Lynneth Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Subtle, do you not know what de facto means? For those who don't: de facto - In reality or fact; actually. de jure - According to law; by right. De facto thus very likely means in this context "In effect it was a merger by all means, the sole exception being law/the rules." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Subtle, do you not know what de facto means? For those who don't: de facto - In reality or fact; actually. de jure - According to law; by right. De facto thus very likely means in this context "In effect it was a merger by all means, the sole exception being law/the rules." Thank you, Lynneth. So, by that definition, even a de facto merger was still violating the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Frost Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Since I've already stated I'm strongly opposed to mergers in this thread, I had hoped to completely ignore this thread from my said post; after all, I did my part, I voted no, I tried to do something about it. However, it seems that this topic has exploded with the announcement of Greater Nordland. So I'm going to pose these questions to you, complainers, and hope that you can provide an answer that doesn't make you look ridiculous: ] Since Greater Nordland has been announced (after mergers were declared "allowed") and the people doing G.N are not going to back track and begin an RP of "hey let's form a super nation". Shoving all technicalities aside, shoving all the nit-picking out of the way, and getting straight down to the nit and grit; what is the point of constantly complaining about it? What are you going to do about it IC? because it's not going away just because you don't like it OOC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Thank you, Lynneth.So, by that definition, even a de facto merger was still violating the rules. Nope it wasn't as the Ruling only was about de jure mergers as to consider de facto violating rules you can just as well get rid of a large part of the treaties in existence. The difference being the NC featured common cultures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Nope it wasn't as the Ruling only was about de jure mergers as to consider de facto violating rules you can just as well get rid of a large part of the treaties in existence. The difference being the NC featured common cultures. You seem to have forgotten what "de facto" means: "It is a merger, only not by the rules". At a time where mergers were explicitely forbidden. Also, normal treaties are vastly different from mergers. A merger turns several smaller nations into one gigantic one, with them sharing technology on a scale impossible in normal treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Oh yeah, like long and serious discussions ever happen before something. The comintern alliance never had a long and serious IC discussion, they just one day formed an alliance. Most all of the treaties aren't RPed more than ours was. Yes my friend, isn't a four page thread on how we are going forth with Comintern and how it will exist enough, its atleast more then what you did for the merge. MUAHHAHAAHA CLICK ME Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 You seem to have forgotten what "de facto" means: "It is a merger, only not by the rules". At a time where mergers were explicitely forbidden. Also, normal treaties are vastly different from mergers. A merger turns several smaller nations into one gigantic one, with them sharing technology on a scale impossible in normal treaties. Look at the Comintern charter again and then come back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Look at the Comintern charter again and then come back. Nordland merger: Each of the former nations is turned into a province, becoming part of a bigger country. ComIntern: Each of the nations stays independent. Nordland merger: A government ruling over the provinces is introduced, with a Reichskaiser as ultimate ruler. (though elected) Ministries are introduced, setting the policies of Nordland. ComIntern: No centralised government is introduced. The member nations vote on every decision independently. There are no ministries, and each nation can have its own, completely independent policies. Nordland merger: Every province has its own army that is under the ultimate command of the "Greater General Staff". Only the Kanzler and Kaiser can override the General Staff, which commands the entire army of every single province. ComIntern: The member nations protect each other, coordinating their militaries in a quite decentralised way and often independent of each other. There is no ultimate decider, and aside from defensive actions - one of the members being attacked - all offensive or aggressive actions are voted on. This is not the case in Nordland, from what I see. Are that enough differences or would you like more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I would like to update my photo feelings on this situation. Again I leave it to everyone else to figure out where mergers are in this picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Nordland merger: Each of the former nations is turned into a province, becoming part of a bigger country. ComIntern: Each of the nations stays independent. A Central Government where every person gets a say Nordland merger: A government ruling over the provinces is introduced, with a Reichskaiser as ultimate ruler. (though elected) Ministries are introduced, setting the policies of Nordland. ComIntern: No centralised government is introduced. The member nations vote on every decision independently. There are no ministries, and each nation can have its own, completely independent policies. Again a Central Government where every person gets a say. Nordland merger: Every province has its own army that is under the ultimate command of the "Greater General Staff". Only the Kanzler and Kaiser can override the General Staff, which commands the entire army of every single province. ComIntern: The member nations protect each other, coordinating their militaries in a quite decentralised way and often independent of each other. There is no ultimate decider, and aside from defensive actions - one of the members being attacked - all offensive or aggressive actions are voted on. This is not the case in Nordland, from what I see. Are that enough differences or would you like more? Same with Nordland offensive actions will be voted upon and when a certain amount has been reached support is Mandatory. Except a more efficient process the basis is the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Same with Nordland offensive actions will be voted upon and when a certain amount has been reached support is Mandatory.Except a more efficient process the basis is the same. I guess you need to hear the other differences. One of which includes no overall tech sharing. Lynneth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) A Central Government where every person gets a sayAgain a Central Government where every person gets a say. Same with Nordland offensive actions will be voted upon and when a certain amount has been reached support is Mandatory. Except a more efficient process the basis is the same. central government Noun the government of a whole country, as opposed to the smaller organizations that govern counties, towns, and districts government of a whole country a whole country I don't see the ComIntern being one single country. Where does the treaty specify this? Nowhere, that's where. Also, please address my other points. Do not ignore them, unless you wish to ridicule yourself by selectively arguing only against the points for which you know a retort. Edited May 14, 2009 by Lynneth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) central government Noun the government of a whole country, as opposed to the smaller organizations that govern counties, towns, and districts government of a whole country a whole country I don't see the ComIntern being one single country. Where does the treaty specify this? Nowhere, that's where. Also, please address my other points. Do not ignore them, unless you wish to ridicule yourself by selectively arguing only against the points for which you know a retort. Where did I say they were exactly the same? Sure there are differences but in essence treaties influence Sovereignty too as you would not be allowe dto sign with an enemy of your partner unless you want to drop the latter. The Military in Comintern will move if a certain approval is achieved the same as the Nordland system works, regarding Economy; Comintern features free trade same with Nordland, Politics; If a nation decides to move away from Communism the charter allows it's expulsion. If a State within Nordland would change it's policy there would be no one to stop him. Edited May 14, 2009 by Centurius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Where did I say they were exactly the same? Sure there are differences but in essence treaties influence Sovereignty too as you would not be allowe dto sign with an enemy of your partner unless you want to drop the latter. The Military in Comintern will move if a certain approval is achieved the same as the Nordland system works, regarding Economy; Comintern features free trade same with Nordland, Politics; If a nation decides to move away from Communism the charter allows it's expulsion. If a State within Nordland would change it's policy there would be no one to stop him. Given THAT information...the ComIntern sounds better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I revise my opinion of mergers. KILL THEM ALL. They are not even legal yet, this is simply a thread to discuss if they should be legal, rules for them have not been decided and already one very poorly RP'd one has sprung up, and another is in the development stage. Remove them, remove de facto mergers, make people play out their own damn nation. FFS, this is nation level RP, not state level. You do not see advanced nations suddenly joining together. In reality only weak states merge, strong ones are almost opposed to it (They annex). So, would everybody please be quiet, sit down and pick up your ***** and just do some nation level RP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I revise my opinion of mergers.KILL THEM ALL. They are not even legal yet, this is simply a thread to discuss if they should be legal, rules for them have not been decided and already one very poorly RP'd one has sprung up, and another is in the development stage. Remove them, remove de facto mergers, make people play out their own damn nation. FFS, this is nation level RP, not state level. You do not see advanced nations suddenly joining together. In reality only weak states merge, strong ones are almost opposed to it (They annex). So, would everybody please be quiet, sit down and pick up your ***** and just do some nation level RP? Hell just froze over, I fully and completely agree with LVN here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) I revise my opinion of mergers.KILL THEM ALL. They are not even legal yet, this is simply a thread to discuss if they should be legal, rules for them have not been decided and already one very poorly RP'd one has sprung up, and another is in the development stage. Remove them, remove de facto mergers, make people play out their own damn nation. FFS, this is nation level RP, not state level. You do not see advanced nations suddenly joining together. In reality only weak states merge, strong ones are almost opposed to it (They annex). So, would everybody please be quiet, sit down and pick up your ***** and just do some nation level RP? Hell just froze over, I fully and completely agree with LVN here. Indeed, quite shocking. Personally, I have nothing against mergers, but they tend to be poorly-thought out and/or poorly RP'd pretty much every time. Edited May 14, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 -snip-. Shoving all technicalities aside, shoving all the nit-picking out of the way, and getting straight down to the nit and grit; what is the point of constantly complaining about it? What are you going to do about it IC? because it's not going away just because you don't like it OOC. oh what a great idea, IC handling. I'll get right on tha--- oh wait. Mergers have super huge military power, extra RPers for multiple situations, and IG stats that make even a group of small nations huge. Seems like there is nothing that can be done IC unless you make another COUNTER merger. Kinda like what was happening before with all the mergers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 You know what, I now concur with LVN. We haven't even laid the bricks yet and people are already running around, looking to do mega-mergers. This leads me to think that we will have an unthinkable amount of problems with merged nations - people thinking they're too strong, pushing limits, "you can't do it!", yadda yadda, lots of whining and grinning of teeth. WTG PPL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Why don't you just let us finish RPing the nitty gritty to these mergers before you start complaining about what you think we will do? USA hasn't even started to be officially merged, and NC is working on the nitty gritty of the merger. Neither of us are no where near done, and quite a few of you are complaining about something that is still unfinished. So please, wait until we are done RPing out the entire merger before you start saying thinking about what we're thinking we are with the merger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Why don't you just let us finish RPing the nitty gritty to these mergers before you start complaining about what you think we will do? USA hasn't even started to be officially merged, and NC is working on the nitty gritty of the merger. Neither of us are no where near done, and quite a few of you are complaining about something that is still unfinished. So please, wait until we are done RPing out the entire merger before you start saying thinking about what we're thinking we are with the merger. Mergers aren't even supposed to be happening or being thought about IC right now - idea's still on the table and details are being worked out. Christ, why can't you guys !@#$@#$ wait until this is done so we won't have problems with people running around and doing !@#$ mergers? Given that people won't even wait for the official guidelines of such hotly debated aspect of RP, it does lead me to think that those that will actually do mergers will be reckless as $%&@. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Oops, wrong topic to reply in. My bad. Edited May 14, 2009 by Drai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Why don't you just let us finish RPing the nitty gritty to these mergers before you start complaining about what you think we will do? USA hasn't even started to be officially merged, and NC is working on the nitty gritty of the merger. Neither of us are no where near done, and quite a few of you are complaining about something that is still unfinished. So please, wait until we are done RPing out the entire merger before you start saying thinking about what we're thinking we are with the merger. Yes, and the USA is actually going about it better. You, on the other hand, announced that POOF!, you're now one nation. You should have finished the preparations BEFORE making the public announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Mergers aren't even supposed to be happening or being thought about IC right now - idea's still on the table and details are being worked out. Christ, why can't you guys !@#$@#$ wait until this is done so we won't have problems with people running around and doing !@#$ mergers? Given that people won't even wait for the official guidelines of such hotly debated aspect of RP, it does lead me to think that those that will actually do mergers will be reckless as $%&@. Yes they are, didn't you read the OP of the thread? He laid down the basic guidelines and the USA & Nordland are following them. Neither are controlling other RPers military, killing off our players, ending nations, and we have the historical, logical or regional reason to do so. Edited May 14, 2009 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacharth Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Honestly, V, Subtle, and LVN, Voodoo is right, they have been legalised, calm down man. All people are pissed off about is that Nordland is back, and the only thing they're complaining about is us missing one single thread. I mean hell, at least we've got the same culture and actually had relations with each other, look at the USA! All they did was create a thread messaging all the nations of the US with, "Hey, although we don't know you or have anything in common with you, we want to create a union where you'll be reduced to a state." And don't tell me ANY of you have no bias. I can give you that example of bias, because it is strong in this thread. Why the $%&@ does everyone get all OOC up in arms and start whining every time something doesn't go their way? Why don't you all just sit tight and be quiet, you haven't even seen Nordland in action yet and you're already complaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.