Watch Blog

Interesting points. The first point you have, about how to handle diplomatic duties is certainly a legitimate argument, and as a leader in my own FA department, is one that I've been contemplating a lot recently.

In many ways, you are correct. It would be simply easier to get together a few government members to take care of an FA situation on IRC or Skype without having to worry about the layers of a diplomat corps. And while I could give you an argument of "well, everyone can be specialized for an alliance, and some people can handle it IF a government person is not around," chances are, that reasoning is still impractical.

I still advocate for the emissary system for two reasons. The first is that there is a substantial amount of data that we collect on alliances (non of which is secret stuff, for those worried about spais), including who are the governing members, when the alliance was established, contact information among other pieces of information. Holding such information collecting to the sole responsibility of single individual, or even a collection of individuals is not necessarily practical. But having individual diplomats responsible for knowing the alliance to which they are assigned, backwards and forwards? Now there is a real asset. We don't all have time to make connections with individuals in other alliances, but spreading out the net, an alliance as a whole can get to know more alliances in ways that a single MoFA would not be able to.

The second, and I would argue, the more important reason to have the diplomat system is that it's a way for members of an alliance to contribute and remain involved within the alliance. By learning more about the cyberverse, good diplomat techniques, etc., they will want to stick around and continue to contribute to the alliance and become even more of an asset.

Neither of these ideas are particularly easy to implement, but I believe both are necessary for making a strong FA department, as well as reinforcing a good internal atmosphere for an alliance.

Thanks, Ferrous. I see the benefits to the emissary system that you refer to. However, what we have run up against at NADC is the fact that our alliance is much smaller than our FA system was made for. We have had to be very picky about where to send our few trained diplomats. So, we have decided to look at more efficient ways of doing diplomacy.

My two cents on the 'Emissarial System':

Penny One: I'm not the only person who accesses CN mostly from their place of work. Most workplaces don't allow IRC access for valid reasons. My Board-surfing is the only way I can carry out my diplomatic duties.

Penny Two: Recordkeeping and Precision. I'd much rather be able to have a critical conversation about a treaty or somesuch carry out on message boards so a record of the conversation's progression is kept for quick reference by all involved. It also allows you to take your time and be as concise and legible as possible without having to worry that what you have to say might no longer be relevant to the stream of conversation within the next 30 seconds.

IRC isn't USELESS, but I think that for long-term diplomatic discussion and relation that boards and embassies are still the way to go.