| The Rejected Realms Treaty |
I don't understand what link you're asking for...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (06-28-2014, 01:48 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: Regarding Belschaft's concern that TRR could not deploy without the approval of the FRA Regional Assembly, this is currently being clarified. The FRA's internal policies are only available to members, so I cannot personally access them. I was not referring to the RRA, nor did I make any reference to it. I was responding to the suggestion by the Vice-Delegate that an alliance with TRR would produce benefits in the form of assistance from the FRA. As for the FRA's internal policies, they are freely viewable to all. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
In that case, your criticism doesn't make much sense, and the outrage against somebody "misleading" the Cabinet is misplaced. There is nothing in the treaty about the FRA, because we are not proposing an alliance with the FRA. Arbiter mentioned that we would have a connection to the FRA through TRR, which is true because TRR is the largest and most influential region in that alliance. That connection could be leveraged in a time of need, regardless of what the legal process is for the FRA Rangers to be deployed.
And, no, I don't believe the FRA's internal policies are publicly available. Their forum is pretty much locked down. You need to either be a citizen of a member region, have diplomatic masking, or be an FRA Ranger, to see any informative areas of the forum. If you have a link to all of their policies, particularly the Feeder and Sinker Deployment policy, I would definitely like to see it. I was able to track down a notice about it in TRR's forum archives, but that's about it.
The Vice-Delegate indicated that an alliance with TRR could help get us FRA aid. FRA internal policy is such that this is not the case - TRR has no control over the FRA GCR deployment process, which is precisely laid out and entirely at the discretion of the relevant FRA officials. Anyone who told the Cabinet something to the contrary was misleading it, and I'm interested in who it was.
In regards to the FRA internal policies, they are stored here. Can you see that? Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
(06-29-2014, 01:27 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The Vice-Delegate indicated that an alliance with TRR could help get us FRA aid. FRA internal policy is such that this is not the case - TRR has no control over the FRA GCR deployment process, which is precisely laid out and entirely at the discretion of the relevant FRA officials. Anyone who told the Cabinet something to the contrary was misleading it, and I'm interested in who it was.What Arbiter actually is saying is that we have a connection to the FRA through TRR, and TRR could use their influence in the organization to our benefit in a time of need. That the FRA has rules and procedures dictating how they make a decision doesn't change the fact that TRR can influence the decisions. If we are ever under attack, TRR has leverage that could get the rest of the FRA to aid us in a time of need. The Cabinet is not, and never was, under the impression that signing a treaty with TRR would guarantee FRA protection. If that's what we thought, that's what Arbiter would have said! If there was a legal guarantee, it would be in the treaty. (06-29-2014, 01:27 PM)Belschaft Wrote: In regards to the FRA internal policies, they are stored here. Can you see that?No, I can't. I get an Access Denied error. You have the "Regional Members" masking, which is only available to people who are/were in FRA member regions.
Am I? Amusing. They should probably change that.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Sorry, I'm looking for the documentation that you alluded to:
"We believe strongly in GCR sovereignty, and have a standing order of severely condemning any violation of it." Cant seem to locate that section in the Charter
(06-29-2014, 02:50 PM)Ditortilla Wrote: Sorry, I'm looking for the documentation that you alluded to: Glen was talking about internal Cabinet policy. We have all agreed that GCR sovereignty is paramount to our regional interests. I know I haven't made the post I promised yet. I've been rather busy these past few days, and will be next week as well since I'm starting finals. I'll try to post later today. 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
(06-29-2014, 03:00 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:(06-29-2014, 02:50 PM)Ditortilla Wrote: Sorry, I'm looking for the documentation that you alluded to:Glen was talking about internal Cabinet policy. We have all agreed that GCR sovereignty is paramount to our regional interests. Pan-GCR alliances only work in theory. And, while I understand the value of being allies with every GCR, its just not possible. As long as GCRs pick sides on the R/D spectrum, it'll never happen.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
That's awesome, but you are talking about pan-GCR alliances and I'm talking about upholding GCR sovereignty. Those are two different things. We haven't proposed a treaty with TEP, TWP and all other Game Created Regions. We are proposing a treaty with the Rejected Realms because we see value in such a relationship. You speak of how it's impossible to be allied with them because they "pick sides" in the R/D spectrum. I would argue that R/D stance is not the only thing we look into when considering a treaty. The possibilities of cultural cooperation were given great importance when we considered this treaty, and we have been talking with TRR's government about organising cultural events. We really need to stop viewing treaties as military alliances; they are so much more than that.
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 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |