Users browsing this thread:

***Kris Kringle*** · 11-25-2014, 05:56 PM

I'm interested in knowing why those who voted against repealing Coalition... choose that option. What usefulness do you see in such an defunct alliance that doesn't even serve our interests?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

God-Emperor · 11-25-2014, 07:45 PM

The alliance itself is rather unless, but I don't want to set a precedent of unilaterally withdrawing from broad coalitions without any notice or warning. I think the region may have lost a leadership opportunity to declare victory over one of the most evil regions this game has ever seen on behalf of the Coalition as a whole.

The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN)
Provost, Magisterium
Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army
Journalist, East Pacific News Service
Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific

~~Unibot~~ · 11-25-2014, 07:57 PM

Precedent? The precedent we're setting here is that we won't follow our interregional obligations we set for ourselves - by maintaining the "Coalition" while not at war with The GGR.

Furthermore, the only way we can withdrawal from the coalition is on a unilateral basis. A multilateral departure would compromise the independence and supremacy of our legislature. As far as I know, there is only one member of this "broad coalition" - aka. The South Pacific. It's ludicrous to make it out to be some sort of shining monument of foreign policy or "leadership". It's a product of bad bookkeeping, paper tigers and misplaced patriotism.

We've never done much of anything with it and we haven't even had any member-regions join the coalition. For most GCRs, the "Nazi Hunts" died with 2013 when it became clear that they were making the situation worse and relations between GCRs and Europeia and invaderdom were fragmented with the failed invasion of Nazi Europe. Maintaining an old fart in the wind on the books for little more than sentiment is embarrassing, but also irresponsible, given we're not really even meeting the obligations of the "Coalition" anymore.

***Kris Kringle*** · 11-25-2014, 07:59 PM

What Coalition? What victory? Seriously guys, we need to move on from fighting Nazis. Sure, they are evil, but there is a time for everything, and the time to declare useless wars against them has already passed.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

~~Unibot~~ · 11-25-2014, 08:07 PM

(11-25-2014, 07:59 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: What Coalition? What victory? Seriously guys, we need to move on from fighting Nazis. Sure, they are evil, but there is a time for everything, and the time to declare useless wars against them has already passed.

Amen. The Coalition appears to be a legal fiction and we're not meeting the obligations its set out.

Aramanchovia · 11-26-2014, 01:50 AM

I'm guessing seeing it didn't pass, a lot of people are still in favour of having some sort of formal anti-nazi/racism stand. It is an issue I personally believe we should be standing up against.

Sometimes it is better to have something flawed in place with the right sentiment than nothing at all. That's why I voted against it.

***Kris Kringle*** · 11-26-2014, 02:10 AM

I fail to see how this Coalition benefits us in any way. The fight against Nazism in NationStates is dead, and as a region we have better things to do than give them any more attention. Repealing the treaty doesn't mean we are condoning Nazism, it simply means we are acknowledging that the Coalition is dead, useless and serves us no purpose.

In fact, I should start by asking the following: why do we even need to take a stand against Nazism? What purpose does it serve? How do we benefit from it? Nazis are evil, fine, we all know that. But unlike real life, you can't put NS Nazis in jail, and fighting them only gives them the attention they want.

Personally, I care about what happens in this region, not about some misguided individual who wants to roleplay as a Nazi in some other region. If we want to raid their region, then the Special Forces can do it, but we don't need useless legislation in our books, just because of sentiment. I'm sorry, but laws shouldn't be made on that basis.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

**Belschaft** · 11-26-2014, 10:41 AM

Some if you seem to be woefully misinformed in regards to the anti-Nazi Coalition. It was formed via talks orchestrated by Rachel, and it's signatories included roughly a dozen major UCR's and GCR's. To the best of my knowledge it is still in legal existence if largely defunct due to the near-destruction of the groups it targeted.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 11-26-2014, 10:59 AM

Obviously it's still in legal existence: at least one region (us) is part of it. The question is how is it relevant now. I argue it is not, and we should therefore repeal it, since it serves no practical purpose.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

***Tsunamy*** · 11-26-2014, 11:47 AM

(11-26-2014, 10:41 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Some if you seem to be woefully misinformed in regards to the anti-Nazi Coalition. It was formed via talks orchestrated by Rachel, and it's signatories included roughly a dozen major UCR's and GCR's. To the best of my knowledge it is still in legal existence if largely defunct due to the near-destruction of the groups it targeted.

Thanks Bels -- that's helpful to know.

Could one of the MoFA's -- either GR or Raven -- reach out to Rachel and see about this? I'm pretty much fine keeping it or pulling out, as long as we're not slighting people while doing it.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]