Regarding Lazarus

[HEM]

 

 

So, yeah, "Get over it" is actually an incredibly productive thing to say at this point. Get over the personal drama. If HEM and Belschaft want to make enemies out of another GCR, they need to provide some real reasons.

 

I have provided real reasons. The fact that you have chosen to ignore them does not make them "real".

[Sandaoguo]

I have provided real reasons. The fact that you have chosen to ignore them does not make them "real".

 

Your reason is that you, personally, cannot trust Milograd. You act like Milograd insulted your mom and killed your dog. All he did was poorly conduct a coup. Should we trust him here? No. But he cannot do anything to TSP from Lazarus, unless you're suggesting that he's such a military mastermind that he'll be the first ever delegate to conduct a successful GCR war. There most likely was not going to be a new era of close cooperation with Lazarus. But there is absolutely no reason, beyond your personal feelings about their delegate, why that necessitates a repeal of the treaty, which is a highly provocative act that's basically tantamount to a declaration of war.

 

We have so many dormant treaties, there's no reason why this one couldn't have sat alongside them. Yet you, Belschaft, and others want to actively pursue a policy that will put Lazarus and TSP at odds for god knows how long, certainly far beyond the point where Milograd is relevant. Is it really worth destroying relations with yet another GCR for the unforeseeable future, over Milograd?

 

<div>
We need to formally repeal it on our end. Bel doesn't have the power to override Assembly policy. While Laz has dealt with it on their end we still need to take care of it here.


Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

I can draft up a simple repeal. The earliest I'd be able to bring it to vote would be Friday night.

</div>

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="108109" data-time="1384388650">
<div>
I have provided real reasons. The fact that you have chosen to ignore them does not make them "real".

 

Your reason is that you, personally, cannot trust Milograd. You act like Milograd insulted your mom and killed your dog. All he did was poorly conduct a coup. Should we trust him here? No. But he cannot do anything to TSP from Lazarus, unless you're suggesting that he's such a military mastermind that he'll be the first ever delegate to conduct a successful GCR war. There most likely was not going to be a new era of close cooperation with Lazarus. But there is absolutely no reason, beyond your personal feelings about their delegate, why that necessitates a repeal of the treaty, which is a highly provocative act that's basically tantamount to a declaration of war.

 

We have so many dormant treaties, there's no reason why this one couldn't have sat alongside them. Yet you, Belschaft, and others want to actively pursue a policy that will put Lazarus and TSP at odds for god knows how long, certainly far beyond the point where Milograd is relevant. Is it really worth destroying relations with yet another GCR for the unforeseeable future, over Milograd?

</div>
</blockquote>
 

So this above is what I was trying to point out. Providing arguments as to why we should ignore Milo is argumentatively productive versus the previous statements.

 

That said, here's the issue we're now creating. We're saying that Milo doesn't have complete control over Lazarus's foreign policy, but we're giving Bels complete control over ours.

 

What about Uni's suggestion of sending over someone from here -- ideally (I'd assume) Kris -- to try and mend fences? Point out that while certain people feel one way, the region hasn't ratified anything and apologizes for the leaking of information from a behind closed door discussion?

[HEM]

 

 

Your reason is that you, personally, cannot trust Milograd. You act like Milograd insulted your mom and killed your dog. All he did was poorly conduct a coup. Should we trust him here? No. But he cannot do anything to TSP from Lazarus, unless you're suggesting that he's such a military mastermind that he'll be the first ever delegate to conduct a successful GCR war. There most likely was not going to be a new era of close cooperation with Lazarus. But there is absolutely no reason, beyond your personal feelings about their delegate, why that necessitates a repeal of the treaty, which is a highly provocative act that's basically tantamount to a declaration of war.

 

...No. Why don't you read some of the things I've actually said instead of leaping to the conclusion that you wish were true. 

 

Here's some samples of solid arguments I have given for ending this alliance:

 

"Honestly, from the outset I can't name many things Lazarus has to offer us."

 

"With Milograd in charge I see Lazarus going from offering us nothing, to actually making our lives harder. Wait for it, in two months he's going to request to come here for a conference, a meeting, a barndance -- whatever -- and we are going to have to have a multi-page divisive discussion on whether he is allowed. "

 

"Our goal is to have allies that are worth something. Like I said before, this has nothing to do with my feelings. Also, you need to deeply consider the message Lazarus is sending us about how they value our alliance when they make their leader someone who attacked us. Even the Pacific wasn't that crass toward us."

 

"If what Lazarus does is not our business, then why have an alliance in the first place? What is the point of any alliances? The point of being allies is to be friends, and what they are doing shows very clearly that they have no interest in being friendly to us."

 

"If Lazarus respects our region, respects what we endured because of this unsavory player, they should reject him as their leader. That shows that they consider us to be their friends, and that they value our community (i.e. the community Milograd attempted to destroy). That's their choice, they are free to make it, but it reflects on their value of the South Pacific."

 

There 'ya go. Educate yourself a bit before you try to generalize the people who think are wrong as emotional morons.

 

[Sandaoguo]

I don't see how that's inconsistent with what I said, HEM. I highly doubt TSP played any role in Harmie choosing Milograd as the next Chairman. <i>You're</i> the one interpreting it as a clear signal of aggressiveness, because you don't trust Milograd.

 

As for the notion that Lazarus doesn't "offer" us anything: it's too late to consider that. You guys should've considered the point of a treaty with Lazarus before passing it. Rather, the treaty was passed because the GCR community at the time was obsessed with treaties for their own sake. Lazarus doesn't have anything to offer us, but there are costs to dissolving the treaty. Nowadays, treaties aren't dissolved without serious consequences. If we thought the "alliance" wasn't mutually beneficial, we should have used actual diplomacy and approached Lazarus about mutually dissolving it. Instead, Belschaft kept pushing a unilateral repeal, because he just doesn't like Milograd.

 

@tsunamy: It's possible, but I don't think Lazarus would see it as very credible. They probably think the delegate controls TSP foreign policy, so anything negotiated without his approval wouldn't be credible at all. There's a split in the Cabinet and the Assembly that has to be mended before they'd be willing to negotiate another agreement.

[Unibot]

I think Lazarus could see it as credible and genuine -- Milograd has been an involved member in TSP and knows the Assembly has a great deal of power. Likewise, there's some issues on Lazarus's side involving a constitutional discussion of whether Milograd has the right to unilaterally dissolve the treaty ... he may welcome the opportunity to cancel the dissolution and save himself the argument.

[QuietDad]

I'm starting to wonder why a region that has the OPs in it's IRC channel being the delegates and protectors of all the other regions (Right now the the OPs on IRC are Asta and McMasterdonia (The North Pacific, McMasterdonia being the current delegate), Todd McCloud (The East Pacific who was removed from admin duties in our forum), Eluvater <b>(</b>Taijitu formerly of the North Pacific and even once up for being condemned by the WA for his actions) and Hileville who is ours and if I remember, the original creator/register/owner of the channel)), all except Hileville having nothing to do with TSP anymore but all in the game for a long time and some who had issues with TSP in the past and none of our cabinet has an issue with someone we sent away and has made a new life elsewhere and is really of no immediate threat to us.

[Hileville]

I'm starting to wonder why a region that has the OPs in it's IRC channel being the delegates and protectors of all the other regions (Right now the the OPs on IRC are Asta and McMasterdonia (The North Pacific, McMasterdonia being the current delegate), Todd McCloud (The East Pacific who was removed from admin duties in our forum), Eluvater (Taijitu formerly of the North Pacific and even once up for being condemned by the WA for his actions) and Hileville who is ours and if I remember, the original creator/register/owner of the channel)), all except Hileville having nothing to do with TSP anymore but all in the game for a long time and some who had issues with TSP in the past and none of our cabinet has an issue with someone we sent away and has made a new life elsewhere and is really of no immediate threat to us.

IRC is not governed by the forums nor the region. The ops of the channel are hand selected by me based on their IRC activity levels.  Awe, Bel, SB, and GR are also ops in the channel.


Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[QuietDad]

I've been in the game long enough to know the names and why they are there and have no issue with it personally. I know the hazards of IRC and the need for REALLY trusted people as ops in a channel. Just trying to point out that if this situation has never raised an eyebrow in the region then Lazurus should be no big deal either,

[StGeorgie]

I agree with G-R. Osiris was a lot different as a case than Lazarus -- in Osiris, the constitution was voided illegally

This just isn't true. Every action Asta took was legal under the laws of the Kemetic Republic.

 

Look, I get it. You don't like Osiris. You don't like Asta. Whatever. But this doesn't mean you have to pursue some shitty little vendetta and lie about it every two seconds. Basically, get over yourself.

[HEM]

I don't see how that's inconsistent with what I said, HEM. I highly doubt TSP played any role in Harmie choosing Milograd as the next Chairman. <i>You're</i> the one interpreting it as a clear signal of aggressiveness, because you don't trust Milograd.

 

As for the notion that Lazarus doesn't "offer" us anything: it's too late to consider that. You guys should've considered the point of a treaty with Lazarus before passing it. Rather, the treaty was passed because the GCR community at the time was obsessed with treaties for their own sake. Lazarus doesn't have anything to offer us, but there are costs to dissolving the treaty. Nowadays, treaties aren't dissolved without serious consequences. If we thought the "alliance" wasn't mutually beneficial, we should have used actual diplomacy and approached Lazarus about mutually dissolving it. Instead, Belschaft kept pushing a unilateral repeal, because he just doesn't like Milograd.

 

@tsunamy: It's possible, but I don't think Lazarus would see it as very credible. They probably think the delegate controls TSP foreign policy, so anything negotiated without his approval wouldn't be credible at all. There's a split in the Cabinet and the Assembly that has to be mended before they'd be willing to negotiate another agreement.

 

I'm interpreting it as what it is. If you respect an ally, you don't make a man convicted (in your allied allied region) of grand treason your leader. I don't know anything about the Lazarus political system, but that's just a simple fact. 

 

And the idea that you can't "reconsider" treaties is just...stupid. A treaty does not bond you for life, nor should it. Sometimes an alliance is just for a reason and the regions move in different directions. The direction Lazarus is moving in is a tad disturbing to me, but everything I have heard is hearsay and quite frankly, I don't have time to investigate all the allegations being made. 

 

...And seriously man -- lol -- "serious consequences"? What are these phantom serious consequences? 

 

Okay, yeah, if we decided today to break all alliances and attack every region we are allied with, we'd probably have some PR problems. But there are no foreign repercussions to respectfully backing away from a former ally when you simply don't want to be bond with them anymore.

[Southern Bellz]

I dont want to be bound to do anything for a Milograd led region.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Kris Kringle]

It won't be forever led by Milograd and we can't make enemies with another region because of who is its leader. Our relationship with Lazarus should transcend the leadership in both of us.

[Unibot]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unibot" data-cid="108021" data-time="1384296038">
I agree with G-R. Osiris was a lot different as a case than Lazarus -- in Osiris, the constitution was voided illegally

This just isn't true. Every action Asta took was legal under the laws of the Kemetic Republic.

 

Look, I get it. You don't like Osiris. You don't like Asta. Whatever. But this doesn't mean you have to pursue some shitty little vendetta and lie about it every two seconds. Basically, get over yourself.</blockquote>


Just because I've got concerns about the Osirian regime doesn't mean I dislike Osiris -- that's an pretty odd dichotomy ("you're either for the party or against the party").

[StGeorgie]

You'd have a point if, periods of retirement aside, you havebt been going on at osiris for months.


This latest lie (that Asta's actions were illegal) is just the latest shot at osiris.

[tsunamy]

You'd have a point if, periods of retirement aside, you havebt been going on at osiris for months.


This latest lie (that Asta's actions were illegal) is just the latest shot at osiris.

 

Whatever the two of you want to say about Osiris, do it elsewhere. Let's keep this thread on topic.

[Kris Kringle]

Now there is the fact that since Lazarus hasn't posted their decision on our forum, so the case could be made that their repeal isn't valid, as per the terms of the treaty itself.

[Belschaft]

True. They have to give us five days notice.

[Unibot]

All the more reason to send a diplomat to ensure. at the very least. our formal treaty is ended in a mutually mature and presentable manner; instead of fueling our growing reputation as the impulsive feeder. 

 

I think Kris, QuietDad and G-R have the right idea here. 

[Kris Kringle]

Exactly. We should take advantage of the relative chance we have to engage Lazarus while we still have time, before this escalates or our relationship get even worse.

[Southern Bellz]

I motion to vote. 

 

I do think a decision should be made on this.  I want this treaty repealed, and I dont think the cabinet should be doing proactive or reactive moves on the assembly's behalf until it is voted on.

[Southern Bellz]

What's the point of this treaty?  History has SHOWN that Laz will only hold up their end of the bargain if it is convenient for them...

 

This is a joke

 

 

 

3) Neither signatory shall harbour an individual who attempts to overthrow the regime of the other signatory. 

 

Not only do they HARBOR someone who overthrew the region, but he is the head of their region.

 

Secondly, I don't think we should be obligated to come to their aid or be obligated to share anything with them, and they have shown their word means nothings in terms of this treaty.

 

 

 

4) Both signatories agree to provide diplomatic and military support to one another in the event of an invasian or attempted coup against a signatory region if requested. 

5) Each signatory agrees to share any relevant intelligence with the other signatory region, unless doing so would violate any standing agreements with other regions. 

[HEM]

Can someone please explain to me what exactly is worth saving here?

[QuietDad]

At this point, I would vote to end the treaty. Once again, A message from us saying we find actions of their region has made the treaty null and void and we no longer honer it. We understand your going through some changes and when things settle down, feel free to come to us and we'd be happy to discuss future relations. Period. Put the ball in their court. Come off as being reasonable a calm headed and move on. It then removes them from further thought until THEY knock on the door.

[Kris Kringle]

If we follow that course of action, when exactly is "when things settle down"? Not criticizing, just trying to get a full picture before actually commenting on this.