| 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: |
| Reopening the FRA Debate; New Information | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 24 2011, 06:16 AM (1,033 Views) | |
| Cocodian | May 25 2011, 04:58 PM Post #46 |
![]()
RRA Commander
|
That's quite a sweeping statement. First the TSP liberation does not violate what I just said; the FRA supported the original delegate which is what I said we would do above/ is our policy enacted into law. Now feeders are dealt with on a case to case basis and I totally respect your opinion if you disagree with the operation, but we debated the law recently at some length and no one from this region posted any disagreement to it (although one rep voted Nay and the other Aye). For the second part I would argue two things. Firstly if you don't like how the FRA is functioning you should run for election to our cabinet, the next elections should be on the first week of July and you will have the opportunity to change how we work. Secondly I don't know who you are referring to when you say Upper echelons...you're going to have to be more specific? Edited by Cocodian, May 25 2011, 05:00 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | May 25 2011, 05:13 PM Post #47 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
Upper echelons. As in, the leadership. Assembly. Governing council. What have you. And i don't want to be a member state. What makes you think id consider looking for office? And my point about future intentions remains valid. Call mr alarmist if you want, but that aint always a bad thing |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| Cocodian | May 25 2011, 05:48 PM Post #48 |
![]()
RRA Commander
|
Well if you don't know about how the FRA governs itself, some would question how much weight that statement has. Did you not just say above as well that you don't mind being a member and if you left would consider rejoining at some point?? |
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | May 25 2011, 06:00 PM Post #49 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
I dont want to be a member now. Present tense. Rejoining. Future tense. Basic grammar, my friend. But based on a statement by one in favour of the fra, we can afford to go our own way for the moment. I dont like what ive seen. On that basis, and since ive seen no good, well, i think we all of us know my stance by now |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| Cocodian | May 25 2011, 06:05 PM Post #50 |
![]()
RRA Commander
|
Ha! Well I would like to introduce you to apostrophes then. All I am saying is that you should join our forums and take a quick look around before making your mind up, based on one instance. But I've put my point across now so will remove myself from the debate unless someone from here asks for my return. Edited by Cocodian, May 25 2011, 10:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | May 25 2011, 06:15 PM Post #51 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
My grammar is down to doing all this on the move on my phone. Hitting the right keys all the time is hard, so i miss the unimportant bits that get in the way of speed |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| Northern Chittowa | May 25 2011, 09:27 PM Post #52 |
|
Regular
|
Regarding the impeachment of Uni, if this was raised to the RA it does stand a high chance of succeeding. Uni has ruffled the feathers of quite a few people within the FRA with a number of strange decisions. I had quite a big debate with him shortly after he was elected on how he handled certain issues, and it does seem that he keeps on making the same mistake over and over again. I like Uni, but it seems as if the position of AC was too big of a step to take considering his relative inexperience in the FRA at the time of him being elected to the position. |
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | May 26 2011, 11:07 PM Post #53 |
|
Spammer
|
When I said I dislike the politics of the FRA, this was part of what I meant. I know the folks in the FRA well enough to know that they wouldn't overthrow a delegate they felt was legitimate. I also know how most of them define legitimacy, which is the concern here. They define legitimacy based on what people say on the last regional forum in use before there was controversy. To some extent, this is fine and admirable. There's room for a wide range of opinions when it comes to what constitutes a legitimate government. And if someone managed to take the delegacy in TRR with the help of outside forces, I'm sure we would be grateful for the FRA's assistance, as we have been in the past. But "rogue" delegates are a tricky issue. There was a huge controversy over our delegacy here on these forums before we had elections. Had things gone a little differently - if, for instance, CG had decided to claim the delegacy or I had tried to change forums - the FRA might very well have come in to support one side or the other. And that becomes a political problem. Not a new problem by any means; but one that we can talk about for the first time because we have it out as a written policy. The problem is this: the FRA is deciding who ought to be the delegate, not just on behalf of the natives of a region, but instead of the natives of a region. The implicit attitude behind this policy is that the FRA knows what is best, and is entitled to take action to ensure the outcome they approve of. There is a fundamental conflict here between the sovereignty of individual regions and the ideals of democracy or fair play that the FRA seems to want to espouse. You cannot have both equally; you must choose one or the other when the two conflict. Either the natives of a region have the right to self-determination, or their right to self-determination ends when a delegate does something that conflicts with your ideals. Devonitians suppressed people left and right and banned folks from the region. So the FRA took it upon themselves to help depose him - not just with words or propaganda that would allow the natives to make up their own minds, but with military force. In so doing, they supported the old government of The South Pacific, which had fallen not to an outside invading force, but due to the carelessness of its delegate. They chose to violate the sovereignty of The South Pacific because they believed it was the right thing to do. That's the bottom line: that the FRA is willing to do anything if they are convinced it's right. If we all agreed with them on what was right, that wouldn't be a problem; but a number of us here disagree pretty seriously on the topic of rights and ethics in NS. That's why the question of our membership has come up again. If the FRA is concerned not with defending regional sovereignty, but with crusading against what they consider to be tyranny or injustice in NationStates, then our members may continue to be kicked out of FRA discussions for holding dissenting opinions. And if that's the case, then it's the FRA that doesn't want TRR as a member region, rather than the other way around. |
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 27 2011, 01:00 AM Post #54 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
BRAVO. |
![]() |
|
| Earth | May 27 2011, 01:19 AM Post #55 |
|
Loyalist
|
Nai, I freaking love you so much. |
![]() Speaker of the Assembly | |
![]() |
|
| Oliver Dion | May 27 2011, 01:20 AM Post #56 |
![]()
Dedicated
|
What she said.
|
![]() |
|
| Northern Chittowa | May 27 2011, 10:50 AM Post #57 |
|
Regular
|
I do hate to jump in on a FRA hating/Nai lovefest going on here, but just a few points really come to mind. Namely, you state this is why you dislike the politics of the FRA, yet this is overall a new issue. When the original Rouge Delegate Policy was created it was following the fallout from an incident in one of the feeders going back a good few years now (back in 2008). Since that time there have been quite a few feeder coups/situations of which the FRA has not involved itself in. So to say that this is the reason as to why you dislike FRA politics seems strange to me considering its the first time the FRA has involved itself in feeder affairs since 2008... You also say that the FRA is more concerned with removing injustice from the NS world and you state that is prevalent in its mindset. That has not been the case. In the past the FRA just defended regions, not in an attempt to instil democratic values into regions but to stop invaders. With Uni's term however I will agree that he has attempted to force this particular ideology onto the FRA, but its not an inherent problem within the organisation that has stretched back through the ages so to speak. |
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | May 28 2011, 06:56 PM Post #58 |
|
Spammer
|
Heh, no worries, NC... I already got to feel all warm and fuzzy for an evening. ![]() I said (very carefully, 'cause that's what I do) that this sort of thing is "part of" what I disliked about FRA politics - if you want to know what else bugs me, I'd be happy to chat about it with you in private sometime. I didn't think it was particularly relevant to the current discussion. I have made no statements whatsoever about how prevalent a given mindset is within the FRA. I prefer to talk about the events, because while we may disagree on the deeper reasons why something happened, we can all agree on what happened. This is how I understand the FRA's intervention in TSP and what it implies about the current FRA mindset and policy. If disregarding a region's sovereignty in order to enforce a particular ethical standard of delegate behavior is indeed an issue of internal controversy for the FRA, then that's something for our reps to address on the FRA boards, and I'm sure they will continue to do so. But if there is substantial agreement within the FRA that this sort of intervention is the right thing to do, then I'm not sure how much that will accomplish. We'll see how the debate goes. In the mean time, thanks for the civil discussion.
|
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| Northern Chittowa | May 29 2011, 12:21 PM Post #59 |
|
Regular
|
Just read my previous post again and that first sentence comes across a tad harsher than I actually meant it to, so sorry! But anyway, I’ll be happy to hear what else you think is wrong with the FRA. I’m not ever going to say the place is perfect, there are issues with it that have bugged me plenty of times in the past and a few things that still do. Indeed, it is obvious that there are things that can be worked on, as a few people have expressed their dislike for how the FRA operates which tells me that its not just one persons viewpoint, but is one shared by a few. And the debate would be worth having in my view. I wouldn’t want to see the FRA become the global enforcer of democratic ideals so any debate regarding that would be welcomed I would have thought on the FRA boards. I think I’m right in saying that Uni is in the minority over in the FRA with his particular defender mindset and I can’t see that changing. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic » |






12:32 AM Jul 11