| Embassy and Consulate Policies |
It has been pointed out that our standing policy of requesting consulates to be posted on at least once per month is contradictory and even hypocritical, in view of our lack of an ambassador corps, meaning that our own embassies will no longer be maintained. This is actually an interesting topic of discussion. I agreed with Glen's decision to disband the ambassador corps when it was first made, but it is also true that we can't demand of other regions what we are not willing to provide.
Our choices here are three:
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
Our decision to no longer post monthly updates in our foreign outposts does not make our own activity requirements hypocritical. When I announced the policy, I recognized that we would lose some embassies and consulates, because we would no longer meet the requirements to keep them.
If other regions don't believe following our decision is best for them, then they should have no problem meeting the activity requirement. Us ending the practice does not necessitate allowing inactive and unused consulates on our forums. In fact, the number of inactive embassies and consulates on our forums played a significant factor in the decision to end the old model of foreign updates. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I supported and still support your decision to stop posting updates in all our embassies. I agree that our embassies were just not sufficiently active, and we can better invest the resources of our Foreign Ministry. However, at that time we did not require a minimum activity level in our embassies. To require from other regions that which we are not willing to give is probably the most expedient course of action, but that doesn't mean it's not hypocritcal.
Now, I'm not advocating that we should resume posting in each of our embassies, or that we reactivate the foreign service, but the most sensible thing to do would be to stop asking for a minimum level of activity or to distribute our updates, informally if you will, in those embassies that we consider the most relevant. This isn't only a matter of expediency, it's also about the image that we are giving to other regions, and how we should hold ourselves accountable to the standards that we require from others. 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
The two are completely separate, Kris. I put in place an activity requirement because there is no point in maintaining inactive consulates. Separating embassies and consulates was already recognition that consulates are of less importance. It's a matter of pragmatism, here. I'm not going to allow consulates -- which are, by definition, less important to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- to fall inactive without consequences.
That is separate from my decision to no longer post monthly updates in every embassy and consulate we maintain, which is in effect deciding to let those embassies and consulates become inactive. If regions wish to remove our embassies and consulates, that is fine by me. It's a consequence I accepted within the press release. The Ministry is not demanding that our consulates and embassies remain in place, even though we don't use them. That would be hypocrisy.
Probably out of my area here, but what's the problem with having inactive consulates/embassies? It's not like it takes up a ton of space on out forums or anything?
(05-03-2014, 09:41 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Probably out of my area here, but what's the problem with having inactive consulates/embassies? It's not like it takes up a ton of space on out forums or anything? If we're going to have them, they should mean something. I'd much rather end consulates altogether than let them be inactive. Consulates are privilege, not a right.
I talked with Glen about this on IRC yesterday, and he clarified that embassies (which were my major concern, as opposed to consulates) didn't have activity requirements. In view of that, I'd rather see how this new policy works out, and only change it if it's necessary.
I also have some concerns about our in game embassies. Personally I only want to leave the ones that are also offsite embassies and a few important consulates. I'd like to know what the Cabinet thinks of this. 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
I would say In-game Embassy = Forum Embassy/Consultant or Treaty.
Since they were created, in-game embassies have always been the purview of the Delegate. I would support syncing in-game embassies with our forum embassies and consulates. The decision is the Delegate's, though.
I'm going to sync our in game embassies with our forum embassies and consulates, but won't guarantee one to every single region we have consulates with. Likewise, I won't give in-game embassies to embassy collectors, even if we have forum consulates with them.
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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |