Post Archive
Region: A Liberal Haven
The whole idea is fairly sound, but I just can't get over the penalization of people who don't live green. It seems a very controlling, and unacceptable, practice for government to undertake. Just my opinion of course.
Yeah, I'm not advocating the government should do it, but it would certainly get people to seriously think about their habits and how they affect the environment, especially in our disposable consumerist society. Personally, I'd be fine with it. However much people despise them, I'm perfectly okay with paying taxes. The government needs to be supported somehow, and everyone chipping in makes the most sense if they all live there. How the fed goes about using the money, though, is definitely something that needs closer scrutiny.
That's definitely true. So did you hear about the Democrat Senators(?) that went and hid in the woods to avoid that vote about Unions in Wisconsin?
I thought they hid in Chicago?
I'm really not entirelt sure.
Yeah. I'm having elections in my nation. Anyone wanna say who they endorse?
http://
forum.nationstates.net/
viewtopic.php?f
=5&t=96927
Sorry for putting up the url so oddly, but it was the only way to get it to link properly to the topic and show the entire url. It should work if you copy the entire url and paste it into the address bar on your computer.
Gas prices are going up... Seems like freedom is once again proving it isn't free.
Around here over the weekend, every gas station that I passed had the exact same price, $3.49. At least six or seven different places, all different companies. Seems like price fixing to me.
They've gone up about 30 cents around here... Still not terrible prices but if they continue going up like they've been projected to then it'll hit five dollars around summer. D:
I don't drive, but I remember watching a vlog yesterday, which, as we know, was a couple days after the start of the protests in Libya. Apparently gas prices rose,as FFF said, about 30 cents within the hour or so.
Hm.. Suppression. Useful game mechanic or unnecessary evil directed at limiting discussion?
It sounds like a helpful tool, especially in the larger regions where spamming occurs on a regular basis.
Anyone think more Arab governments will fall after Libya does? I think Bahrain or Yemen will be next, but I think if they keep succeeding like they have been, several more could follow after them.
I thought that by suppression, he meant just minimizing (best word for it I could think of) so that it doesn't take up as much space.
Also, it looks like you can also delete your regional message board posts too, no matter where they are. At this rate, it'll only be a matter of time before you can edit or quote them too. The RMB will be just like the forums. :)
@Laak I heard that the king of Saudi Arabia agreed to reforms, including becoming a constitutional monarchy, so, I wouldn't call that a fall since he agreed to do start the reforms over time.
Bahrain can't stay out of the television news forever (I've yet to see anything of it on t.v.). Pretty soon, everyone will know about how they gunned down protesters. Anyone else see that video?
I wonder what the US will do about Saudi Arabia becoming constitutional. Do we applaud the move towards democracy and accountability, even if it reduces our power in getting their oil?
And I've heard of the shootings in Bahrain on the news last week or so, but haven't seen the video. Do you know where to find it, Alevuss?
The video should be at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7OmTWkfqjo
I don't believe it actually shows the protesters being shot, but you can here the gun shots and see the protesters lieing in the street.
My fear is that they'll replace it with something worse. And yes Obama will applaud them but keep as neutral as possible.
Worse how? Saudi Arabia is already somewhat infamous for having pretty low standards of equality for women and civil rights in general. So far, most of the hard-core Sharia supporters haven't really been too significant in these movements towards democracy, have they? They seem mutually exclusive. Do you think the Saudi Arabian people would create a bad government, or just be hostile to the US?
The idea of this being a pre-cursor to a Caliphate may be so remote as to be laughable, but one or more of these nations descending into chaos with no government at all, like Somalia, seems to me to be a very real possiblity.
Maineiacs, it is only remote because it would never be allowed to happen by the West.
"In the heart of every cynic lies a disappointed idealist."
Ideally, I'd love for all of these peoples of all of these nations to gain access to democratic governments and modern liberties. As an American, however, I'm looking out for what is best for our interests. In most instances, these uprisings are not good for the United States.
I'd argue the tough love situation. These countries moving to democracy may not be good because it throws us off our norm getting what we want, where we want. But I think that it's time for the US to start learning that whether or not we're a superpower now doesn't mean we always will be. The only way we're ever going to be seen in a good light once we fall out of power is if we have actually earned the respect of other nations by acting like the respectable, democratic and civil nation we're supposed to be.
Of course, this will probably never happen while there are still so many Americans in the US.
Yes well we dont know what's completely going on. And political turmoil of this nature can lead to a Hitler as easily as it could a Lincoln or FDR.
Hiya! New nation, not new player. As for the topic at hand, the US will always be at the very least a great power. Unless a sinkhole eats North America or a 10 mile wide meteor impacts in Kansas we will always have the developmental head start, population and resources to be a pre-eminent power, regardless of how much further India, China and Russia will advance.
Welcome, SNE!
What if the Yellowstone caldera explodes? Similar to a meteor...
And you don't think anything could happen to throw the US off it's high horse? Not that I want something to, but I really think that, historically, no power in the world could/will last as long as its leaders ever hope. Rome collapsed eventually, the Mongols petered out, the British Empire fell apart. Compared to how long these powers lasted, we're still the new kid on the block, so I don't think we have to worry soon. But, I do think we're going to lose our preeminence at some point. And rather than just ignore that fact and pretend that we'll always be the best, I don't see a reason why the US shouldn't start being a responsible, truthful global power. If anything, I think that would help us last longer than continually throwing our weight around to make sure we get what we need.
Of course, I'm also very into science fiction and political/social/economic books, so maybe I'm just projecting some of the "fiction" ideas I've read.
I see a one world government coming into being very soon. The EU and UN are setting the foundation... Crazy as it sounds it's what I see happening.
I think that would be awesome. It seems strange that it's taken us so long to do it already. We're all the same species, we live on a tiny mote of dust in the middle of the universe, and yet we are still pretty intent on separating ourselves from the people we have to share this planet with.
I don't think the current political and social atmosphere in the US would support this, though. People (mostly conservatives, I feel, but this may not be the case) have been complaining that even government-run health insurance (which isn't at all what the health bill was, but it's how the Republicans spun it) was too "socialist" for America. They seem to believe that anything that they feel limits their individual rights, or anything that gives the government more power over how they conduct their personal lives, is terrible and invasive. A global government, which would potentially reign in our personal and political freedoms further than our current constitution, seems like the antithesis of the conservative mindset, mainly that the US should be able to do everything and anything it wants.
@Laak
For your first of your two latest posts, I do think the US will be around longer than you think.
1.) As you said, Americans have too many distractions to even care about the problems with their country.
2.) With the US, it's not as if so many Mexicans will jump over the border and overthrow the government.
As for the second post of yours, and the most recent...
I would hate it if there was one world government. It would be so simple for corruption to worm its way in and put us all under its greasy thumb. Not only that, but a lot of people do not like the same form of government. Instead of having one world government, I would rather have various states of differing political ideological beliefs, varying in size according to population, with some sort of International rules on how to treat the populace, wildlife, etc.
tl;dr
Greetings my fellow nations!
I propose that we need to improve the education system of the world. Children are our future, education is the requirement of all prosperity and the lifting of masses out of poverty. It is such a shame that some amongst us do not know how magnets work.
Quick! you must change your govt budget to teach them about magnets!
Oh please, it wasn't that long. Just supporting my argument.
I agree with you, though, too many nations are not putting enough money into education, but most are not in ALH. Alevuss puts nearly 30% of its Government budget into education, and yes, we do put much effort into the education of how magnets worth. Children are educated on them at a young age, and given far more detailed scientific explanations once they are older. This is so as to allow them to understand magnets, even if they believe the scientists are lieing. We have found that this method, though, encourages the belief of the scientific explanation of magnetism once the child grows older.
Alevuss, I'm not quite clear on why you think the US will be around longer. Can you explain those two points?
Also, I guess this is my inherent American dominance trait showing through, but I never even thought of whether or not everyone would want a global government. Living in a democracy, you kind of assume after a while that there's no better way to live; personal and political freedoms, economic freedoms, social freedoms. But I agree that there could be lots of people out there who wouldn't want the same sort of government. Truthfully, I think a democratic communism would be my ultimate form of rule. The people elect the officials, no one person can take too much control like the Soviet form of the government, but everyone is still supposed to chip in to better the lives of others.
The point I'm basically trying to make is that, if the U.S. becomes a weaker power, it won't be from invasion or rebellion, it'll be from its own politicians. Since few in the U.S. can really do much to stop them or care, the U.S. is given that much less to worry about on the homefront. As for with other countries, they can stop the U.S.'s economic power, but it will take decades for them to do so, not that the U.S. won't fall from being the world's top economy in some time.
And for the second part of your post, I agree. I feel like a liberal, electoral, constitutional monarchy would be good for those who do not live in a true Communist society, or just a plain old Communist society.
Absolutely, Alevuss. I think apathy and entertainment will be the death of America, not foreign powers.
If there was a one world government it would be a totalitarian dictatorship. People can't get along, and never will. They'd have to be made to. That's really the only way I see it working.
Thus, we have various forms of government so that people can live however they want. Some places don't do that, but that's how it should be or should have stayed or been. If everyone's happy, we don't have to be made to get along, but we can still get along whilst disagreeing.
Listening to Harmony by NeverShoutNever, so, I feeling pretty chilled.
No where on this Earth will you find a nation in perfect harmony. Unfortunate but true.
Nice, Im listening to Center of Attention by Write This Down. Epicness.
True, but some do a better job at it than others.
Hypothetically, if a vote was put up in the UN, and countries were given the choice of joining a global government or remaining independent, what would the result be? I'm thinking mostly in terms of functionality, not what type of government. Would international borders drop overnight? Would ethnic groups that voted in be able to mix, or would they retain their cultural identity? I guess I'm most curious what the resulting society would be. I imagine, whether or not all the different cultures wanted to, certain peoples would force everyone else to mix, and the final product would be a giant, cosmopolitan melting pot throughout most of the world.
I think Africa would have virtually no part in being part of the one world government. Same goes for much of former-Yugoslavia. The U.S. wouldn't allow itself to do so. It'd pretty much be Western and Central Europe, maybe some of the Middle East. Some Asian countries might join too, along with possibly Canada, Australia and perhaps even some other Oceanian countries.
New flag... Dig it?
I like. And I wonder why it's taken them so long to get around to this. Not complaining, just curious. I like the recent additions.
I think much of Latin America would be for world government, too. And, if this did happen, I don't think the US, or any other independent country, would survive very long alone. Economically, at least, if much of the rest of the world unified, it would become increasingly difficult for an independent entity to remain competitive. Taking the EU as an example, there's a waiting list for countries that want to join, which makes them comply with certain human and civil rights in return for larger economic and military power. I think if ever we had a global government, the EU would be a good starting point. The UN doesn't have enough power behind it to really enforce anything, which is unfortunate.
I move that Garchyland, our the WA delegate for A Liberal Haven, be asked to support both WA resolutions currently up for vote.
I agree with that, though it seems that both will pass anyway.
Post self-deleted by Alevuss.
I also support that [nation=noflag]Garchyland[/nation], our the WA delegate for A Liberal Haven, be asked to support both WA resolutions currently up for vote.
Wow, this new embassies thing is a pretty interesting aspect of the game. Perhaps it would help lead more people here, or at least increase the possibility of interacting with other like-minded regions and nations. I'm for agreeing to build embassies with the regions that contact us. As long as we all agree that they're worth interacting with.
And I know the perfect region to do so with: Social Liberal Union. The reason I suggest them is because our regions share many of the same beliefs. Not only that, but they have convinced many of our former members to move to them due to the much higher amounts of activity they have had since formation. WE, however, are becoming quite active. Just about as active as them. We could use this as a chance to show our former members that we are coming back to life.
Besides, I talked to their founder, Ainland, a couple months ago, just after the regions formation. They said they would love it if our regions could be on friendly, close, terms.
votes noted sorry for the delay!
Perhaps we should amend the region's constitution to detail the procedures for dealing with this new feature.
I agree. Perhaps something like the with the WA where the positive votes must be 2 or three higher than negative votes.
It does appear that we have some offers for Embassies. I definitely agree that we should construct embassies in Philosophy 115, as we've had good relations with them for as long as I can remember.
Futaba Aoi seems to share our beliefs as well, or something similar.
Perhaps if anyone thinks we should build an embassy in a region, they could just post it in the RMB, we could hold a vote, and react in accordance to the vote.
I second the P115 motion.
I support establishing an embassy with Futaba Aoi, their principles and ours are closely linked. Stronger ties will strengthen us and the ideals will stand for.
I support both embassies as well. Can't have too many friends.
Futaba Aoi sounds like a bunch of tree huggers to me...
Post self-deleted by Alevuss.
And what is wrong with tree hugging? >:( I guess I see some downsides, but I believe the overall intention is good.
Also, I move that [nation=noflag]Garchyland[/nation] be asked to support the current Security Council Commendation Resolution.
Agreed with all accounts, Philosophy 115 has been an ally of ours for a while, and Futaba Aoi seems to be friendly as well.
Any seconds for the Security Council measure?
Hey guys, new guy here, used to be an old member of this place but was inactive for about a year and got deleted.
Welcome back, Americlous.
Welcome, Americlous. If you remember the password of your old nation, and try to log in, it should be able to bring it back if you're interested. Either way, glad to have you here.
Yes, unfortunately I have forgotten over the year. So I don't want to be Captain Obvious, but I am assuming that everyone here is a Liberal Leaning viewer?
I don't know you, but I've been in this region for just over a year now.
I've been doing some reading on Afghanistan; quite the interesting history. I'm not sure I've heard of much more interesting than William Brydon's escape in the First Anglo-Afghan War, Rasputin's death aside.
Also, Woohoo! Lowest Crime Rate in the region!
And yes, I am a liberal leaning user, but if asked IRL, I'd probably say Conservative just to please my Conservative family. I do share some Conservative views, but not a lot.
Which views do you tend to lean conservative? Because I happen to lean more conservative on immigration and some spending policies.
I don't think conservative and liberal mean what they should anymore. I think of them as someone's interpretation of how the Constitution should be followed, which is originally how the terms were used. Nowadays, though, it seems that liberal means government everywhere, and conservative means no government.
I'd consider myself liberal, but only in the sense that I don't want to associate my beliefs with modern conservatives. I don't think the federal government, or states for that matter, should be given the power to do whatever they want. Our founding fathers were geniuses in how the created and worded the Constitution, and there's no reason to alter the system that's worked for 200 years. But I do think there are certain things, like healthcare, medicaid, education, etc, that the fed does have the ability, and duty, to regulate. The fact that conservatives say that the government is overstepping its bounds by trying to impose healthcare on people is extremely hypocritical of them. The constitution says nothing about filibustering, but republicans are perfectly fine using that. Nor does it say anything about lobbying, special interest groups and the like, but again, they don't say a word about that. Only when they feel they can gain support from potential voters do they say anything about an action being unconstitutional.
Basically what Lack said.
Would wanting to get out of Afghanistan be considered Conservative? (Starting to thnk I'm Centrist)
Post self-deleted by Alevuss.
Woohoo! Only 17 more hours until our first embassies! XD
Post self-deleted by Alevuss.
I wish to announce again that I am officially dead-set on running for WA Delegate of this region. Not that Garchyland has done a bad job, but I believe Alevuss would be a good nation for the position. I'm much more active in the game (not that I can really blame Garch for this), but I believe my position as delegate would be much more convenient for region members. I would be more available to requests and give faster responses to votes and the like.
Also, I've said this before, but if I were to become delegate, I would like to make a change to the constitution allowing the members of the region to impeach the delegate.
Until then,though, I move that our WA delegate, Garchyland, should accept both offers to construct embassies from The Internationale and Kami No Chikara.
If you are worried about Kami no Chikara, don't. I've already spoken with the region's founder, who has promised not to invade if we accept embassies (not that they were planning to invade us before. They seem like a well-mannered group.
If you wish to vote that I should be the next WA Delegate for ALH, simply say so. Election in the region were supposed to be held, I believe, around this time of year. Because we were too inactive, nothing changed. I hope this election is not as plain as the last, though, what with old members coming back.
Ha, you called me "Lack."
I'd support an election for you, Alevuss. I know Garchyland has been delegate for a long time, and certainly deserves our patience pursuing the position's duties, but I don't think he would mind passing the mantle on if someone more active would want to take his place. Way back when, I also did a stint as ALH's delegate, and I definitely respect Garchy's two-year-long tenure of dealing with the telegrams and other issues that come with the position.
I also hope this doesn't mean that Garchy disappears, either, if an election is held. I think, in respect to his maintenance of this region over the last several years, he should continue to be included in the major decisions of ALH, as if he were a founder. I guess something like that would be written into the constitution, whatever that entails, but I think it should be considered.
I definitely agree Alevuss, I've had much going on in the past 6 months and have not been able to designate as much time as I would like to A Liberal Haven. Part of my concerns over the passing of the torch include my views against active recruiting and passwording the region (which should not be necessary if we are not actively recruiting). Otherwise, I would support your candidacy Alevuss, and though I have not decided officially whether I will run again or not, I am leaning towards not running for reelection. I would also support an overhaul of the Constitution, something that was implemented in my tenure but hasn't been improved since it's creation.
I believe that with the addition of embassies in the game, active recruiting is less necessary than what it was 2-3 months ago.
As for passwording the region, my beliefs stand. If it appears to be one person, who may be waiting for other's join them, then we should kick them out of the region. If it is a recurring event, with growing threat and seriousness, remove them from the region and put the region on password protection for 1-2 weeks. Possibly more. However long it takes until it is agreed by the region to by the region in a vote. After an attempted raid, though, no matter what, the regional delegate should put password protection on for 1 week before it coming up to vote for removal. A vote will be held each week that the region is on password protection. If someone is TG'd by someone wanting entry into the region while it is under password protection, we will hold a vote for that as well.
I'll be the loud-mouth in the joint and publicly denounce Alevuss' candidacy because of his views on region memberships, banishment, recruiting, and password protection.
I would either support Garchy's reelection, move that Laak return to that post, or run for it myself.
Well, this is starting to sound like an election. Those who want to run should probably make it known soon, so that the election can get underway.
I'd officially like to NOT run for delegate. I don't have the time at the moment to do the position justice.
For nations such as I, (and I might be the only one)
Alevuss may you please elaborate on why you would be better than Garchyland and how you would change Liberal Haven?
I was here when Garchyland first came to power (the one before Garchy was the nation with the tree as it's flag) And I am wondering the simple question.....why?
I believe the powers have gone - Jed Scott > Laak > Derk > Garchyland if I'm not mistaken. If the people wish for me to run for reelection I will, however I do agree that elections must go underway.
I also must say I don't agree with Alevuss' views on passwording, banishment, and recruitment. Currently A Liberal Haven has ZERO nations on the banishment roster. We've had some there before, but usually 4-6 months after an attempted raid or issue I remove the person from the banishment but keep them on my dossier to keep an eye on them. I do not believe in holding grudges and I am proud to say that A Liberal Haven has the ability to welcome ANY nation to become one of us, so long as they follow the few simple rules of respect. That's how all of us got here, and that's how we'll continue. Many of our issues with past nations have been resolved by me personally through telegram, usually ending with an apology from the nation. It's all how you approach the situation.
That being said, I'm not saying we don't need to make changes in A Liberal Haven. I do feel strongly however that these changes need to be made in an updated Constitution, complete with new security measures and amendments pertaining to the recent changes made in the game (such as embassies). I do NOT think changes need to be made in our long-standing anti-passwording policy or recruiting policies. ALH has NEVER been put under password (even during the time of Polaris & Vega), and I would like to keep it that way.
Also, until we have an official way to accept formal embassies between regions I think we should use the whole "second" approach to constructing embassies. That being said, Romefeller Foundation; Embassy Exchange; and Homisidea have all requested embassies. Any seconds?
I have my vote with Garchyland, but I am open-minded to change my vote.
I support and agree to everything Garchy has said, for that is why I joined A Liberal Haven in the first place, for the foundations it already has, I do not find anything wrong with what we have here.
On the Embassies topic, I do not know the nations personally, but I think the more embassies the better, diplomatic ties and getting our name out would be beneficial no?
Derkomia, I haven't said anything about banishment. All I said was to eject them from the region and put it on password lock for one week before holding a vote to reopen the region. After one week, whenever a consensus is reached on reopening the region, the delegate will unlock the region. I forgot to mention this before, but I would need to be informed through TG who the suspected raider is, I would then make some sort of way for us to communicate secretly (like another regional forum, shown to all but the accused until it is agreed that he/she should be allowed to know of the forum as well. Only when we reach an agreement may action be taken.
The reasons I think I would be better than Garchyland are.
1.) I seem to have more time on here, so, I'd be able to take questions and act on votes faster.
2.) I'd working on amending the constitution (with your approvals and assistances, first) to fit how NS has changed, such as Embassies. I'd also try to make the region more prepared in the event of a raid. Along with that, I would move for some sort of amendment to be passed on how to conduct the impeachment and resignation of a WA Delegate.
3.) In times of severe inactivity, I'd be more open to regional advertising (in the proper places, that is)
Below, I have some ideas for what rules for impeachment.
1.) A vote must be held to impeach the delegate.
2.) Good reason that is agreed upon by the displeased nations must be made to make the impeachment.
3.) The vote for impeachment must be approved by at least half of the Delegate's Endorsers, along with at least 25% of the region's non-WA member states.
4.) If not enough non-WA member responds to the current vote after 3 days, a message will be sent to them. After one week, there is still no response from them, no non-WA vote will be required for the impeachment to be passed.
Garchy, there was also that one instance of a nation named Ferrari something that joined and gained enough endorsements within a few days to take the delegacy. If I remember correctly, that seemed largely an accident, and he resigned the post and left the region shortly after. Other than that one instance, I don't remember any potential or actual invasions while I was here. Since that time, have they become more prevalent, or is this debate mostly about emergency situations?
I don't think Alevuss' view on banning potential threat nations or passwording the region after an actual instance of invasion is harsh enough to prevent him from being delegate. Outside of these emergency situations, a large portion of being the delegate is being responsive and available for discussions, WA votes, and (in the future) to accept/deny embassies. Alevuss has stated that he has enough time to devote to ALH to be able to handle these tasks on a regular basis. He's also willing to work on the constitution, which will be another major undertaking over the next few months.
Garchy, do you think you'll be as busy over the next few months as you said you were these last 6? Since I've been back, I don't think you've been away too long at any one point to make it difficult to get you to act on things, so if you'll still be that busy, I think it's a good level of responsiveness to the region's members. But, if others would want more time from the delegate, it would be unfair, and also somewhat impossible, to make you frequent NS more.
Also, I'd say no to embassies with Embassy Exchange and Romefeller Foundation. Neither seem too akin to what ALH supports.
Even in light of his proposals, I would still not lend my endorsement to Alevuss' candidacy.
I agree with Lack, that I say no to an embassy with the Romefeller Foundation. I see nothing wrong with Embassy Exchange, them being politically neutral.
Greetings everyone, it appears I have come in the middle of a debate.
Alevuss, I know that I have not been here long, but why is there a picture of (you?) as your flag? Is this a land of maturity or no? For someone who is running for elections.
Again I mean no disrespect, just an outsider (hoping to soon be an insider) with his perspective.
But alas, it is not how the person looks but how the person acts. :)
That's not me. It's Christofer Drew Ingle from my favorite band, NeverShoutNever.
My in-conversation flag is this.
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/162/alevussflag.png
I believe my actions are quite fine. I see not why the flag is unacceptable or violates any rules.
Laak,
Typically I log on every day. During busy times even in the past 6 months the longest I've gone is three days. With the new advances in NS on mobile phones I have recently been finding more time to log on.
How long have you resided in ALH Alevuss? Just out of curiosity. It should also be of note that the Constitution is better amended using a forum to ask for suggestions and get input before editing entire sections.
Also, communicating secretly has been one thing I've tried very hard to avoid in ALH. Though I may sent private telegrams on occasion most of our "business" is conducted openly. We generally would need a panel of long-lasting active nations to perform these operations. Most intel of potential raiders comes in telegrams from other region founders or delegates, typically I receive 2-3 telegrams a day from various regions, and one or two of those a month tend to be about potential raiders. After investigation many of these nations appear safe and become active members of ALH. Not all stigma's are true, and even still not all stigmas should follow you if you wish to change yourself.
Post self-deleted by Garchyland.
[Syntax correction] A new situation has come to light with the new embassy function - When we choose not to form a formal diplomatic tie with a nation and we refuse the embassy it is shown as a 'rejection', and may anger some regions. Perhaps we should create a form telegram to send to region founders and delegates kindly and politely explaining why we refused the embassy. I don't want to anger any region that has good intentions, and just because we don't want to clutter our embassy page does not mean we can't be friendly with these regions. I'd hate to create bad blood amongst our fellow regions, part of ALH's security comes from it's good ties and ability to lay below the radar of most raiders!
I've been in ALH since late February of last year. I feel I've been quite active since then.
*claps for Garchy*
I'd agree with that too, Garchy. Something saying thanks for the offer, but we don't feel it would be a benefit to either region?
yes, especially since I just got a telegram letting me know my nation was banned from Romefeller (seems a little immature, but ok). I don't want more and more of these things to happen, but I also don't want to neither reject nor approve an embassy. Any ideas for a form letter Laak or anyone?
I am sorry Alevuss, I did not mean to offend you, I was just curious.
Garchy, how long have you been in power for?
No harm done Lib. I've already gotten 4 TGs from people asking me if it's me. Garch's been in power for 1 year and 336 days. In another month, he'll have been Delegate for 2 years.
Here's my idea for a message to "rejectees". It doesn't have to be done exactly the same, it's just an idea/outline.
Greetings, [insert region here],
Since you requested an embassy with our region, we have been holding a vote. Sadly, though, the majority has ruled that we should not accept your offer for embassies. I mean no disrespect when I say that we deny you the right to currently construct embassies within the region of A Liberal Haven. This is not to say we cannot have positive relations, just not embassies. Who knows? Perhaps in the future we can have embassies.
Your's Truly,
[Insert WA Regional Delegate Here]
Garchy, if you're going to do a telegram like this to prevent further Romefeller incidents (that sounds authoritative), what if you just sent the telegram without rejecting the embassy. Regions have the option of canceling their requests, so maybe the telegram would be enough to get regions we don't want to connect with to cancel their own offers.
As for the message itself, I'd say something even simpler than Alevuss' suggestion would be best. Maybe "Dear [], Thank you for your embassy request. Unfortunately, the members of ALH have determined that accepting your embassy is not keeping with our beliefs and practices in NS. We respectfully decline your request, and wish your region success." It seems a little cheesy, but I think simple and to the point is the best and most clean way to deny an embassy.
I tend to lean towards Laak's message. We want to be as diplomatic as possible, in order not to offend the other nation. But as it is always good to be informed, can someone please take the time to explain the Romefeller incident. It would help the newer members understand what they are agreeing or voting on. :) Thanks
Americlous, that's just what I termed Garchy's banishment from the region of Romefeller Foundation after he declined the embassy exchange.
I think Laak's telegram may be better.
Agreed
On another topic, the constitution. Who is going to write it and propose it?
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.