Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Welcome to The Rejected Realms

Government:

Delegate: Wabbitslayah
Officer: Frattastan (Foreign Affairs)
Officer: Marilyn Manson Freaks (Outreach)
Officer: PowerPAOK (Media)
Officer: Relfa (Culture)

Other Officials:

Speaker: Vulturret
RRA High Commander: Frattastan
RRA Commander: Guy
RRA Commander: Wopruthien
Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
FRA membership - debate
Topic Started: May 2 2011, 03:04 PM (820 Views)
Oliver Dion
Member Avatar
Dedicated
Want to apologize directly to Unibot for quoting him directly from this thread in Europeia without authorization. It was done thoughtlessly, out of ignorance of the custom, and I apologize.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Is there an idiots guide to this with pros and cons? Not in wall-of-text form?
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
Dalimbar
May 3 2011, 06:34 PM
For context, the term "rouge Delegate" was an accidental misspelling turned affectionate nickname for my first TNP Delegacy after I had gone "rogue" there. Though, by your definition Uni, I hardly think that I had gone "self-destructive" in my policies there, nor do I believe that many of my other colleagues who have been labeled "rogue" were also "self-destructive". I certainly was not trying to purge myself, eh?
I don't know your situation well but from what I do know, I don't think we would have deployed in your situation. The "rogue delegate" policy was modeled after Durk's second purge.

And yes, the red rouge was a joke.

Biyah
 
Image: The FRA has increasingly gotten a bad image for throwing its weight around where it's not wanted. This is not exactly new, granted, but a few recentish events have really throw the spotlight on it. If we're trying to turn around our image, we don't need this.


And where does this 'bad image' come from? I feel like I'm lecturing to the professor on propaganda, here, but the source of this bad image is the Raider Media -- something that I would agree, the Founderless Regions Alliance needs to take a greater stance against, by providing counter-arguments for the public and publicizing public statements to counter backlash. But such a position is highly circular, X is here to help you defend your region, Y is trying to some extent destabilize your region... X is getting bad press coincidently from Y, to avoid any 'bad' associations with X, you will appease Y and remove your ties with X.. thereby facilitating the destabilization of your region. You have a fledging media sector in the Rejected Realms, and a void in the 'market' for a NS news service that isn't simply the Raider pipeline or a column designed to stir criticism about defending -- FRA membership is a wonderful opportunity for that sector of TRR's affairs to develop, because the FRA does need some relief from the Raider Media and audiences desire something more from a newspaper than just what TAO thinks this week about the FRA (no offense meant towards TAO).

As for historic events where we shouldn't have intervened according to the Media and those with 'influence', I think we've gotten slammed most recently for not intervening (e.g., Durk in TNP), nonetheless, I think you're referring to the TAO incident, which was, if I remember correctly, something that occurred back when Sedge was AC (no?) and was mostly manufactured by TAO's propaganda on TWP forums ( technically a 'bad image' is a 'bad image' whether or not it is deserved, so this doesn' t refute your point).

Biyah
 
TRR's basic appeal to any group is that it's one of the big official regions. I very much doubt the FRA'd stay here en-force for a long period of time.


This isn't true, as a Sinker your region is extremely vulnerable to raiders (although an unconventional target, perhaps) and as many of us are defenders here at the FRA, by principle, we do not want to see your region tromped on because the lack of ban-tools can be so easily exploited. If your situation was less stable than it is now, the FRA would likely send in troops from Dharma and other non-updaters like we have in Republicans currently... if the situation was unstable for a month or more, we'd probably try to work with the RRA to develop their military, like recruiting our militia and extra non-updaters to help out with the defense initiative, before the FRA reduced their presence in the region from active deployment to oversight.

Quote:
 
Stability: We're trying to find our legs again, both as a region and as an army. I'd rather see us split ties to anyone or anything that could give us orders, until we once again find stable ground and can be confident that we won't be pushed around.


I'm sorry, I don't understand, could you give some specifics by what you mean about 'orders'? The FRA respects native and regional sovereignty, micromanaging your region sounds initially to me to run contrary to the principles of the FRA.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Whamabama
Member Avatar
Questionably Evil
Not all media out there that hasn't placed the FRA in the greatest light is raider propaganda. I can understand why the FRA would claim it as such, but this isn't the place for such a thing. It's off topic.
Those who don't create, dictate
The structure of our world and preach hate
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Biyah
Member Avatar
High Priest of the Cult
Indeed. TAO and that whole debacle comes to mind.

I'll reply to the rest later, because you're right, you're lecturing to the professor when it comes to propaganda.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Responding to a bazillion points:

Dalimbar
 
Say we do leave FRA, for whatever reason. If there is another string of invasion attempts at our Delegacy, and we ask the FRA to help us either maintain control over or retake the Delegacy, will they do so, even though under this scenario we are no longer members? I know that I'm bound to hear "Well of course Dali, we are defenders", but would an invasion of TRR take a different priority for FRA if we were no longer members?

I think that's generally been answered. We would get help, but in my view, not the same amount. Currently, if we feel we're in danger, we can call in a few of the irregular FRA defenders who'll sit in the region until the threat is gone, and the updaters will base themselves here when not out liberating/defending elsewhere. We can get around 15 endorsements in, quickly and reliably. If we weren't members, we probably wouldn't get such a level of support - and they likely wouldn't deploy until the threat(s) was much closer to taking the delegacy. The important point is that FRA membership means that the FRA & all its member regions are obliged to do whatever they can to help us. That doesn't always mean a lot, but in a region with no eject/ban buttons, we realistically can call on help from several sizeable regions, who would have to provide WAs.

Oliver Dion-Grey
 
I'm going to stay out of the discussion except to say that, in terms of defence, there are always other options, if you have the political and social will to seek them. Other than that, I'm just going to hush.

There are other options, yes - but they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. Additionally, I'm not sure there's an alternative option out there that would provide such a level of support that we get from the FRA.

Unibot
 
However, we have recently passed a Rogue Delegacy policy which will allow the FRA cabinet to deploy rangers in regions like TRR if there is a threat of a rouge delegate getting into power. A rogue delegate is defined as "one whose domestic regional policies and actions are characterized by a self-destructive intent in regards to a region, unless these actions or policies are sanctioned by a legitimate authority". "These policies include, but are not limited to; reduction of government, loss of political enfranchisement, denial of freedom of assembly or speech and admin masking on the forums."

That's an interesting policy for the FRA, and definitely moving away from its founding principles, but it does reflect the reality of what the FRA has done when faced with rogue delegates like Westwind & JAL in TNP, and the Empire in TEP. I would've liked to hear about it before it passed - one would've thought we would get some advance warning since it is particularly relevant to us (yes, I know, maybe our reps should've done that too).

Biyah
 
Of course, I could be considered biased. I hate the FRA with just about every fiber of my being. They are nothing but raiders in sheep's clothing.

That's a ridiculous statement, and you know it. If you're going to throw around comments like that, at least have the grace to try and back them up.

Biyah
 
Being in a defender 'organization' is not required to be a defender army. Of course we would be defenders, unless the bulk of citizens chose otherwise. The alternative is easy, what's wrong with being free agents for a while?

We will need support in the future, yes, but that is also not contingent on membership in the organization. If it were, defender orgs would not be defender orgs.

It also doesnt mean we can't cooperate in the future, if we feel the need.

Of course we don't need to be in the FRA to be defenders, but the truth is we need them for logistical support if we're going to get the RRA running again. With CG and I modded, we don't currently have someone able/willing to take the lead in the RRA. Additionally, by being members, we'd have access to their resources, such as spotted invasions - that's where most independent defender armies fall down - they don't find anywhere to deploy.

Biyah
 
We don't need to be part of the FRA to have a large pool of WA nations to draw from. If we put out a call for help, many will heed - else they are not defender organizations, and we can make them look like fools.

Between CG, Sedge and Nai alone - they are friends with over half the game.

In either case, historically, we've never had a problem getting people.

We haven't had a problem getting people because of connections like FRA membership. They've helped us numerous times, when people have tried the 'eject your supporters/move to the RR' trick, and supported us when Todd was trying to take over in 2008. Are there really that many others who would help? TITO probably, but who else? Added to that, as set out above, we'd likely have less help from the FRA if not members.

Biyah
 
I’ll bite down my petty comments about the quality of their intel department. With that aside, If they are interested in seeing TRR stay stable, they will help anyway… such things were common place in the old days, to foster stability and good will. If not, screw em, we can get our own intel department going and ignore them as well as they ignore us.

Your comments about their intel department would be ill-informed anyway. I've experienced it, and I know it's good at getting and sharing the necessary intel. You may dislike some of the people who have worked in it (Falconias, Numero), but the FRA's Intel department is far more effective than you assume. As above, they'd still help us, but would put less time into helping us with intel if we weren't member regions - that's no surprise.

As for our own Intel department, yes, that would be great, but that needs people here to get it done. Unfortunately, we haven't happening there yet.

Biyah
 
Connections =/= Membership

Not entirely true. It's only fair to expect that the FRA is more willing to help us develop the RRA if we're members. Their priority is helping their member regions.

Biyah
 
If we cease to have friendly relations with said regions because we drop out of the FRA, then we never really had friendly relations. Healthy relations should not be contingent on membership to a third party group.

Correct, but it's true that FRA member regions tend to be close to each other, and that's as a result of being fellow members of the FRA. I've seen regions that leave the FRA drift apart from those they used to be friendly with.

Biyah
 
As I've noticed, various members of the FRA will forum-whore regardless of membership status.

But they're more likely to do so in FRA member regions, and more likely to get involved in them.

Biyah
 
.. and lets throw this in for flavor.
Image: The FRA has increasingly gotten a bad image for throwing its weight around where it's not wanted. This is not exactly new, granted, but a few recentish events have really throw the spotlight on it. If we're trying to turn around our image, we don't need this.

It's not really surprising that invaders don't like a defender alliance. That's nothing to worry about. I feel much the same about the fact that The West Pacific doesn't like the FRA - they don't really like many people these days.

Biyah
 
Ego: Like the ADN before it, TRR's basic appeal to any group is that it's one of the big official regions. I very much doubt the FRA'd stay here en-force for a long period of time, if we were under sustained assault. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere above that we'd be low on the totem pole if it came down to it.

You've obviously misread. So long as we're a member region, we're top of the list. In fact, as one of only two founderless member regions (the other deliberately let its founder CTE), we really are their priority. All the evidence I've seen from their deployments when we've been under threat in recent months (and years) suggest that they truly are willing to deploy for sustained periods of time to protect us.

Biyah
 
Which means the only reason we'd be worth keeping was so that they could stroke their ego and say 'TRR chose us!'. Frankly, the idea of them stroking anything with our name in mind disgusts me - we've not gotten anything out of them lately, I don't see the reason to change that now. Let them attend to their own ego.

Except, we've got plenty, and can get plenty more.


Biyah
 
Stability: We're trying to find our legs again, both as a region and as an army. I'd rather see us split ties to anyone or anything that could give us orders, until we once again find stable ground and can be confident that we won't be pushed around.

That argument doesn't make sense. We should aim for stability, and therefore revoke a long-standing alliance that has helped us to keep our delegate in power?

Spartan Termopylae
 
Is there an idiots guide to this with pros and cons? Not in wall-of-text form?

I did the pros in my first post, someone else will have to provide the cons :P

Whamabama
 
Not all media out there that hasn't placed the FRA in the greatest light is raider propaganda. I can understand why the FRA would claim it as such, but this isn't the place for such a thing. It's off topic.

Oh, the FRA has disagreed with defenders like 10KI too, and is unpopular with TWP, but I don't see other non-raider regions who have a great problem with it. Additionally, 10KI are still friendly with us regardless of our membership of the FRA, and TWP are frankly irrelevant.

Biyah
 
Indeed. TAO and that whole debacle comes to mind.

If you really wish to bring that up, I will continue to argue that TAO is a region griefer, and that the FRA did the right thing. Just because you and other 'defenders' have always tolerated his actions, does not mean that all defenders are obliged to do so.

Biyah
 
I'll reply to the rest later, because you're right, you're lecturing to the professor when it comes to propaganda.

In all honesty, I'm unconvinced by that claim. You criticise our association with the FRA because they have a bad reputation, and you think they're raiders. That would carry more weight if it didn't came from someone who could be accused of exactly the same things.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Ok, so can i have bullet point cons?
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
wabbitslayah
Member Avatar
I'm cool
Biyah
 
As I've noticed, various members of the FRA will forum-whore regardless of membership status.



sedge
 
But they're more likely to do so in FRA member regions, and more likely to get involved in them.








Completely true. I do forum whore in places unrelated to the FRA, but predominately, I am in alot of FRA member regions.
Edited by wabbitslayah, May 6 2011, 11:05 PM.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Felasia
Member Avatar
Knight of Equility
I think that with the current state of The Rejected Realms in general, it is better for us to have a force that is obliged to aid us in crisis then not to have one. After a look inside the organization, I'm also quite pleased with how far it had change from the day that my opinion of them is almost as bad as the Macedon.

I said stick with FRA membership for now.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Having said all that positive stuff, there have been a few screw-ups recently that haven't impressed me. The "Want To Try Out Defending?" thread has been a complete disaster - it's effectively a recruitment thread (it's even being organised in the Regional Recruitment Office on the FRA forums), and has been posted in numerous regions with absolutely nothing to do with the FRA. It's pissed off Europeia and The South Pacific, and Wysteria appear to have entirely deleted the thread.

As Foreign Affairs Officer for TRR, I don't like it when our relations with regions might be harmed because of stupid actions by a third party. It's not enough to make me think we should leave, but if there are more mistakes like that, my opinion may begin to change.

I'd still like an explanation of why we weren't at least consulted on the "Rogue Delegate policy" prior to it being voted on.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Felasia
Member Avatar
Knight of Equility
I was not sure how much I am allowed to copy a post inside FRA's Regional Assembly and post it outside of the FRA. In hindsight, I should have consulted more with TRR on all vote before making a vote as TRR representative myself.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
wabbitslayah
Member Avatar
I'm cool
sedge
May 7 2011, 10:43 PM
Having said all that positive stuff, there have been a few screw-ups recently that haven't impressed me. The "Want To Try Out Defending?" thread has been a complete disaster - it's effectively a recruitment thread (it's even being organised in the Regional Recruitment Office on the FRA forums), and has been posted in numerous regions with absolutely nothing to do with the FRA. It's pissed off Europeia and The South Pacific, and Wysteria appear to have entirely deleted the thread.

As Foreign Affairs Officer for TRR, I don't like it when our relations with regions might be harmed because of stupid actions by a third party. It's not enough to make me think we should leave, but if there are more mistakes like that, my opinion may begin to change.

I'd still like an explanation of why we weren't at least consulted on the "Rogue Delegate policy" prior to it being voted on.
I know I'm a citizen here, but I don't feel I've settled in long enough to have any say. But, I can give my opinion, I guess.

Anyways, I think there are mutual benefits, in reality, a member region doesn't need to do very much (if they don't want to be as involved) but can still receive benefits. I am not saying anyone should do that, but just putting that out there.

The only true Cons I see, is for one, you would be affiliated. So this does mean invaders groups may have ignorant opinions, as in lumping you in with any fault they see. I am not saying all raiders or groups are like that, but I know alot who don't hold a high regard for the FRA.

That's just the nature of being opposed. The other con to this is any fuck-ups that happen, Uni doing that thing & alot of Falc's policies just look bad.

So it really is about appearance.


I've been a ranger for years now, I've got the 2 year service award for active duty, I have been inactive at times, thus why I don't have any other awards for longer. There are alot of things I do not like about the FRA, I has told some to people, some I haven't. Even, with that, I haven't left, nor believe the FRA is on a whole a bad thing. I don't really want to get into that though, it isn't the place here to do so.

To conclude, I think there isn't such a big disadvantage to decide to leave. That's just my opinion for any member region, so nothing specific. I will be truthful & tell you all I want the Crusaders of Justice to leave the FRA, but that opinion, is unrelated to anything the FRA has done itself, good or bad.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Ideally, I'd like to start voting on this by the end of the week, so if you've still got stuff to say, could you post soon, please?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Wopruthien
Member Avatar
Spammer
sedge
May 3 2011, 09:59 PM
Slight concern here. If you can't debate as an RR citizen, can you really vote as an RR citizen? I'm not talking about legality, just wondering if people can put the interests of the region first when voting, if they can't manage to debate with the interests of the region first.
Sorry Sedge I've been meaning to respond to this point and this thread for a while now but I've been so stressed and busy with work I just haven't had much time.

First off I wasn't going to vote one way or the other, but abstain, it as I haven't been debating, but I think that isn't your point.

Everywhere I participate in a region I try to put that regions interests first, even at times ahead of the FRA, examples being in Kodiak. When/if I perceive there is (going to be) a clear problem with either the FRA or the region getting involved in the FRA I will speak up. Again sorry I'll try to use it sparingly, but most regions I've been involved in have been in the FRA. But anyway, they were debating joining during my term as AC, but they have a very large raider contingent in the region, and the driving force behind it was largely politically motivated by the administration at the time. It wouldn't have been in the best interest for the region or the FRA.

That is TKR however, as they were never in the FRA, TRR is. The circumstances are different as such, and I can't in all good conscience with my capacity of Deputy Regional Recruitment Officer, former AC, etc. debate unbiased. It would be better in my opinion at least, that the FRA stays out of any debates concerning a regions involvement, unless specifically addressing false information. I currently am part of the FRA administration, and as such am sticking to my principles (however incorrect people believe them to be) and staying out of the debate and vote, as the debate should as much as possible, be devoid of FRA officials driving the debate, unless as I've mentioned addressing specific information or answering questions or concerns.


Though I must say Biyah has made me think long and hard about that with some of his posts here :P
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Just so you know, the post wasn't aimed specifically at you - it was prompted by a discussion on irc between several people.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic »
Locked Topic