Jump to content

The Union for Sphere Stability on Red


Letum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems you've already taken the tin foil hat for yourself if you honestly believe what you're claiming we believe, Thrash. I'd encourage a reread at the least. ;)

As Walsh has already started, we appreciate and are glad to have spoken together to address relevant topics with those who've approached us, and we look forward to the continued prosperity of the Red Sphere through the same peaceful cooperation.

Congrats on the treaty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just ensures NPO can do what it deems best for itself no matter what, all Reavers will be adopting another Sphere that more embraces the will of the inhabitants.
Rar Rar Down with NPO

 

Buuuuuuuuuuurp did you say something .. sorry was eating the sheep chops :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is amusing. Are you still pretending to have opened up the red sphere? Do you still expect us to believe that you view any other alliance on that sphere as an equal partner? As far as you're concerned, the red sphere is and always has been yours. You hardly even try to hide it. You get three seats, and the others two. How generous, not that means anything with your guaranteed majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good to see this posted..

 

To those who think this is NPO exerting control of red, get a grip. While there's no love lost between us, I hardly see some dastardly deed being done by them as it would affect them also.

Dastardly or not, they are objectively exerting control over red. You have been given a seat, the treaty even says as much. I'm sure great gains will come to Invicta as a result of this arrangement, but don't pretend that there is some great altruistic motive behind this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the treaty, per article 1- NPO isallowed a max of 3seats...which means they can receive a minimum of 0....highly unlikely that'll ever happen however...

This means that technically NPO is not guaranteed a senate seat except in article 2...

How generous :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the treaty, per article 1- NPO isallowed a max of 3seats...which means they can receive a minimum of 0....highly unlikely that'll ever happen however...

This means that technically NPO is not guaranteed a senate seat except in article 2...

How generous  :P

 

Although since Invicta and UCR are limited to one, it seems as though NPO is at a min/max of three.

 

But, feel free to put your tin foil hat on and think that something bad is going to happen to everyone on Red except NPO.

 

You were invited, you declined. If you had specific reasons for declining, you should have made people aware of it and your concerns could be alleviated.

 

This.  The second sentence, I mean. It begins and ends there, really, and I would hope with no hard feelings.

 

Regarding the third sentence, I will PM you the logs of my conversation with the NPO representative in the Red Unity channel.  I feel like it demonstrates my specific reasons for declining, and the fact that I made people aware of them in pretty plain language.  Didn't seem like much alleviation was on the way.

 

What will happen if [NPO doesn't] get your three seats?

 

So this is the closest I get to putting on the tin foil hat. Article III states:

 

Operation of the Red Sphere Senate is only to be considered valid through the context of this Union. Any acts made by nations not mandated or authorized by this Union are considered void by the signatories. The undersigned alliances shall do everything in their power to safeguard and protect the Red Senate for external threats and reserve the right to collaborate in resisting any Red Senate actions not authorized by the Union.
 
Not entirely certain what this exactly means (and was one of my concerns that wasn't alleviated, Thrash).  One possible interpretation is that the signatories of this treaty believe that its terms apply to non-signatories as well, and that compliance by non-signatories can be enforced  by any means necessary.
 
If that was not the intent of Article III, it should probably be revised, as I think a reasonable person could apply it in the manner I've outlined.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dastardly or not, they are objectively exerting control over red. You have been given a seat, the treaty even says as much. I'm sure great gains will come to Invicta as a result of this arrangement, but don't pretend that there is some great altruistic motive behind this.

 
In the current set-up of the team, the sheer weight of numbers that NPO has compared with everyone else would mean we have de facto control over red in any scenario save one where we consciously decide to give it up.
 
The treaty was made with that in mind, and in an attempt to most closely reflect the balance of where things would fall under full competition without actually launching a full competition and having the consequent vote splitting and diminished cooperation.
 
 

Although since Invicta and UCR are limited to one, it seems as though NPO is at a min/max of three.
 
 
This.  The second sentence, I mean. It begins and ends there, really, and I would hope with no hard feelings.
 
Regarding the third sentence, I will PM you the logs of my conversation with the NPO representative in the Red Unity channel.  I feel like it demonstrates my specific reasons for declining, and the fact that I made people aware of them in pretty plain language.  Didn't seem like much alleviation was on the way.


You have every right to not want to be part of this, and I don't take it the wrong way.

If you ever change your mind, our door is open.
 
 

So this is the closest I get to putting on the tin foil hat. Article III states:
 
Operation of the Red Sphere Senate is only to be considered valid through the context of this Union. Any acts made by nations not mandated or authorized by this Union are considered void by the signatories. The undersigned alliances shall do everything in their power to safeguard and protect the Red Senate for external threats and reserve the right to collaborate in resisting any Red Senate actions not authorized by the Union.
 
Not entirely certain what this exactly means (and was one of my concerns that wasn't alleviated, Thrash).  One possible interpretation is that the signatories of this treaty believe that its terms apply to non-signatories as well, and that compliance by non-signatories can be enforced  by any means necessary.
 
If that was not the intent of Article III, it should probably be revised, as I think a reasonable person could apply it in the manner I've outlined.


We have the right to oppose any third-party senate action, but neither the commitment nor the obligation to do so.

Generally, as mentioned, that comes about if there's some threat (mainly some kind of invasion in order to overturn all our votes) of the Senate being misused, and it is entirely voluntary on the behalf of all of the signatories what they wish to do about it.

Speaking for the NPO (and, without being egotistic, the most military muscle here), we don't regard the odd third-party senator making it in and not agreeing with us on proposals as anything we'd want to "enforce" compliance against. Such an act is more likely to engender and invitation to come over a forum where we lay out our calculations of why a vote isn't a good idea rather than any other action.

But yes, it is an open ended article because it gives us freedom to deal with open-ended situations. I do not know what the situation in the Red team will be a year or more from now, and whether the Senate is a tool in some kind of cold war between us and some new entrant, but I want the flexibility to deal with it. But unless someone tries to harm the NPO, I really have no reason to cause harm to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also inbefore Schatt and CoJ post :P

Needs more crazy-complicated language about tech deals and trade councils.

 

o/ Blue Dusk

 

In all seriousness, I was very proud of Red Dawn.  CoJ was Red by default because our only 2 embers were ex-Vox.  I set up a Red trade subforum without realizing NPO had one, spammed people, and Emperor Cortath came knocking to ask why I was poaching members (or some off-the-wall interpretation of my invitation to come trade).  We got on the same page about whatever some moron Pacifican cadet had told Cortath, and set about talking over a cooperation treaty.  A few other goofy post-Moldavi-Doctrine Red micros were invited, and things got super stupid when UED, who got up to 100 mmbers before snuffing out, tried to exclude ebil NPO.

 

The pretext was simple and grounded in Vox-Justitian philosophy:NPO was attacked because of its actions, and it was removed as a threat.  NPO was not intrinsically evil, nor intrinsically virtuous.  It was an AA on our team and it was in everyone's best interests to work together, and to give NPO the opportunity to be re-integrated into the world system.  Cult of Justitia was the first alliance to approach NPO in true open-armed cooperation post-Karma, and probably the last.  I'm good with that legacy.

Edited by Schattenmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPO has always done a good job with the red team senate so I personally don't see a need for a treaty/pact but I respect all parties involved in this endeavor.

 

Not to mention the fact that what is good for NPO and Invicta is likely good for errbody else on red.  Our level of concern is not terribly high

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
In the current set-up of the team, the sheer weight of numbers that NPO has compared with everyone else would mean we have de facto control over red in any scenario save one where we consciously decide to give it up.

 

NPO controls 33% of the nations on red, but demands 60% control of the senate. You could give up 1 seat to SRA and still control more of the senate than your nations represent of the red team if you were truly being magnanimous.

Edited by Unknown Smurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...