|
|
|
The East Pacific brought to you by, | |||||||||||||
|
Social
Roleplay
|
|
| Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here! I'm registered. Where do I start? When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community! |
| Modern Pacific Alliance Treaty | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 22 2011, 06:51:56 PM (4,027 Views) | |
| Todd McCloud | Aug 22 2011, 06:51:56 PM Post #1 |
|
Planet Telox
|
This was given to me by A Mean Old Man (from The Pacific), who worked with a few other nations. I was asked to provide some insight / input, and I think some of it is located in this document.
Essentially, this appears to be an alliance to promote sovereignty in feeders in addition to unity and to protect said feeder regions in the event of an attack. Since you all are the Magisterium and in charge of approving or denying treaties, I'll let you debate over it rather than me explain why I like or dislike this document. But I do have likes and dislikes, of course. Feel free to suggest changes to, and debate over this. I do read your debates and I must say this term in particular has shown much vigor and energy! |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Kelssek | Aug 22 2011, 06:57:41 PM Post #2 |
|
Hero of the Soviet Onion
|
I have some concerns with this. It seems to suggest that we would be subject to decisions made by a supra-regional body. What areas would this assembly be deciding upon? |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Aug 22 2011, 07:12:55 PM Post #3 |
|
Planet Telox
|
My feeling is it will discuss when and if a feeder is in trouble or has violated a particular portion of that pact, but the treaty does not specifically state that. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 22 2011, 07:38:05 PM Post #4 |
|
Tandy 400
|
This, if ratified, will be extremely helpful in the event of an invasion |
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 22 2011, 08:49:09 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
I would perfer a defense treaty. But this Treaty might have some of it's clauses nullified by the Concordat. To me it seems to infer that this Alliance is a secondary Legislative Body and if I remember correctly the Magisterium is the SOLE Legislative Body of the East Pacific. A defense treaty: yes, a treaty in which there is a Pacific Wide Legislative Body: no. |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 22 2011, 09:18:20 PM Post #6 |
|
Tandy 400
|
Erm, think of it as a United States similarity, We, the Pacifics, would be like the states, and the MPA would be like the federal government system, just... more scaled down, because each states (in the US) has it's own legislative body aswell... Something like that... |
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| Kelssek | Aug 23 2011, 12:12:24 AM Post #7 |
|
Hero of the Soviet Onion
|
Actually, it sounds like it would probably be more like the EU member states, and the European Parliament. If it were like the United States federation, I can't see that being acceptable since it would imply giving up the region's autonomy/independence. That it would be a parallel legislature is a moot point - it's not within the East Pacific. It would clearly be an external body, even if you were to count any council as a "legislature". My real question is what impact it will have on our internal situation and governance, if any. If Todd would clarify what the understanding is here, it would be very helpful. |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 23 2011, 12:21:28 AM Post #8 |
|
Tandy 400
|
hehe, I didn't even think of the EU Are we gonna get a standardized currency?
|
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 23 2011, 05:55:50 PM Post #9 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
I have to agree with Is Wa here. I'm worried that this may interfere with how things are done here. |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Aug 23 2011, 07:24:55 PM Post #10 |
|
Planet Telox
|
I can foresee a few conflicts here, to be honest. For instance, I don't like the following:
While I do agree with the treaty in that having another region or bloc control our WA votes is a no-go, we'd still need the approval of the alliance to do this. Which presents a conflict here, because it should be TEP's choice to do what it wants with its WA votes, even if I or one other person in the region is against us doing that with our WA votes. (I'd still be against it though )What applies in the first paragraph applies to the second. But I interpreted this as the organization recognizing governments, which can actually be useful. Had we had this in place during The Empire, for instance, member states would have not recognized the group as a government due to most of them being from userite (non-pacific) regions. But I don't know how effective that would've been, and it's not a free lunch either: If a few member regions don't happen to like someone in our government, it could be difficult-goings for us as well. The last paragraph doesn't seem to do as much as it should. A government is unrecognized in a feeder, but they're labeled as 'delinquents'. It doesn't state that said regions must come to the aid of the region in trouble; on the contrary, they can also declare it unnecessary, unless I'm reading this wrong. In short, this is a very Francoist (pro-feeder region or pro-pacific region) document. As it stands right now, having critically focused on this, I personally wouldn't pass it. But I also believe this can be changed to become an effective document, provided it doesn't interfere with our government or pose a problem to us. I am pro-feeder sovereignty and pro-feeder defense, though. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 23 2011, 08:14:56 PM Post #11 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
I noticed a lot of the same things Todd did. We should be careful as it could also be a way for one feeder region to control the others, kind of like an invasion. While, it's an unlikely scenario, it could happen. I'm much more in favor of a pro-feeder defense agreement than this here. I'm also a very strong supporter of a feeder region's sovereignty. I highly doubt that this MPA treaty respects ours or the other feeder regions' sovereignties. |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 24 2011, 04:00:42 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
One note on Sovereignity is that other regions must have similar concerns and will respect each other's rights but we should not allow for such a risk. As long as there is an Assembly I will be voting AGAINST. ((No, I am not actually voting. Just stating how I would vote)) |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| A mean old man | Aug 25 2011, 09:01:03 PM Post #13 |
|
Curmudgeon
|
As the producer of this document and of the idea of the alliance itself, I have been cleared by the Provost to reply here with an explanation of the alliance's general function and of the functions of this document's wording. I think some of the Magisters here are overcomplicating the purpose of this alliance. As Todd said, it is partially a security measure, but also a way of bringing the feeder regions closer together in discussion of their mutual issues which, when I designed it, was in the interest of increasing activity all-around and increasing the likelihood of the different feeders aiding each other when problems arise (and such is hardly a selfish interest, as TP generally has few problems). Also, as Todd said, it officially recognizes feeder region governments, which many people from the outside criticize and claim are obsolete or do not represent the interests of the region. This document, in a sense, legitimizes our governments. I believe I could best get my point across by describing each portion of the treaty and responding to a few particular posts in this thread.
Self-explanatory, really. The "Values" establish the way that the separate assembly will be run, by the way, and I think those should also be displayed here for consideration.
Also self-explanatory. Loyalty to your region and to your colleagues in the other feeders of the MPA is emphasized by this clause.
Basically, no government that does not originate within the feeders must ever run a feeder, not must it ever allow itself to be taken over for foreign purposes.
In essence: No feeder will surrender its WA nations to another region as a form of tribute (which rules out banning, as this clause could possibly be misinterpreted as a prevention of sending nations to The Rejected Realms). I couldn't possibly imagine TEP or any of the feeders which would likely be involved in the MPA ever doing this; it's mainly in here in case a government should ever become corrupt in the future so that they can be called out on it. Also, such activity would be a sign of a government that has been usurped by foreign entities.
Yes, to those who responded as such to this, this is a limitation. However, as I've seen expressed in this thread, the residents of TEP seem to have no interest in joining any such thing and I'd expect their Magisterium to approve a document refusing TEP's involvement in any WA bloc far more than I'd expect it to approve a document enlisting it in one. It's more of a limitation that prevents the involved regions from placing limitations on themselves. Ironic, but, in a sense, enforces the region's sovereignty.
Remember, the MPA assembly includes two nations put forth by TEP's government which hold the best interests of TEP at heart, as well as highly sympathetic nations from any other feeders which would be involved in the alliance. It's not some foreign body - it's an assembly of feeder "natives," which, in this day and age, have the ability to be involved in the governments of almost all of the feeders despite which one their WA nation may (or may not even) reside in anyway.
I understand that there was some grumbling over this line. I predicted this, and deliberately worked in a slight loophole; "do its best to accommodate the ideas and decisions of" is hardly "must comply exactly with all decrees made by" the MPA's assembly. The reason I added this clause was mainly because I want this assembly to be a body of like-minded but not exactly congruent individuals from all of the MPA-involved feeders that work together to solve problems regarding feeder security and inactivity, not so that they can govern each of the feeders remotely and in the same exact fashion. This is not the creation of a "federal government" nor is it the creation of a "European Union." This clause was mainly added to encourage feeder governments to implement ideas pulled together by the assembly that could help prevent inactivity, mainly those regarding recreation.
This is one of my favorite clauses and was designed for the purpose of aiding feeder security; this clause would help each feeder in the MPA note who their mutual enemies could be and would give each a heads-up on who in their regions to keep an eye on.
While I felt like wording this as "MUST attempt anything and everything within their power," I imagined that such a powerful wording would be a subject of great dispute when the treaty was being ratified. Right now it is mostly a strong encouragement to come to other regions' aid. The treaty is far more casual than its intimidating wording might make it seem. Promote activity, promote security, promote sovereignty put forth a body of feeder-wide enthusiasts to act as a think tank to advise the regional governments and help solve the feeders' mutual or individual problems. Todd informed me that the treaty wasn't quite what he had envisioned and the Magisterium, so far, seems displeased with certain aspects of it, however hopefully this post can clear some things up. If there are still problems with it, I can easily make edits. The alliance isn't official yet. ...or you could ratify it and the assembly could discuss it and modify it. I also hope you understand that TEP has the power to back out at any time. If, by some freak accident, the assembly does try to turn the MPA into some kind of federal government, the involved regions could simply leave. |
|
The Weed-Choked Lawn of A mean old man Always fighting crime -- especially youth-related.
| |
![]() |
|
| A mean old man | Aug 25 2011, 09:02:58 PM Post #14 |
|
Curmudgeon
|
Here are the "Values." The backbone of the Alliance, if you will. If you are reading this post first please scroll up until you reach the top of my last post.
If you are reading this post first please scroll up until you reach the top of my last post. |
|
The Weed-Choked Lawn of A mean old man Always fighting crime -- especially youth-related.
| |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 25 2011, 09:38:13 PM Post #15 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
Well, it sounds good. There might be some benefit to doing this, just as long at TEP has a say in its own internal affairs. |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| A mean old man | Aug 25 2011, 09:47:31 PM Post #16 |
|
Curmudgeon
|
Like I said, it's not a commitment that hands the control of your government over to a collective body of members of the other feeders. You can't possibly imagine that one of the most outward critics of Punk Reloaded's "Republic" would support such an idea, would you?![]() There are really only two things that are issues at vote here regarding the internal affairs of TEP; You must decide, as the region's Magisterium and as the legislators of The East Pacific: - whether or not TEP's government is willing to use its own WA members as a sort of trade unit, something I've never seen happen in any of the feeders I've been involved in and which would likely be the prime activity of a foreign and corrupt force within a region's government if such a force was ever to exist in the future, - whether or not TEP is willing to ever be involved in a WA bloc involving regions foreign to the feeders. And, like I said, this "limitation" is more one preventing further limitations - an ironic yet practical purpose. ...and whether the region is willing to send two representatives to the MPA's assembly to properly portray TEP's presence in the alliance. |
|
The Weed-Choked Lawn of A mean old man Always fighting crime -- especially youth-related.
| |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 26 2011, 03:54:38 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
Considering the statements AMOM has made I would like to see one thing added. That the Assembly of the MPA shall make no law that passes or amends the laws of any member region. If that is passed I have noting against it |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Kelssek | Aug 26 2011, 04:40:52 PM Post #18 |
|
Hero of the Soviet Onion
|
Following the clarifications I'm ok with the proposed treaty as it is. |
![]() |
|
| A mean old man | Aug 27 2011, 02:11:53 AM Post #19 |
|
Curmudgeon
|
I suppose I could add it, though I personally feel it would be unnecessary as the Treaty and Values, right now, give the assembly no power to do such a thing anyway. If the Magisterium as a whole feels it necessary I will oblige, however there's no need to make the treaty wordy. |
|
The Weed-Choked Lawn of A mean old man Always fighting crime -- especially youth-related.
| |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 27 2011, 04:19:31 AM Post #20 |
|
Tandy 400
|
I agree with Kessek, I'm fine with how it's currently worded |
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| Feux | Aug 27 2011, 12:33:12 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Always Changing Shapes
|
This is a great idea AMOM. I would like to talk to you about it on a IRC if you get the time later. |
|
==== Hey Short Man! ==== | |
![]() |
|
| A mean old man | Aug 27 2011, 03:13:21 PM Post #22 |
|
Curmudgeon
|
I'm on right now. I don't know if you're allowed to post here if you're not a member of the Magisterium or if you're not specifically given clearance to do so by the Provost, though, Jeux. |
|
The Weed-Choked Lawn of A mean old man Always fighting crime -- especially youth-related.
| |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 27 2011, 05:29:54 PM Post #23 |
|
Tandy 400
|
Nothing wrong with a little input from the citizens |
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 27 2011, 05:46:46 PM Post #24 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
I'm okay with how it's written, too. Although, are y'all ready to start motioning to vote on this? |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 27 2011, 07:35:43 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
I motion this to vote. ((Vulshain. Start the vote on the Conclave Appeal resolution)) |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Aug 28 2011, 05:27:55 AM Post #26 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
AMoM, Is there anything in this treaty that obliges one GCR to rush to the defense of another region? Another way to put it, do we all have to have armies? Is there anything in this treaty that prohibits those who join from raiding each other? |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| A mean old man | Aug 28 2011, 01:18:44 PM Post #27 |
|
Curmudgeon
|
No. The following passage of the treaty is the only one regarding involved feeders directly coming to each others' aid, followed by my commentary on it:
You know...now that I think about it, I don't think there is. I guess the idea of such a course of events didn't really enter my head while this was being drafted. However, such a clause can easily be added by the representatives from TEP and TP if this treaty is ratified; after all, TEP and TP would be the only two regions involved at the start. For some reason, though, I feel like such an activity has already been indirectly deemed unacceptable by a clause or a combination of clauses of the Values and/or Treaty. Best address it directly, though. |
|
The Weed-Choked Lawn of A mean old man Always fighting crime -- especially youth-related.
| |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Aug 28 2011, 09:12:28 PM Post #28 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The verbal or otherwise kerfuffle between TSP and TWP prompted me to ask. It would seem that you're seeking autonomy - and that GCRs support each other in that. All for that. The whole rushing to defend each other thing is an obligation. "Anything and everything" seems unconditional. Pssst. Just between us - a major drama has been concocted to drain a region of WAs on a mission of mercy to leave it open to raid. Can't exclude that possibility. |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 28 2011, 09:28:34 PM Post #29 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
Okay start voting! And Barb I see you that silly line I used in the newspaper. |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 28 2011, 09:36:08 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
Aye |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic » |






Are we gonna get a standardized currency?
)

7:43 PM Jul 10