An Announcement from the Mushroom Kingdom

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1289946559' post='2515153']
Hold on now, if the Kingdom wants to be able to exercise the right to recall and expel ambassadors based on the behavior of the Pacifican body politic then so be it, but that implies that you guys have some sort of standards for conduct ie no censorship of ambassadorial statements. Assuming "having standards" is a valid precedent, which as I stated earlier I believe it is, [b]then it is certainly NPO's right to refuse admission to their cyberdomain.[/b] If the host nation is supposed to be held to certain standards of behavior, then so too is the ambassador and the alliance which he represents. Certainly one of those standards of diplomatic etiquette is not sending someone who has been declared persona non grata by the potential host alliance. You don't get to have it both ways my fungal friend.
[/quote]
Yes, and I have the right to defecate wherever I please. That doesn't mean that it's either socially acceptable or even a good idea to exercise that right without discretion.

[quote name='Straylight' timestamp='1289946850' post='2515164']
It was a temporary measure so that our more outspoken and uncouth members didn't create an incident with the Kingdom. Yet, it is apparent an incident is exactly what the Kingdom desired, considering how quickly embassies were shut down and this announcement created. Though the demasking (not banning*) was initially temporary, I wouldn't be surprised if the Emperor made it permanent after this stunt.
[/quote]
Yes, it is certainly a faux pas for the Mushroom Kingdom to alter their foreign relations with a third party without consulting said third party over a situation where said third party altered their foreign relations with the Mushroom Kingdom without consulting said Mushrom Kingdom.

Edit: clarity

Edited November 16, 2010 by ktarthan

[Ardus]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1289946559' post='2515153']
Hold on now, if the Kingdom wants to be able to exercise the right to recall and expel ambassadors based on the behavior of the Pacifican body politic then so be it, but that implies that you guys have some sort of standards for conduct ie no censorship of ambassadorial statements. Assuming "having standards" is a valid precedent, which as I stated earlier I believe it is, then it is certainly NPO's right to refuse admission to their cyberdomain. If the host nation is supposed to be held to certain standards of behavior, then so too is the ambassador and the alliance which he represents. Certainly one of those standards of diplomatic etiquette is not sending someone who has been declared persona non grata by the potential host alliance. You don't get to have it both ways my fungal friend.
[/quote]
I do not claim they lack the right to play gatekeeper to their home. They are a sovereign body. But the exercise of that right was not the specific lesson to be drawn from the sethb incident, a situation made terrible by the conduct of Pacificans, not the presence of sethb. It was not his fault they bubbled and frothed upon seeing him.

As for not sending people who are "persona non grata", it is reasonable to think one's loathing of Seerow and Tamerlane would fade with time. We were proven wrong with this event--NPO does not change its opinions with the passage of time.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1289946559' post='2515153']
Hold on now, if the Kingdom wants to be able to exercise the right to recall and expel ambassadors based on the behavior of the Pacifican body politic then so be it, but that implies that you guys have some sort of standards for conduct ie no censorship of ambassadorial statements. Assuming "having standards" is a valid precedent, which as I stated earlier I believe it is, then it is certainly NPO's right to refuse admission to their cyberdomain. If the host nation is supposed to be held to certain standards of behavior, then so too is the ambassador and the alliance which he represents. Certainly one of those standards of diplomatic etiquette is not sending someone who has been declared persona non grata by the potential host alliance. You don't get to have it both ways my fungal friend.
[/quote]

You assume MK was aware of this being the case 3 years later so I think we do, bud.

Edited November 16, 2010 by tamerlane

[Ardus]

[quote name='Straylight' timestamp='1289946850' post='2515164']
It was a temporary measure so that our more outspoken and uncouth members didn't create an incident with the Kingdom. Yet, it is apparent an incident is exactly what the Kingdom desired, considering how quickly embassies were shut down and this announcement created. Though the demasking (not banning*) was initially temporary, I wouldn't be surprised if the Emperor made it permanent after this stunt.
[/quote]
Temporary nothing. Your own official stated that "outcasts" would not be allowed diplomatic access--not then, not ever. Had he stated such was a temporary measure in order to gain time necessary to warn your own members to behave we'd have simply nodded and waited.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1289947146' post='2515170']
Yes, and I have the right to defecate wherever I please. That doesn't mean that it's either socially acceptable or even a good idea to do so without discretion.
[/quote]

Certainly, but does that standard not also apply to MK here? Discretion is the key word, and like I mentioned earlier I think MK is well within their rights to expel ambassadors to defend their own envoys. In fact, I hope they go further than just closing embassies and straight up refuse to directly talk to Pacifca. Get GPA to represent them, or you guys, it doesn't really matter who. I think that'd be an interesting precedent, and maybe make diplomacy ftw more difficult, possible allowing me to enjoy heating my popcorn by radiation.

And please do constrain yourself... this place stinks enough as is.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1289947750' post='2515180']
Certainly, but does that standard not also apply to MK here? Discretion is the key word, and like I mentioned earlier I think MK is well within their rights to expel ambassadors to defend their own envoys. In fact, I hope they go further than just closing embassies and straight up refuse to directly talk to Pacifca. Get GPA to represent them, or you guys, it doesn't really matter who. I think that'd be an interesting precedent, and maybe make diplomacy ftw more difficult, possible allowing me to enjoy heating my popcorn by radiation.

And please do constrain yourself... this place stinks enough as is.
[/quote]

Silly Lord Curzon, sticking to one argument while ignoring the far more egregious one: modifying posts of MK gov and diplomats.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289947196' post='2515173']
As for not sending people who are "persona non grata", it is reasonable to think one's loathing of Seerow and Tamerlane would fade with time. We were proven wrong with this event--NPO does not change its opinions with the passage of time.
[/quote]
So you consider it unreasonable someone or some alliance would keep the same opinion of dislike or hatred over a long period of time?

Edited November 16, 2010 by Alterego

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289947196' post='2515173']
I do not claim they lack the right to play gatekeeper to their home. They are a sovereign body. But the exercise of that right was not the specific lesson to be drawn from the sethb incident, a situation made terrible by the conduct of Pacificans, not the presence of sethb. It was not his fault they bubbled and frothed upon seeing him.

As for not sending people who are "persona non grata", it is reasonable to think one's loathing of Seerow and Tamerlane would fade with time. We were proven wrong with this event--NPO does not change its opinions with the passage of time.
[/quote]

Sure, I'm not implying Seerow and Tamerlane were properly PNG'ed, I dont particularly care tbqf. From the OP I was under the impression it was the edits and the general disrespect for your representatives that forced the recall and the expulsions.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289947196' post='2515173']I do not claim they lack the right to play gatekeeper to their home. They are a sovereign body. [/quote]
Indeed.
[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289947196' post='2515173']But the exercise of that right was not the specific lesson to be drawn from the sethb incident,[/quote]
Completely wrong. BR is strong headed and proud entity. Our embassies open. The lesson for the Order in that case is the complete opposite.

Do not let controversial individuals in, without clearing any air first. Be it just within it self or between it self and the other party in question. That was the lesson that needed to be learned IMO.

Its our sovereign right, as admitted by you.
[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289947196' post='2515173']As for not sending people who are "persona non grata", it is reasonable to think one's loathing of Seerow and Tamerlane would fade with time. We were proven wrong with this event--NPO does not change its opinions with the passage of time.[/quote]
Well, obviously by constant mentioning of what NPO did years ago (like MK did in this case) things arent forgotten just with "passage of time". Seems to me that only way they get resolved is if the air is cleared and effort put into it. I am unaware of any such successful attempt previous to this, with the individuals involved and NPO.

What passage of time does is, not resolve, but make it much more easier to finally do. While one could have made effort into it, now and here, obviously by turning this into public parade a different course has been taken.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Branimir

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289947854' post='2515184']
Silly Lord Curzon, sticking to one argument while ignoring the far more egregious one: modifying posts of MK gov and diplomats.
[/quote]

Silly Tamerlane, assuming my argument was in anyway disparaging of MK's actions in this row.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1289947750' post='2515180']
Certainly, but does that standard not also apply to MK here?
[/quote]
I haven't seen any evidence that MK has broken any standards they expect. As you've said above, the claim that seerow and tamerlame should not have been sent in the first place is contested, and not even the most relevant point.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1289948154' post='2515193']
Silly Tamerlane, assuming my argument was in anyway disparaging of MK's actions in this row.
[/quote]
Touche, sir.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1289948121' post='2515192']
Well, obviously by constant mentioning of what NPO did years ago (like MK did in this case) obviously things arent forgotten just with "passage of time". Seems to me that only way they get resolved is if the air is cleared and effort put into it. I am unaware of any such successful attempt previous to this, with the individuals involved and NPO.

What passage of time does is, not resolve, but make it much more easier to finally do. While one could have made effort into it, now and here, obviously by turning this into public parade a different course has been taken.
[/quote]
When an individual or group demonstrates they are unchanged, then the errors of the past remain applicable. As for "clearing the air", that can be difficult when the channels that can be utilized for doing so are shut tight. Seerow has stated that "clearing the air" was [i]precisely[/i] what he wanted to do. You've refused him the opportunity to do so.

[potato]

[quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1289943065' post='2515077']
I seem to remember a certain member of the community having his name changed against his will to Furry
[/quote]

Since you're so knowledgeable, you surely haven't missed that this issue was solved rather quickly (within a few hours at best) and this certain member knows exactly what to expect when he comes to MK. But I don't want your half-truths to get in the way of your sound logic.

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1289888380' post='2514199']
out of curiosity, what'd they edit? and what did they edit it to?
[/quote]
If they had answered that in the initial post, it would have probably weakened their argument, which is why they failed to leave out specifics and hope nobody asks. Or something.

Thanks for the drama though NPO. Hope someone follows through this time.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289948497' post='2515204']When an individual or group demonstrates they are unchanged, then the errors of the past remain applicable. [/quote]
What a peculiar line of thought. I would so love to hear, how you got all that from this and how that translates to NPO's behavior in GPA war, or the cherry picked line from its DoW?
[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289948497' post='2515204']As for "clearing the air", that can be difficult when the channels that can be utilized for doing so are shut tight. Seerow has stated that "clearing the air" was [i]precisely[/i] what he wanted to do. You've refused him the opportunity to do so.[/quote]
He neither is banned from our boards, nor from contacting respected goverment officials in NPO.

You are stretching this way to thin to make any sense. He just lost his status as your alliances embassy official, due to what government representatives of NPO (such as Jasmine and Stray) pointed out.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Branimir

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"]So, where is the proof that NPO edited post by MK diplomats on their own forums? Which they have a right to do anyways if it does not meet their community standards.

Also, what was the nature of the post that were edited? Certainly, cutting a few four letter words isn't a diplomatic insult.[/color]

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1289948380' post='2515199']
I haven't seen any evidence that MK has broken any standards they expect. As you've said above, the claim that seerow and tamerlame should not have been sent in the first place is contested, and not even the most relevant point.
[/quote]

Absolutely. I was mainly referring to incident regarding Sethb referenced in Ardus's earlier post. I would imagine is a fair bit more controversial than either the diplomats in question here.

Regardless of whether Pacifica wanted to claim that the two were not welcome they metaphorically issued them visas. Which is a tactic acceptance of their right to be there. As you say, the issue then turns to the edits. MK thinks its improper to censor their ambassadors so they recall ambassadors. The main question the revolves around that precedent and my point is if thats how MK chooses to wield its power great, here's to 'em. I understand it and quite frankly look forward to more precedent inducing moves.

In fact, as I stated earlier I wish they would take this one to its logical conclusion. Who needs disrespectful individuals clogging up your bandwidth anyway? If you're going to sever diplomatic ties, sever them.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[The MVP]

Congratulations are in order for Pacifica.
Tissues are in order for the Mushroom Kingdom.

[Ardus]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1289948933' post='2515214']
[color="#FF0000"]So, where is the proof that NPO edited post by MK diplomats on their own forums? Which they have a right to do anyways if it does not meet their community standards.

Also, what was the nature of the post that were edited? Certainly, cutting a few four letter words isn't a diplomatic insult.[/color]
[/quote]
That acceptable content was edited or eliminated is not a contested fact.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289948497' post='2515204']
When an individual or group demonstrates they are unchanged, then the errors of the past remain applicable.
[/quote]
Merely claiming they are unchanged doesnt show they are unchanged. You had to use a years old example to try and smear them by claiming they still have the same opinion on the seriousness of this issue rather than that was their opinion years ago.


[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289887926' post='2514184']
The New Pacific Order recently endeavored to edit the posts of and deport Kingdom diplomats from its Francograd Bureau. Given NPO's prior history of recognizing such conduct as valid [i]casus belli[/i], we can only conclude that their actions are intended to be of the most serious and deplorable nature. Fortunately for Pacifica, [b]we do not attribute the same degree of seriousness to the offense as they [size="3"]do[/size].[/b]



Signed,
[i]Ardus, Baron of Strategic Scheming[/i]
[/quote]

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289949159' post='2515221']
That acceptable content was edited or eliminated is not a contested fact.
[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]Don't dodge the question. An informative answer would provide valuable insight in whether or not MK has a valid greivance with NPO, or if you are merely stringing together another political blunder that have seemed to sprout up with more frequency in the past few months.[/color]

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289949159' post='2515221']
That acceptable content was edited or eliminated is not a contested fact.
[/quote]

Aren't asking questions about it contesting it? People clearly want to know what this content was.
Did said content even exist in the first place?

[Ardus]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1289948972' post='2515216']
Absolutely. I was mainly referring to incident regarding Sethb referenced in Ardus's earlier post. I would imagine is a fair bit more controversial than either the diplomats in question here.

Regardless of whether Pacifica wanted to claim that the two were not welcome they metaphorically issued them visas. Which is a tactic acceptance of their right to be there. As you say, the issue then turns to the edits. MK thinks its improper to censor their ambassadors so they recall ambassadors. The main question the revolves around that precedent and my point is if thats how MK chooses to wield its power great, here's to 'em. I understand it and quite frankly look forward to more precedent inducing moves.

In fact, as I stated earlier I wish they would take this one to its logical conclusion. Who needs disrespectful individuals clogging up your bandwidth anyway? If you're going to sever diplomatic ties, sever them.
[/quote]
We're not setting a precedent but rather conforming to one. All of this occurred in Francograd, so it's only appropriate that we check the precedents of that jurisdiction. As it turns out, a precedent was set through the inclusion of "editing posts" in a controversial justification of war. Editing posts in an embassy is a serious thing in Francograd. Actions by representatives of the Pacifican Emperor are serious things. Serious things deserve serious responses.

As for the logical conclusion, it was reached with the opening announcement. We've withdrawn and expelled. That was the end of the story. All of this is just epilogue.

[lebubu]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1289949550' post='2515232']
Aren't asking questions about it contesting it? People clearly want to know what this content was.
Did said content even exist in the first place?
[/quote]

I don't see any Pacificans contesting it.