with both the UDL and Lazarus armies on two different ops.  The idea that we can't work with the UDL or other defender groups is purely a political push for an end game which I and most others in TSP do not want.
 

 

 

Many of the pro-imperialist commentators here are pushing for an end-game -- is it a diametric choice between UIAF and UDL or is it not? 

 


</blockquote>
 

No it's not.  

 

The UDL has been open to work with us (NSA) and we published their involvement in one of our operations and I have not heard any TNI protest at all.  In fact, I have talked to almost every type of military organization, and I have not had one issue regarding TSP working with both sides. 

 

The reason why we don't have a treaty with the UDL is because they had back to back scandals in this region and then one with TNP.  To make the lack of relations with the UDL about TNI is just not true.  I think UDL relations will strengthen with time, but it's just that, it needs time to develop.  I don't know where you got this idea that we haven't been advancing relations with them because of TNI, and I don't think anything was mentioned about what is happening between TNI and UDL outside of informing the region.

 

I am absolutely sick of this 'agenda' obsession you have with TNI. You have labeled me as some sort of advancer of the TNI agenda multiple time over the last month, when the only reason why I even comment on them is because you have brought it up constantly.  You've gone as far to even accuse people who support the delegate and VD to run on different tickets to be advancing the TNI agenda. 

[Escade]

Please note that we are all different people. Some people either have obvious personal differences or want to have them - it would behoove them to either sort them out privately or otherwise avoid engaging.

 

GR has expressed his concern over the UDL proposed treaty and I'm following this thread or your private concerns over this issue as well. That is why I'd like to meet with official TNI representatives and see what they have to say first.  In the long term I do see us rebuilding our relationship with the UDL, an organization that is not made up of one person.  

 

I'm sure whatever we propose, as an assembly we will vote in our aka TSP's best interests. 


With any treatied ally my approach will be befitting the fact that many people before me chose to ally with them and they must have some benefits or positives. I will present our discussions to the assembly anyway. If anyone is afraid that I will somehow destroy an alliance or something please be aware that friendship and cooperation is my modus operandi (unless I'm threatened obviously). 

 

Oh and one of the projects I would like assistance on is a timeline of NS events (as regards to TSP and then other GCRs) along with a chart that shows different groups and such.  I'll preview an example of what I mean probably tomorrow and will need helping filling things in. 

[StGeorgie]

In the long term I do see us rebuilding our relationship with the UDL, an organization that is not made up of one person.

According to that guy who is sniffing around you in IRC all the time, (in sex crime parlance, 'grooming'), the UDL is a one person organisation when it comes to big liberations.

 

And that is just one of the many problems of working with the UDL. There's Mahaj's immaturity (hey let's make 1000 cormac theme puppe-oh wait they've been deleted) and general untrustworthiness (see leaking scandal in Osiris prior to the dissolution of the Asta government), chronic inability to work with others ("i don't care about defender unity" - Unibot, "fuck the fra, flying their flags." also Unibot. "TITO are scum." Also also Unibot), infiltration of GCR armies (Ravania in TNP) and any number of other UDL scandals in the GCRs (anything Unibot has ever done could probably come under this).

 

Add to that the mere chance of offending a reliable, friendly ally - who has never had a scandal in the GCRs since the UDL's inception, for the record - plus the inability of the UDL to address TBR's dominance and the rise of alternative defending groups (Spiritus, Mordor, Lazarus, etc) and the UDL should be very close to the bottom of the list of who we should be even looking at in terms of treaties for the foreseeable future.

[Unibot]

The reason why we don't have a treaty with the UDL is because they had back to back scandals in this region and then one with TNP.  To make the lack of relations with the UDL about TNI is just not true.  I think UDL relations will strengthen with time, but it's just that, it needs time to develop.  I don't know where you got this idea that we haven't been advancing relations with them because of TNI, and I don't think anything was mentioned about what is happening between TNI and UDL outside of informing the region.
 

It was revealed that TNI was the reason why the UDL treaty was dropped. That's why. Also, Cormac's ranting in the thread suggested the two are diametic - that TSP needs to make a choice between TNI and UDL. I was curious whether you and Bel felt the same.

 

Thanks for replying.

 

I suppose my response to both you and Hileville is how much time needs to pass? I mean its edging towards to two years since TNI-TSP treaty and I'll be honest, I still don't think UDL did anything in that "incident". That was me contacting TSPers -- then the whole activity was blown out of proportion because it served a bunch of politicians interests and AMOM's vision for neo-Francoism. The worst of the public inquisition came when the person who talked me into not lobbying all of TSP (Ant), then accused me of "strategic lobbying" because I hadn't lobbied all of TSP -- the insanity of that mob justice still makes my blood boil. 

 

Not enough time could ever pass me to convince me that I was wrong to lobby citizens in a democracy. You all complained I had only lobbied UDLers -- just as I was in the progress of messaging the rest of TSP, I had been interrupted by Ant who told me not to. There were logs of this available and that part of the story is always overlooked by SB/Hileville and the rest of this public inquisition that's been going on for the past two years. 

[Cormac]

Unibot still doesn't think he did anything wrong. Unsurprising, and characteristic of the broader culture in the UDL -- which is another very good reason we shouldn't have a treaty alliance with them.

 

I also didn't say TSP "needs to make a choice between TNI and UDL," nor did I rant. What I said was that TNI's war with the UDL makes a treaty with the UDL complicated (though it's by no means either the only thing or the primary thing that complicates a UDL treaty), and that the level of risk to an existing alliance isn't, at this time, worth what the UDL has to offer.

 

I would also point out that the UDL's only treaty alliance is with the region Stargate. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the wisdom of entering into a treaty alliance with the UDL. I don't exactly see other regions clamoring to ratify treaties with the UDL either, and they don't all have treaty alliances with TNI. The UDL can't even get other defender regions to ratify treaties with them.

[Escade]

Cormac, doesn't UDL have a treaty with TEP?  Spiritus, Lazarus, Mordor - what organization are they working with?  I've met interesting people from all three of these regions who I actually remember.  I assumed that defender in their case means UDL, so please correct me if that isn't so. What other major defenders are there?

 

St. Georgie that is uncalled for and.inappropriate. No one in their right mind could think that they could in any way "groom" me or otherwise push me in any way possible whether IRC, Skype, etc.  

 

Some people have already learned this the hard way in very shocking ways. You know who you are  

[Sandaoguo]

According to that guy who is sniffing around you in IRC all the time, (in sex crime parlance, 'grooming'), the UDL is a one person organisation when it comes to big liberations.

 

Insinuations, no matter how weak, that anybody is engaged in real-world illegal behavior, especially of a sexual nature, are not, to me, welcome on these forums. It is absolutely despicable that you are accusing a player in this game of "grooming" another player. Not only is it just disgusting, Georgie, but it's violation of the criminal code of TSP and Unibot could file against you in our court. I don't care if you can't stand Unibot. This kind of crap is taking it way too far.

[Escade]

Can someone privately explain to me, I took it as something offensive but not sure exactly what was meant there.