In short - will reply in depth in the morning:

I'm against a reappearance of said triple alliance. I would also disagree again, respectfully about how the North Pacific stands citing my own experience and connections with the region.

wow, i have absolutely no idea what you guys are talking about, but it all sounds very interesting. lol.
stupid question, and maybe this isnt the place to ask this but what are sinker and feeders?

I can answer that, if it's alright with Raven.

Feeders are the five 'Pacific' regions where all nations are born into. Sinkers are the three regions where nations who ceased to exist are refounded into, plus the region where all ejected nations are sent to:

• The Pacific (Feeder)
  
• The South Pacific (Feeder)
  
• The North Pacific (Feeder)
  
• The East Pacific (Feeder)
  
• The West Pacific (Feeder)
  
• Lazarus (Sinker)
  
• Osiris (Sinker
  
• Balder (Sinker)
  
• The Rejected Realms (Sinker)

I've bolded the ones we have treaties with.
I'm sure Raven will be happy to answer any questions you have that are directly related to his campaign, so don't be shy and ask him!

(11-17-2014, 09:45 PM)Unibot Wrote: Thanks for taking the time to respond fully to my question - I appreciate that. 

I would, in general, be worried about the rise of the old "Big 3" coming at the expense of our current relations - when we exclude our current GCR allies for a tight knit alliance with other GCRs this has the effect of just swinging us into a new FA direction. Concord was a great idea when it was proposed because all three powers, TNP, Osiris and TSP were relatively autonomous (although Osiris was obviously being courted by the sovereignists and The Empire) - it was shot down solely by SovConners who didn't want a rival organisation. 

Nowadays TNP and Osiris are more closely tied with UIAF - would something like a Concord just act as a trojan horse for the common denominator shared behind both TNP and Osiris (UIAF)? We've seen how UIAF has made our life difficult to do what we wanted to do as allies - TNP and Osiris have to be facing that kind of executive restraint behind closed doors. In fact they must be: Cormac already said they were breathing down his neck when he was Pharaoh. I'd be worried tying us to Concord 2.0 would just be effectively tying us to UIAF. 

And since you asked: one way to defreeze TNP-TSP relations would be to negotiate a redraft of TNP-TSP's treaty. It would keep relations on the agenda and increase reception to the relationship. Moreover, it'd hopefully improve the treaty - since it is written in crayon. A more robust treaty would improve our standing with TNP, renew relations and get an eyesore off the books. Killing three birds with one stone, as far as I am concerned.

As a general aside, I think Unibot's points here are fairly accurate. The Triple Alliance was a very sensible foundation for TSP's foreign policy in 2012 and 2013, and the TNP-OSI-TSP axis was incredibly effective, but the conditions that made this so no longer exist. The foreign policy of 2012/13 doesn't make sense for 2015.

(11-17-2014, 09:45 PM)Unibot Wrote: Thanks for taking the time to respond fully to my question - I appreciate that. 

I would, in general, be worried about the rise of the old "Big 3" coming at the expense of our current relations - when we exclude our current GCR allies for a tight knit alliance with other GCRs this has the effect of just swinging us into a new FA direction. Concord was a great idea when it was proposed because all three powers, TNP, Osiris and TSP were relatively autonomous (although Osiris was obviously being courted by the sovereignists and The Empire) - it was shot down solely by SovConners who didn't want a rival organisation. 

Nowadays TNP and Osiris are more closely tied with UIAF - would something like a Concord just act as a trojan horse for the common denominator shared behind both TNP and Osiris (UIAF)? We've seen how UIAF has made our life difficult to do what we wanted to do as allies - TNP and Osiris have to be facing that kind of executive restraint behind closed doors. In fact they must be: Cormac already said they were breathing down his neck when he was Pharaoh. I'd be worried tying us to Concord 2.0 would just be effectively tying us to UIAF. 

And since you asked: one way to defreeze TNP-TSP relations would be to negotiate a redraft of TNP-TSP's treaty. It would keep relations on the agenda and increase reception to the relationship. Moreover, it'd hopefully improve the treaty - since it is written in crayon. A more robust treaty would improve our standing with TNP, renew relations and get an eyesore off the books. Killing three birds with one stone, as far as I am concerned.

Okay, let's take this one thing at a time so I can break it down and give you a proper answer.

I have no plans for creating a triple alliance or any sort of pact that would function like concord. I've not mentioned any plans for Osiris at all in this campaign (as I have none, they are the ones who closed relations with us, and that is another kettle of fish I want no part of). What I am suggesting, and saying that I would like is for us to strengthen the foundations of the treaties we have - The Rejected Realms, Lazarus, The North Pacific, Balder. I would also like us to find some common ground and resolve issues with The West Pacific and possibly find some common ground with The East Pacific.

I've already spoken to Chairman-Emeritus Kazmr (the Lazarene Ambassador) about relations between our two regions, and if Guy will speak to me regarding the same for The Rejected Realms then we're off to a good start. I've also spoken to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for The West Pacific about that situation and am naturally in close contact with McMasterdonia in The North Pacific.

Unibot, that suggestion about redoing our treaty, spicing it up is a good idea, and one that was already on my agenda - I most certainly look forward in seeing that set forward assuming cabinet agree.

Now onto Cormac and the Imperials. He has the dubious honour of getting special attention from them, more than I ever did - I was/am on reasonably good terms with most of them. I'm not even going to try and explore SovCon, once was enough, thank you.

(11-17-2014, 11:23 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I can answer that, if it's alright with Raven.
I'm sure Raven will be happy to answer any questions you have that are directly related to his campaign, so don't be shy and ask him!

That works, thanks Kris, and yes, I'll be happy to answer any questions about said campaign

(11-18-2014, 03:43 PM)Belschaft Wrote:

(11-17-2014, 09:45 PM)Unibot Wrote: Thanks for taking the time to respond fully to my question - I appreciate that. 

I would, in general, be worried about the rise of the old "Big 3" coming at the expense of our current relations - when we exclude our current GCR allies for a tight knit alliance with other GCRs this has the effect of just swinging us into a new FA direction. Concord was a great idea when it was proposed because all three powers, TNP, Osiris and TSP were relatively autonomous (although Osiris was obviously being courted by the sovereignists and The Empire) - it was shot down solely by SovConners who didn't want a rival organisation. 

Nowadays TNP and Osiris are more closely tied with UIAF - would something like a Concord just act as a trojan horse for the common denominator shared behind both TNP and Osiris (UIAF)? We've seen how UIAF has made our life difficult to do what we wanted to do as allies - TNP and Osiris have to be facing that kind of executive restraint behind closed doors. In fact they must be: Cormac already said they were breathing down his neck when he was Pharaoh. I'd be worried tying us to Concord 2.0 would just be effectively tying us to UIAF. 

And since you asked: one way to defreeze TNP-TSP relations would be to negotiate a redraft of TNP-TSP's treaty. It would keep relations on the agenda and increase reception to the relationship. Moreover, it'd hopefully improve the treaty - since it is written in crayon. A more robust treaty would improve our standing with TNP, renew relations and get an eyesore off the books. Killing three birds with one stone, as far as I am concerned.

As a general aside, I think Unibot's points here are fairly accurate. The Triple Alliance was a very sensible foundation for TSP's foreign policy in 2012 and 2013, and the TNP-OSI-TSP axis was incredibly effective, but the conditions that made this so no longer exist. The foreign policy of 2012/13 doesn't make sense for 2015.

Just a general repeat that I didn't suggest a triple alliance. I was suggesting we reaffirm our relations and strengthen the foundations with the regions we're allied to.

I will be asking the same question to all candidates, and I would appreciate an honest answer. Anyone that bluffs this question off by trying to be polite will not be getting my vote.

What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each of your opposition candidates campaigns?

Thanks

A new GCR is formed. It is a feeder, and you are the only government official available to respond to it. You notice the feeder within the hour and happen to be free all day - you are also aware that most of the rest of the cabinet will not be around for the rest of the day, if not for the next couple of days.

The GCR quickly attracts a small group of roughly organized people who identify themselves, on the RMB, as being from a non-descript non-NS related online community. A couple of representatives find the TSP IRC channel and are available to chat. Their IP addresses, should you check them, are reliable ISPs and unknown to you.

It quickly seems that they have a tenuous grasp on the WAD - they far exceed any endos picked up by any ragtag WA members, but could quickly be dislodged by a concerted effort from almost any GCR or UCR military (say, a half-dozen to a dozen). They have no forum set up, but do have an IRC channel with multiple OPs and a clear OP hierarchy.

You seem to be the only major GCR politician at the time, and no prominent gameplayers are in their IRC channel.

What do you do?

(11-19-2014, 07:40 AM)Aramanchovia Wrote: I will be asking the same question to all candidates, and I would appreciate an honest answer. Anyone that bluffs this question off by trying to be polite will not be getting my vote.

What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each of your opposition candidates campaigns?

Thanks

I am not going to be answering this. I am a diplomat, and my campaign is based around being diplomatic - politeness is an essential part of diplomacy. If you want someone to be blunt over their views of the other candidates, then you're asking the wrong person. I have spent the last two years building up a working relationship with many different groups and governments - it would not have been possible were I a crass and blunt battering ram. I speak candidly with some of my closest diplomatic allies, yes but that is the result of mutual trust and respect over a long relationship.

Their strengths? They don't have the experience or history that I do. Their weaknesses? They don't have the experience or history that I do. Double edged sword. See my Conflict of Interest Disclosure and do some general research on the state of Osiris over the last two years to explain why.

(11-19-2014, 11:00 AM)The Grim Reaper Wrote: You seem to be the only major GCR politician at the time, and no prominent gameplayers are in their IRC channel.

I need your definition of major GCR politician - does that include all of the GCRs or just the South Pacific? Such an event is implausible to say the least out of all the GCRs.

(11-19-2014, 11:00 AM)The Grim Reaper Wrote: A new GCR is formed. It is a feeder, and you are the only government official available to respond to it. You notice the feeder within the hour and happen to be free all day - you are also aware that most of the rest of the cabinet will not be around for the rest of the day, if not for the next couple of days.

The GCR quickly attracts a small group of roughly organized people who identify themselves, on the RMB, as being from a non-descript non-NS related online community. A couple of representatives find the TSP IRC channel and are available to chat. Their IP addresses, should you check them, are reliable ISPs and unknown to you.

It quickly seems that they have a tenuous grasp on the WAD - they far exceed any endos picked up by any ragtag WA members, but could quickly be dislodged by a concerted effort from almost any GCR or UCR military (say, a half-dozen to a dozen). They have no forum set up, but do have an IRC channel with multiple OPs and a clear OP hierarchy.

You seem to be the only major GCR politician at the time, and no prominent gameplayers are in their IRC channel.

What do you do?

Firstly - the very idea that I am the only member of the GCRdom government online is... nonsense. Such an event would never happen, and even were it the case, I have the contact details of some of said officials to be able to contact them via email, Skype, Steam, Origin or Facebook if irc wasn't possible.

What would I do? This will be simplified.

1. Gather information about the group, where they've come from and what their aims are.
2. Leave a note for the Delegate and the cabinet with what I've found. (Leading to cabinet discussion later)
3. Wish them a good day.

Why have I done this?

1. The South Pacific has no reason to get involved in the battle for a new feeder.
2. Interventionism and reactionary diplomacy (spur of the moment) is often detrimental to your broader foreign policy goals. If they manage to hold it until a discussion can be had with officials responsible for the military (cabinet&delegate, later on - assembly), and some of our allies - like the North Pacific, Balder, the Rejected Realms and Lazarus where we can decide whether to recognise their claim and assist them or not.
3. I'm not a gameplayer and I have no interest in petty fights over newly formed regions - leave that to the gameplayer hordes.