[Withdrawn] Amendment to CAIN treaty

[Dalimbar]

No, I completely disagree that it was forum destruction which did us in. It severely limited us operationally for a period of time (which is completely understandable, as I'm sure you can appreciate), but the death throws for both the RLA and ADN was influence. As was the case for PRP, ACCEL, and the other old school organizations of the day. You only see FRA and UDL pop up in the immediate aftermath of those collapses.

Also, as you know I have better things to do, Cormac, than support your theory that I'm either gunning for a spot or secretly running this region. Please try to be creative with your commentary.

[Cormac]

No, I completely disagree that it was forum destruction which did us in. It severely limited us operationally for a period of time (which is completely understandable, as I'm sure you can appreciate), but the death throws for both the RLA and ADN was influence. As was the case for PRP, ACCEL, and the other old school organizations of the day. You only see FRA and UDL pop up in the immediate aftermath of those collapses.

I'm aware that regional influence had an across the board negative impact on the organizations that existed at that time. But you are seriously understating the effect of the forum destruction scandal upon the RLA, in order to undermine my contention that the history of interregional bureaucracy in NationStates is an overwhelmingly negative history. If you can cast doubt in the minds of voters that the RLA collapsed because its bureaucracy was corrupt and unaccountable, and instead make them believe that it was just because of circumstances beyond the RLA's control, that muddies the waters and makes it seem like CAIN may not turn out so bad after all.

You know how it will turn out. You have seen, with your own eyes, how interregional bureaucracy turns out. You've also seen what interregional bureaucracy has done to Osiris in the past. I have no idea why you are advocating for this.

[Dalimbar]

Let me be frank and state that I'm glad we're having a nice discussion here and not calling me a douche or other unkind words you had for others who are advocating much more strongly for this than I am. I was disappointed to read that, as you are better than that.

Now, your negativist attitude towards organization is astounding. What is the point of having a grouping of regions coordinating their activities for the purpose of fighting Nazi regions (or, whatever, insert enemy here) if there is not an organized framework in which to operate? Again, I have some reservations as to some of the specifics, such as the Europeia-hosting matter or also I'll include the fact that we should have more members be able to see and communicate to the CAIN board. I'm usually the cynic when it comes to interregional matters, Cormac. Yet, the near contempt you show with trying to work with other regions on a common cause is worrisome.

I'll be concerned if CAIN tries to become more than what it is: a coalition of regions working to resist and fight against Nazi regions. If it tries to become more than that, then certainly I'll voice my own opposition. For the purposes of its objective it needs to have more of a coherent structure so that it avoids the quagmires like it has faced in recent weeks. I'd personally like leadership in CAIN so that it acts effectively.

[Cormac]

Now, your negativist attitude towards organization is astounding. What is the point of having a grouping of regions coordinating their activities for the purpose of fighting Nazi regions (or, whatever, insert enemy here) if there is not an organized framework in which to operate? Again, I have some reservations as to some of the specifics, such as the Europea-hosting matter or also I'll include the fact that we should have more members be able to see and communicate to the CAIN board. I'm usually the cynic when it comes to interregional matters, Cormac. Yet, the near contempt you show with trying to work with other regions on a common cause is worrisome.

I'll be concerned if CAIN tries to become more than what it is: a coalition of regions working to resist and fight against Nazi regions. If it tries to become more than that, then certainly I'll voice my own opposition. For the purposes of its objective it needs to have more of a coherent structure so that it avoids the quagmires like it has faced in recent weeks. I'd personally like leadership in CAIN so that it acts effectively.

To say that I am against working with other regions on a common cause is to demonstrate your own ignorance of recent history. I'll enlighten you on my history with CAIN. As Pharaoh, I attended the initial CAIN conference, and was among its most active participants -- particularly in drafting of the Charter. I also altered Osiran military policy to allow limited defensive operations, despite Osiris' status as a raider region, in order to be more consistent with CAIN's aims. I awarded Brunhilde the Eye of Horus for outstanding contributions to foreign affairs, making her the first recipient of that award. More recently, despite my own concerns about CAIN's direction, I opposed a proposal to withdraw Osiris from CAIN because I believed it could be improved upon and should be given more of a chance.

What I am against is implementation of Pope Hope, ADN-style bureaucracy, which was replicated by SovCon to disastrous effect. You argue that in order to function as it should, CAIN needs centralized leadership. That may be true. But this model was not the only possible model. We could, for example, have selected the Secretary on a rotating basis among regional representatives, similar to how some real life international organizations rotate their leadership among their member states. With a fixed term of, say, two or even four months, a rotating administration would have prevented the monopolization of CAIN by a cult of personality or factional politicking, and would have given each signatory more of a stake in the well-being of CAIN administration. It would have prevented the organization from becoming an entity that is distant from its signatory regions, and would have encouraged active participation instead of passive rubber stamping of decisions made by a bureaucracy no one will hold accountable.

This idea, or other ideas, could have been discussed if regional representatives had bothered to consult the citizens of signatory regions in regard to this issue. But the existing CAIN bureaucracy is already so insular that it does not bother to consult the citizens of signatory regions in regard to any matter at all, and so here we are, voting on whether to implement the same kind of bureaucracy that has failed time and time again and caused problems both at the organizational level as well as for signatory regions. This elite decision making, which is already a problem, is only going to get worse with an entrenched bureaucracy in which Brunhilde -- or anyone else, for that matter -- becomes Pope Hope II. That is a bridge too far for me. I was willing to give CAIN a second chance after recent missteps, but I will not give the same failed model of interregional bureaucracy yet another chance.

[Revall]

Down with interregional bureaucracy, Osiris is better off avoiding unnecessary entanglements.

[Wymondham]

I motion to vote