+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+------ Forum: Private Halls of the Assembly (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-95.html)
+------ Thread: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus (/thread-5424.html)
Pages:
1
2
Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - Drall - 08-14-2017
We recently broached this topic on discord, and I'd love to have a proper discussion on it. So, let's chat about our current position on Lazarus and how its gone so far.
So far our official support of the Lazerene Resistance has generated a lot of flack for us in the GP community on a whole, especially with some of our members going farther than the resistance ourselves and others of our members calling them out in public (that might only be me, actually). The stance we've taken hasn't really gained us much either - a lot of yelling this way and that, and that's about all.
In my humble opinion, it's time to reconsider. Perhaps it would be best if we were to withdraw from the situation entirely and take a neutral position. Or perhaps we'd prefer to go on as we currently are. Either way, I believe this a discussion we need to have, so let's have it!
RE: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - Ryccia - 08-14-2017
I have no doubt that our position in Lazarus is the fair and correct one. Besides, we've already burnt the bridge. No turning back.
RE: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - Punchwood - 08-14-2017
Lazarus supported us during the coup and not the illegitimate government, it would be a poor show of thanks by doing the opposite to them. And as Ryccia has said that bridge has been crossed and burned, I don't think turning back would help anyone. If anything I think it would make us look weak as a region and damage our reputation to backslide on something as major as this.
RE: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - Roavin - 08-14-2017
The current stance wasn't reached based on "well Funk doesn't want fendas and the resistance does", as some claim. First, that's silly because I don't think it's a R/D dichotomy guiding this conflict, even if the sides ostensibly have more representation from opposing members of that spectrum (and it gets mentioned in the propaganda, which is in some instances unfortunate).
We kept ourselves well covered and neutral during the pre-coup conflict. We issued a statement that I believe to be neutral, offered mediation, and despite Omega badgering me about it in PM, didn't do anything to condemn Funk or close embassies or propose ending the treaty or anything of that sort. I was also invited to the Resistance chat, which I categorically refused to take part in.
When the coup broke out, Resentine gained access to the resistance server, and independently confirmed that the accusations made against the resistance by Killer Kitty/Evil Wolf on the GP forum were untrue and that the screenshots were taken out of context and didn't imply any of what was accused. After briefly debating the issue, referencing Lazarene law and our treaty with Lazarus, we came to the unanimous conclusion that this was, in fact, a coup d'etat by any sensible definition.
Our treaty with Lazarus states:
Quote:Section 3. Both parties agree to assist each other in responding to an internal coup d'etat, unless relieved of duty by mutual agreement.
From this, the way forward was clear - as a good ally, we would be supporting the resistance.
Now, going forward - yes, the resistance isn't as perfect as it should. Yes, things were said that shouldn't have been said. Yes, some people took the opportunity to take potshots at our region. But on the other hand, if we take that as a pretext to stop our involvement now, what does that say about us? If we did that, any outside observer would rightly say that we don't follow through on our commitments. The going was tough, so TSP just went home. That's not what a good ally does.
Even if the resistance ends up failing, it's our duty to support it while it stands so that any other region we are allied with can clearly see - yes, indeed, TSP takes their commitment seriously, and that if, say, TNP got couped today, we would fight just as hard there, just like they would fight for us (and indeed, TNP has fought for us). It's what a good ally does.
RE: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - Belschaft - 08-14-2017
What Roavin said. It may be expedient for us to recognise Funk and make a deal, but why would anyone ever trust us again if we did so?
RE: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - Drall - 08-15-2017
(08-14-2017, 06:59 PM)Belschaft Wrote: What Roavin said. It may be expedient for us to recognise Funk and make a deal, but why would anyone ever trust us again if we did so?
As I said earlier, our current actions have bought us a lot of flack in exchange for nothing in return. If we were to withdraw from our support of the resistance, we are not at all obligated to take a pro-Funk stance. It is quite possible to maintain a more neutral position on the matter entirely - something we'd gain a lot from, without losing every shred of credibility we possess as we would if we suddenly switched sides.
RE: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - Amerion - 08-15-2017
I understand where you are coming from, Drall.
And not to sound like a broken record, but like above-members have said, that line has been crossed.
In any case, as both a 'resistance' member and as a legislator in TSP, I think this present conflict is a matter of principle. We may in fact not win in Lazarus, but to not try would be to surrender our democratic norms and principles. At the very least, we should make our last stand an honourable one, and one that we will look back to with pride.
RE: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - Altmoras - 08-15-2017
(08-15-2017, 12:13 AM)Drall Wrote:(08-14-2017, 06:59 PM)Belschaft Wrote: What Roavin said. It may be expedient for us to recognise Funk and make a deal, but why would anyone ever trust us again if we did so?
As I said earlier, our current actions have bought us a lot of flack in exchange for nothing in return. If we were to withdraw from our support of the resistance, we are not at all obligated to take a pro-Funk stance. It is quite possible to maintain a more neutral position on the matter entirely - something we'd gain a lot from, without losing every shred of credibility we possess as we would if we suddenly switched sides.
Flak in gameplay from Cormac and the like is the worst reason to back down from anything. And what TSP got in return was showing the world that we aren't a fair weather friend to our allies, we gave our word with the treaty and we're living up to it. I am very curious what exactly you think TSP would gain from pulling out of the conflict and declaring neutrality though.
As a reply to the OP itself I concur with my fellow legislators, the bridge is burned with Funkadelia's government. You'll get your wish of quiet neutrality in a few weeks/months when this conflict fizzles out and Funk is still in power. Same thing happened with all the regions who decried Cormac, Tim, and Koth's coup of Osiris last year, military opposition was slowly dropped when the futility of it was understood and embassies were slowly reopened. That's the most likely outcome here so just give it 9 months.
RE: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - sandaoguo - 08-15-2017
Whether the Resistance succeeds or not, Funk is not a legitimate governor of Lazarus. Wolf is a long-time antagonist. And I don't care if Gameplayers think we're paranoid, Rahl involvement is plain to see.
We lose nothing never having relations with Lazarus while that regime is there. Having alliances with GCRs isn't a necessity, and TSP shouldn't enable the Rahl sprawl by allying with regions under their influence, or sit there and be complicit in active neutrality.
RE: Reconsideration of our Position on Lazarus - Tsunamy - 08-15-2017
I really think Bel hit the nail on the head. If, we've determined Funk and the ruling party of Laz to be illegitimate — and not the same party that signed our treaty — we need to stand with the resistance movement and not be seen as a fair weather friend.
Making us "take flack" for it is a way to isolate the resistance. Other regions have taken a more neutral stance on the issue, but I don't believe those nations were allies of the form government. In fact, I think we could even make the argument that making personal attacks against Glen and Roavin for their "defenderdom" is the sign that defenses of Funk and the new government are pretty illegitimate.