(06-05-2021, 04:21 AM)moe Wrote: As someone who is very interested in learning more about foreign affairs but realizes the obstacles in getting newcomers involved, I'm curious to see whether you had any plans regarding integration of staff within this department. I'm very excited to see the proposed ideas of monthly reports and encouraging discussions. 

For perspective, I joined the foreign affairs department a couple of weeks ago, and while I've enjoyed participating in discussions and 'speculation', it could be hard for someone who is new to NSGP to jump in immediately. I also have not yet been assigned as an ambassador, although I believe that's just due to some unfortunate RL conflicts/timing issues. 

Essentially, I think my question here boils down to wondering how you see yourself managing the current staff, as well as what opportunities are available for them getting involved in/learning about foreign affairs, especially if there are any plans beyond typical ambassador assignments. 

I'll start by saying welcome to NationStates. It's safe to say that getting into NSGP and the nuances of it has a learning curve. There are times when people bring up historical events, and I fully understand what it's like to be completely confused and in the dark about these things. You just joined this wonderful game, and then someone brings up something that happened years before you even joined. All I can say is that if you ever find yourself not understanding what people are talking about, feel free to jump in and ask for clarification and explanation. There's no shame in asking those questions. Over time, you will learn and handle these issues, and someday a newcomer will be asking you these same questions.

As for your question on my agenda, I will have a "term reset" of sorts in which I ask all of the current ambassadors if they wish to maintain their assignments or become reassigned to another region or more. As ambassadors, you may find yourself on your assigned region's Discord server, forum, and RMB, and there are opportunities to get involved in interregional events. Furthermore, there is the NSGP Discord and subforum where you can interact with people around the world. Over time, you may also make acquaintances with prominent FA figures across NationStates or learn them through reputation. The options are limitless when it comes to getting involved in the game.

(06-05-2021, 04:21 AM)moe Wrote: I also think that the PfS has grown to be a very formidable voting bloc over time, and I'm glad to see a big emphasis on it within your platform. What do you think are some of the strengths (and weaknesses, if any) of the PfS bloc compared to other WA blocs, and do you feel that there are any improvements you'd like to work on during your term?

The greatest strength that the PfS has compared to the WALL and the Consortium is that its members have more potential for cohesion. We have far more in common with each other than what divides us. For most of us, we have a shared defender creed and democratic traditions that set us apart from the ideological divisions within other blocs. Granted, we may not agree on every issue that comes our way, but there is plenty of ground for us to come together. Outside of the PfS, some of us cooperate militarily and do so often. These are strengths where we are either comparable or exceed that of other blocs.

Today, the WALL suffers from stagnation, and several times, leadership candidates in those member regions have often lamented that fact. Furthermore, several leading candidates in TEP's delegate election, which is occurring concurrently with our Cabinet elections, have indicated their intent to scrap TEP's continuing participation in the Consortium, a decision that will likely mean the end of the bloc. At no point did I have any inside information on the goings-on of the Consortium, but the bloc had an unusual mix of regions. I believe we can draw lessons by analyzing the failures of the WALL and the Consortium to find and address potential weaknesses in the PfS.

As for improving the PfS, I mentioned in my OP that I hope to propose a few security provisions in the Charter to protect its members. Such provisions providing protection will enhance the PfS experience and give its members a greater sense of security, knowing that the other members will back them up if anyone attacks them.

(06-05-2021, 04:21 AM)moe Wrote: Edit: One last question, sorry!

You might've briefly alluded to this, but what do you see as the biggest "fa issue" confronting TSP currently, and how would you strive to address it as MoFA?

I believe that we should concentrate our efforts on the PfS and its development, but I would be remiss if I failed to mention The North Pacific. Since their incendiary statement in January, equating our defending operations as "sanctioned activities that...[aid] the causes of fascism", we have been in a diplomatic row with TNP. It's unfortunate that the relationship between two of the biggest regions in NS has taken this turn, but I am hopeful that we can turn things around for two reasons: they just elected a new delegate, and we worked together on the Genua raid. The Aurora Alliance is one of our oldest surviving treaties, and it would be a shame to see it burn to ashes.

I am proud that Roavin and Omega stood their ground and defended our region's principles, holding TNP to account for their January statement, and I hope to do the same if elected. We cannot and will not allow any region, even if it comes from an ally, to disrespect us and our principles and accuse us of enabling fascists. We are just as committed to the antifascist cause as them, and for a region to call our defending operations against their quorum raids, especially when done against regions that are not even fascist, an act that aids fascism is simply outrageous.