[Discussion] TRR Non-Aggression Pact

[Cormac]

My inability to grasp basic english? My my, getting desperate with the attacks here, aren't we? Why did it take you this long to respond to this point, given I'm not the first one who raised it? *shrugs*

Anyway, I'll just sit here and look at the invader tag on the region and wonder what impression that conveys.

I tend to ignore Durk. Old habit.

Regional tags don't always mean what you would assume they mean, at least if you agree with Onder Kelkia's arguments, which I do. You see, all three UIAF member regions also have the Invader tag, but Onder insists that all three are imperialist regions, not raider regions. The Invader tag indicates that the primary military activity of such imperialist regions, including Osiris, is raiding, but that does not make them raider regions. They are imperialist regions that raid, and not even exclusively raid. If Osiris were a raider region I don't think we would have participated in the liberation of Liberal Haven.

So again, Osiris is an imperialist region, not a raider region. I'm only agreeing with Onder's argument in this regard.

Nonsense. You deliberately exaggerated it to support your own argument. That, or you really were ignorant enough to beleive what you were saying. Which is worse I wonder?

I like how you've called everyone here unreasonable for disagreeing though. Clearly it is unreasonable for citizens to have a different vision of where Osiris should be going. Cormac knows best, after all.

And yes, we do disagree on that. Shared vulnerabilities are a poor reason for alliances. Further, by this definition we should be treating founderless UCRs in the same manner, as they also share these characterisitics. I also would challenge the notion of vulnerabilities, there are plenty of GCRs that are perfectly secure against attack.

I actually believed most people would oppose attacking TRR for no reason, so I suppose we'll have to go with the "ignorant" explanation. And no, I did not call people unreasonable for disagreeing with this non-aggression pact. I called the very small minority of people here who have expressed that they would not rule out attacking TRR for no reason unreasonable, and I stand by that.

Who's taking arguments to their extreme now? Of course we shouldn't commit to non-aggression against every tiny, irrelevant founderless UCR. First of all, they simply don't matter whereas The Rejected Realms does on account of its size, its status as a Sinker, and its interregional political involvement. Second, founderless UCRs are not forced to be founderless; GCRs have no choice.

Why is that so disturbing? Does it concern you that Osiris will use its military in any manner fit for advancing the interests of Osiris? Do you think we should be willing to ignore our interests for the sake of some peculiar GCR unity notion? You are referencing a commitment to not attack them that has not been made anywhere.

It disturbs me that anyone would consider attacking The Rejected Realms for no reason, or that anyone would believe that could possibly be in the interests of Osiris, yes. We have no substantial problem with TRR. We aren't at war with them. Can you explain to me how it would ever be in our interests to attack another Sinker for no apparent reason?

I would similarly argue that your view of Unibot is, as I said earlier, naive. He is manipulative and will do whatever necessary to advance his dogmatic ideologies. To argue this had no basis in reality is to ignore Unibot's actions over the last year even, his tendencies are self evident. I worry a bit here, are you genuinely unable to recognise this about him, or are you ignoring it because you so desperately want this pact with TRR?

I want this pact with TRR because I want what I believe is best for Osiris. No, I am not too naive to recognize that people are manipulative, it's just that I've gained enough experience in NationStates to realize that's true of most people including some of the people participating in this very debate who are far more manipulative than Unibot and have years more practice. If I avoided manipulative people I would be avoiding a good three-quarters of NationStates Gameplay.

I don't make a habit of accepting such major assertions without evidence, especially when they form a substantial part of your argument for passing this treaty. Just because we affirmed your appointment does not mean we have to take your word on faith. Even democratically elected officials are expected to substantiate claims with evidence. Without any evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to think these views are of your own creation.

Thank you for calling me a liar, it's the highlight of my day.

Out of curiosity, if improving the perception of Osiris isn't my motivation and I'm lying through my teeth right now, as you've just accused, what do you theorize is my true motivation?

Ouch, does my opposition to your treaty here upset you, my Vizier? You certainly appear to be getting rather emotional, indulging in these attacks.

Cormac doesn't like me. Somehow I think I'll live.

Venico, Bob, and Andrew oppose the agreement, and I've been civil toward them. Vac initially opposed it as well and I was civil toward him. My problem with you is that you attacked me for no reason in your first reply to this discussion, and have viciously attacked me for no apparent reason in the past, and I don't tend to overlook that.

There was no reason for the debate to descend to this level of personal animosity, but I'm not the one who brought it here. I could refuse to stoop to your level, but that isn't my style. If you want to roll around in the mud like a pig, let's roll.

[Andrew]

Venico, Bob, and Andrew oppose the agreement, and I've been civil toward them. Vac initially opposed it as well and I was civil toward him. My problem with you is that you attacked me for no reason in your first reply to this discussion, and have viciously attacked me for no apparent reason in the past, and I don't tend to overlook that.

I would like to note that I , as of the moment, I am neither against or for this pact due to the strong arguments and points I have read

[Vaculatestar]

ummmm OK?

[Bob Moran]

We aren't working with them, we're agreeing not to attack them -- which we weren't going to do anyway. Nobody is ever going to give an order for the Sekhmet Legion to participate in an attack against The Rejected Realms or any other Sinker, and if anybody gives that order to the ISRA either they won't be in command of the ISRA anymore or we won't be in the ISRA anymore. That's the bottom line. Osiris does not attack other GCRs.

What we gain by putting what we already weren't going to do on paper is credibility and respectability that we currently don't have. Our treaties at the moment consist of treaties with UIAF member regions, Europeia, and Balder. Right now we look like a client state of the UIAF, and if the Deshret rejects this non-aggression pact we will look even more like a UIAF client state. Reality or not, we should not want that perception and we need to actually do something to correct it.

I said it was useless, but this is not the only reason I oppose it. I also said:

they'll face us on the field, it's inevitable, so there's no working with them as long as they remain defenders, and osiris remains raider.

We're working with them to write this treaty, and we are negociating with the same people (Unibot and Guy, isn't this guy a military commander?) who are going to interfere with our military actions. I reject any Diplomatic relations with them as long as they do not agree to stop indiscriminally Defendîng and Liberating regions we might seize.

As far as I'm concerned, the nature of their military stance puts them automatically in conflict with any region that raid.

[Treize Dreizehn]

I reject any Diplomatic relations with them as long as they do not agree to stop indiscriminally Defendîng and Liberating regions we might seize.

As far as I'm concerned, the nature of their military stance puts them automatically in conflict with any region that raid.

So your point of view is the gameplay flipped views of Unibot? I have to say it's a sad day indeed when a raider or imperialist is being less reasonable than the founder of UDL.

Look, this issue is simple. There are essentially two things going on in gameplay. Politics and R/D. This NAP is about the politics, not the R/D. There legitimate political reasons to hold a NAP with TRR and legitimate R/D reasons not to. This discussion isn't something we should take lightly however... but I think it is being taken just a little too seriously by all involved.

The R/D reasons to oppose this seem pretty weak. There is little chance of us ever invading TRR... I think we can all agree on that. Sure some might entertain the possibility but it's not very likely... and furthermore it wouldn't be a good use of our time, resources, morale, or WAs because it's TRR.

So that brings us to the political benefits. Further recognition. Check. Proving that we harbor no hatred of defenders like some early propaganda and a court case showed? Check. Showing the remaining regions of NS that we're not strict imperialist/raider zealots? Check.

Now. There are arguments to be made against those political benefits(one could even challenge the initial assumptions)... but even if we accepted them all(which is by no means assured) we're left with something that's neutral. No strong arguments for or against. It's a Non-Aggression Pact. It's supposed to be tepid. Yet the opposition is FIERCE. It makes little sense to me, until I see posts like that from Bob.

It's not at all conducive to a productive discussion, and we're better than that as a region and as a body.

But that's just like... my opinion... man.

[shetef]

Wow. Hell of a discussion to come into. I'll be brief. If anything I say has already been covered, forgive me - I'm not in a good state to go through the entirety of this discussion right at the moment what with all the drugs my doctor has me on. (My reading comprehension is shite at the moment.)

I agree that this NAP is not necessary, but I think Cormac is right that interregional treaties of any kind are rarely necessary - this doesn't prevent them from being beneficial.

At the same time, I share the skepticism toward TRR that others in this thread have expressed, although I personally have no out-and-out dislike toward them as a region. They've been none too friendly toward Osiris in the past, before or after the Malicious Revolution. While I understand the sentiment expressed by Bob and some others that them being a defender region automatically puts us at odds with them diplomatically, I don't think this necessarily has to be the case - Balder as an Imperialist region managed to maintain decent relations with a few defender groups during my time there, and Equilism has managed to keep passable relations with defenders after ditching defenderism.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I don't see how this treaty really puts Osiris at any disadvantage.

Non-Aggression Pact between Osiris and The Rejected Realms

Recognising that the past has been mired with diplomatic conflict and miscommunication between our regions,

Believing that any positive future relationship between our regions must first begin with mutual respect, recognition, and peace,

Both parties hereby:

1. Recognize the governments legally established under the Constitution of The Rejected Realms and the State Code of Osiris, and any legal successor governments thereto, as the legitimate governments of The Rejected Realms and Osiris, respectively.
This doesn't appear to me to be anything more than "we respect the sovereignty of OFO and the government of TRR".

2. Respect the sovereignty of these legitimate governments over their respective regions.
Kind of a repeat of clause 1, honestly.

3. Vow neither to invade the home region of the other party nor to participate in any action with the intent to overthrow their legitimate government as recognised in this Pact.
This doesn't immediately appear unreasonable to me. At this time I don't see how it would be in Osiris or Balder's best interests to invade TRR - for one thing, managing to hold it would be quite difficult since you can't banject defenders from it. If things were to change and it were in the best interests of Osiris to invade, my position would change and I'd be getting ready for update faster than a Mahaj fap.

4. Understand that the parties are expected to abide by the terms of this agreement in good faith and not seek to undermine its terms through the use of third parties.
I have no objection to this - it essentially states that TRR won't employ a middleman to destroy us and vice versa. If we were to go to war I'd rather act directly anyway.

I'm not suggesting by any means that we attempt to become close allies with TRR. If anything, this NAP really says (at least to me) "we won't fuck with you if you leave us alone." There are no provisions which explicitly prevent us from taking regions they may have liberated or from them liberating any regions we take.

I stand with NES in that I am not opposed to the invasion of TRR in principle - I'm entirely nihilistic when it comes to deciding whether it's all right to raid a given region. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, I see no need to keep that possibility open. After all, if relations between Osiris and TRR degenerate to the point where we're seriously considering invading TRR, we can just repeal this as easily as we passed it. I think it's worth checking TRR off the list of places to raid in order to assert our sovereignty and separation from TNI, UIAF et al.

[Bob Moran]

I reject any Diplomatic relations with them as long as they do not agree to stop indiscriminally Defendîng and Liberating regions we might seize.

As far as I'm concerned, the nature of their military stance puts them automatically in conflict with any region that raid.

So your point of view is the gameplay flipped views of Unibot? I have to say it's a sad day indeed when a raider or imperialist is being less reasonable than the founder of UDL.

Look, this issue is simple. There are essentially two things going on in gameplay. Politics and R/D. This NAP is about the politics, not the R/D. There legitimate political reasons to hold a NAP with TRR and legitimate R/D reasons not to. This discussion isn't something we should take lightly however... but I think it is being taken just a little too seriously by all involved.

The R/D reasons to oppose this seem pretty weak. There is little chance of us ever invading TRR... I think we can all agree on that. Sure some might entertain the possibility but it's not very likely... and furthermore it wouldn't be a good use of our time, resources, morale, or WAs because it's TRR.

So that brings us to the political benefits. Further recognition. Check. Proving that we harbor no hatred of defenders like some early propaganda and a court case showed? Check. Showing the remaining regions of NS that we're not strict imperialist/raider zealots? Check.

Now. There are arguments to be made against those political benefits(one could even challenge the initial assumptions)... but even if we accepted them all(which is by no means assured) we're left with something that's neutral. No strong arguments for or against. It's a Non-Aggression Pact. It's supposed to be tepid. Yet the opposition is FIERCE. It makes little sense to me, until I see posts like that from Bob.

It's not at all conducive to a productive discussion, and we're better than that as a region and as a body.

But that's just like... my opinion... man.

I wouldn't oppose a NAP with a defender region if it included a military truce to show our ability to compromise. Osiris doesn't attack TRR and affiliated regions, same for TRR, and neither side oppose military operations by identified units of Osi or TRR. That I would approve as a political act.

A simple Non aggression policy on each others home region is a half measure and makes no sense as long as they're going to oppose our region military (why show goodwill when they're gonna still attack us?). As long as they do I oppose negociating with them or offering them any kind of treaty other than a military stand down.

[War Wombat]

Dear Friends and Fraternal Comrades of the OFO,
I have thus far refrained from speaking, due to my relative inexperience to the realm of GCR politics. However, several aspects of this unexpectedly lively debate have so impressed themselves upon my mind that I now feel compelled to speak. The first aspect is allegations that some of those present do not care about the future of the OFO. However, the sheer number of arguments and the emotion that these individuals have clearly been seen to put behind their arguments testifies against such poisonous allegations. All serious contributors to this debate are fully committed to the spirit and the principles of the Osiris Fraternal Order. These are the principles that guided those who drove Empire from Osiris, and which, I believe, continue to guide those who hold power within the OFO

The second aspect of today’s debate which concerns me is the notion of an unprovoked attack by OFO on The Rejected Realms. Such an attack would no doubt be based solely on the respective ideologies of the regions. I am opposed to such an attack on principle due to what I perceive to be the facts of the matter. These are as follows. The first reason is that such an attack would be unlikely to be immediately and completely successful, leading to the situation of a drawn-out and mutually destructive war. The second reason is that such an attack would lend weight to the arguments of those who view Osiris as a “puppet” of some raider or imperialist elite. (If, indeed, such opinions exist.) For these reasons, I believe that we can agree that a cause-less invasion of the rejected realms is not in the best interest of Osiris currently, nor will it become one in the foreseeable future.

A third and final concerning aspect on which I feel I must speak is the seeming deficiency of civility that plagues today’s debate. The term “Fraternal,” implies love and respect for one another as well as a welcoming community. However, the actions of two prominent members of this community, including frequent, and often unfounded personal attacks against the other, seem juxtaposed to this “Fraternal” spirit. An outside observer, upon seeing this thread, could be led to the eventual (and false) conclusion that the community and atmosphere of Osiris have not changed since the coup which resulted in the birth of the OFO. I feel the need to implore all to maintain an atmosphere of professionalism, civility, and respect for the opinions of others within the Palace of the Deshret. For in truth, Osiris has changed since the coup, and it has changed for the better. When we banished Empire from our region, I would like to believe that we banished Greed, and Apathy, and Elitism, and Jealousy, and Hatred from it as well. Let us, through our speech and our actions, show Nationstates as a whole that the fraternal spirit is one of Trust, and Honor, and Respect, and Democracy, and Participation, and Diligence. Let us not become known as “Just another Osiris government,” but as the true and the greatest government of this region. In this, my honored colleagues, is where true success lies, not only for ourselves, but for Osiris, and for Nationstates as a whole.


On a quieter note, I would like to discuss my opinion of the issue at hand. I accept that it may be ill-informed, even naive, and is of little importance when compared to the opinions of my esteemed colleagues Venico, Cormac, and Cassius (as well as those others who have posted meaningful content here.) However, as an afterthought, I shall post it here anyway. I would firstly like to say that I applaud the intent of this agreement. There are several reasons, however, why I will vote Abstain on this issue, should it come to vote. The first is that it is far too soon for such a diplomatic agreement. For some time, Osiris was under the thumb of individuals aligned with the defender ideology. Needless to say, these individuals did nothing good for our region or its inhabitants. As such, resentment against this ideology is still too strong for such a measure to pass. Another reason for my decision is that there is little to persuade me that such an agreement would have a major tangible effect. Neither region seems truly able to attack the other without a long and mutually detrimental war. In addition, there is no real cause currently for either region to attack the other. From my perspective, it indeed seems, as others have suggested, that such a proposal could be interpreted as a waste of the Deshret’s time. Certainly, such a heated and unnecessary debate would seem to be such. Instead, my personal belief is that we should legislate on items more directly beneficial for our region.

So, that’s my two cents on the matter, please respond in whatever way you see fit or feel free to ignore my rambling post entirely. I wish you a good afternoon, good evening, or good night, depending on whatever time zone you happen to be in.

Sincerely Yours,
Vombatian Dreizhen

[Vaculatestar]

So your thoughts are that Mutual Assured Destruction so to speak should be enough to keep us from assaulting each other? At least until we "warm up" to each other a little bit?

[War Wombat]

Well, put like that, it does sound somewhat simplistic, when put like that. However, my opinion is not the main point of my contribution to this discussion, nor is it particularly relevant or as informed as the opinions of some of my colleagues.