Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .321322323324325326327. . .381382»

Fort ilocandia

Manilenyos wrote:On the contrary, I'd argue it's good to take responsibility and move forward with a recruitment drive if we can - it isn't a sign of weakness. Every region, including regions like the North Pacific and the South Pacific, can struggle with delegate transitions. The two regions mentioned took about two months.

As for cross endorsement, naturally I endorse this. Cross endorsement and regional recruitment are not two mutually exclusive ideas. However, I prodded nations to endorse the acting Delegate and Vice-Delegate to increase endo counts maybe about two months ago, and I was told by the Defense Minister I wasn't supposed to. Unless the situation has changed, I'm not sure what we can do.

And to clarify, we'd be recruiting new nations. We won't be travelling to other regions or posting on our forum embassy thread. That would be a sign of weakness and instability. It's also poaching.

TL;DR - I don't see how our image is ruined by anything mentioned. Recruitment is a necessary step a region needs to take if they want to grow.

Do you suggest we simply allow seesaw delegacies? We already had a single month with four delegates. Is that the kind of instability you advocate? Yes, the Philippines may survive, but not in great shape.

Recruitment is not poaching because we are not regarding the GCRs as competitors, but as allies. Is that how you regard your recruitment efforts at XKI? I am worried about the wanton use of language especially in the international level.

On endorsement, I believe you misunderstood what our Defense Minister Secular state of the philippines. I believe what it meant was to reserve the pouring of endorsements for the newly elected government because the acting ones, including itself as interim Vice Delegate then, were only temporary placeholders.

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy and Seludong

I'm nervous

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy and Manilenyos

Fort ilocandia

Secular state of the philippines wrote:I think it's in due time I revive my proposals to increase regional security. We can either initiate the following advances:
(a) Organize a defense treaty with a prominent or multiple defender regions.
(b) Transform our region into a defender puppet storage.

The former proposal is a one sided accord which dictates a distinguished defender region to support us if an invader party attacked our region. The initial problem with this proposal is we can not offer mutual aid nor provide military support in an event our ally requires assistance to defend another region in peril due to lack of WA participation. We cannot also risk our active WA members serving in the administration to leave their designated posts. We have, as a region that lacks military strength, to offer something in return to defender regions aside from basic recognition. Albeit it's the most we can offer.

The latter proposal will transition our region into a puppet storage where players will store their alternative accounts/nations within our region. This requires an agreement with a prominent defender region to stockpile their defender army into our region while maintaining the local government in power. The agreement will have to require defender nations to endorse the local administration including the WA delagate in power and respect the local authority. The initial problem with this proposal is we risk local sovereignty. In an event that the defender nations decide to severe the agreement and usurp power, the local administration will lose its sovereignty. But it's highly unlikely but its a precaution we have to consider. However, if the proposal is in effect. It will increase regional influence to the respective local officers primarily the WA delegate and Vice-Delegate and deter invader regions. Invader regions will never try to send sorties nor try to invade a defender puppet storage due to its massive size and influence. I am not sure whether it's an advantage or a disadvantage but such proposal will increase foreign activity in our region and lessen local participation. But given our exemplar diversity where we are open to any nation regardless of nationality, religion, identity, language, etc. This wouldn't affect us as much but if this is the price we pay to increase our regional security, it's worth a shot.

I welcome any criticisms to this proposal. If you find any flaws or arguments that may hinder our constitution and our regional values, please don't hesitate to open up.

I agree with a limited, not a full-scale, deployment of foreign defenders in the region. I believe Ariusgrad welcomed visiting forces in the past despite intense opposition at the time, and still fiercely maintained regional sovereignty. We should continue such a balance in policy. For example, we can place a cap that defenders cannot exceed the total number of native WA members to put a limit on how many they put in here as their temporary base of operations. However, as with any treaty or agreement, we have to place a counteroffer.

I think Seludong misunderstood what our Eternal President meant when it mentioned political expertise. Ariusgrad was then citing our participation in the PFS, which I personally had not heard of any developments since we were admitted by the time of Ariusgrad's relegation from position, because PFS is not a military alliance. But in terms of defensive operations, we have nothing much to offer now that the PDF is reduced to less than a quarter of its original size and my PEFTON has been operating at minimum capacity. As I said before, the foundations set by our predecessors can be eroded over time without proactive and innovative governance, and we are now seeing the results.

Seludong

Fort ilocandia

Atraewa wrote:I'm nervous

What of?

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy

Fort ilocandia wrote:What of?

Writing a issue. Maybe they will accept or maybe no.

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy and Manilenyos

Wolficity wrote:hey, welcome Philippines 2015! =)

I think this is the first post.

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy

Post self-deleted by Atraewa.

Post by Atraewa suppressed by Seludong.

Post by Atraewa suppressed by Seludong.

Fort ilocandia wrote:I agree with a limited, not a full-scale, deployment of foreign defenders in the region. I believe Ariusgrad welcomed visiting forces in the past despite intense opposition at the time, and still fiercely maintained regional sovereignty. We should continue such a balance in policy. For example, we can place a cap that defenders cannot exceed the total number of native WA members to put a limit on how many they put in here as their temporary base of operations. However, as with any treaty or agreement, we have to place a counteroffer.

I think Seludong misunderstood what our Eternal President meant when it mentioned political expertise. Ariusgrad was then citing our participation in the PFS, which I personally had not heard of any developments since we were admitted by the time of Ariusgrad's relegation from position, because PFS is not a military alliance. But in terms of defensive operations, we have nothing much to offer now that the PDF is reduced to less than a quarter of its original size and my PEFTON has been operating at minimum capacity. As I said before, the foundations set by our predecessors can be eroded over time without proactive and innovative governance, and we are now seeing the results.

Thank you for pointing out what Ariusgrad meant by that. Does this mean we can proceed with a treaty under conditions set above regarding the number of WA members versus defenders?

As to what we can offer in a treaty, I still think the basic problem is enlisting more of our member states to join the WA. And we can achieve this by making it semi-compulsory.

Fort ilocandia wrote:Do you suggest we simply allow seesaw delegacies? We already had a single month with four delegates. Is that the kind of instability you advocate? Yes, the Philippines may survive, but not in great shape.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with "seesaw delegacies", but if you think that I'm suggesting that we alternate delegacies, I'd like to clarify that I'm seeking the exact opposite. I'm saying we need to get new endorsers for the delegate so they remain delegate.

Fort ilocandia wrote:Recruitment is not poaching because we are not regarding the GCRs as competitors, but as allies. Is that how you regard your recruitment efforts at XKI? I am worried about the wanton use of language especially in the international level.

What did recruitment entail in your view? Not sure we're on the same page in regards to what we're discussing, and it may be the reason we're disagreeing hugely on this.

In my view, sending newly founded nations recruitment telegrams is completely fine, and is how other regions do it, including XKI. What I called "poaching" was sending telegrams to nations that aren't new. Regions such as Thaecia (which has since apologized and been forgiven) and Enadia have gotten in big trouble for sending telegrams to all WA members in the hopes of growing out their regions. Posting on the forums wouldn't be poaching, but would be a weak attempt at recruitment if not done right.

Fort ilocandia wrote:On endorsement, I believe you misunderstood what our Defense Minister Secular state of the philippines. I believe what it meant was to reserve the pouring of endorsements for the newly elected government because the acting ones, including itself as interim Vice Delegate then, were only temporary placeholders.

You're right, I misunderstood. My apologies.

Fort ilocandia wrote:I think Seludong misunderstood what our Eternal President meant when it mentioned political expertise. Ariusgrad was then citing our participation in the PFS, which I personally had not heard of any developments since we were admitted by the time of Ariusgrad's relegation from position, because PFS is not a military alliance. But in terms of defensive operations, we have nothing much to offer now that the PDF is reduced to less than a quarter of its original size and my PEFTON has been operating at minimum capacity. As I said before, the foundations set by our predecessors can be eroded over time without proactive and innovative governance, and we are now seeing the results.

I'm in XKI's delegation, and I'd say it's moving along with no problem. Philippines's delegation currently consists of Seludong and Ecnav Enitsuj, and Seludong is the voting member. Other than that, there isn't much to mention :/ Like you mentioned, it isn't a military alliance - it's a WA one. To sum up recent activity, there has been a charter amendment, and few brief discussions regarding recent SC proposals as well as the authorship/drafting of some SC commendations.

Seludong

Atraewa wrote:Writing a issue. Maybe they will accept or maybe no.

Ooh, issues are fun. What are you writing about? If you already submitted though, I'd still suggest continuing working on it if you'd like to considering the issue editors already have a shortlist of about 100 issues to edit and accept, as far as I know, thus giving you a lot more time.

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy, Seludong, and Atraewa

Fort ilocandia

That was what I have been saying Manilenyos. A delegacy tie, worse an accidental change in the delegacy, would be a blunder on our part as we try to build a new administration. What part of it have you confused?

Anyway, I think I stand corrected on the poaching issue. It seems to me you are also for the recruitment of new nations, so no other comment.

I am quite interested what the Philippines has been doing for the PFS and the URA at the moment. Which, as you say, seems negligible at the moment. Was it true we have left the voting member vacant for the URA since Lanaograd departed? We have to keep in mind the alliance has a regularity rule when it comes to regional representation in its WA affairs, incompliance might mean expulsion from the alliance, because the URA was first a WA bloc before it developed as a military alliance as well.

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy and Seludong

Fort ilocandia

Seludong wrote:Thank you for pointing out what Ariusgrad meant by that. Does this mean we can proceed with a treaty under conditions set above regarding the number of WA members versus defenders?

As to what we can offer in a treaty, I still think the basic problem is enlisting more of our member states to join the WA. And we can achieve this by making it semi-compulsory.

I believe the agreement is for the defenders to make and for us to review. We cannot hope to impose too much terms from our because we are not in a strong position to negotiate. Our defender leanings would be a good background for us to begin the process, but ultimately, whatever they can send to us also depends on the global RD situation. We cannot be choosers, just like we are not having too much of a variety with COVID vaccine choices at this time.

Seludong

Seludong

As to the question of recruiting new nations, we can start work on that.

With regards to the URA seat, Ariusgrad remains a consultant and the position of URA Vice-President has been filled by Allangoria in last month's election. So currently, it is vacant. Was planning to have Guiuan in there because they have expressed interest, but this was turned down as we are not in the position to unilaterally appoint them.

On the agreement/treaty, does this mean we cannot at all initiate the draft of it? While it is true that we have little say in it, I was thinking there would be a possibility of us making it for their review, but only after we enter into an informal agreement with them to do so.

Manilenyos

Fort ilocandia

Seludong wrote:As to the question of recruiting new nations, we can start work on that.

With regards to the URA seat, Ariusgrad remains a consultant and the position of URA Vice-President has been filled by Allangoria in last month's election. So currently, it is vacant. Was planning to have Guiuan in there because they have expressed interest, but this was turned down as we are not in the position to unilaterally appoint them.

On the agreement/treaty, does this mean we cannot at all initiate the draft of it? While it is true that we have little say in it, I was thinking there would be a possibility of us making it for their review, but only after we enter into an informal agreement with them to do so.

No harm in trying, I think, but what is our experience in drafting agreements on our own?

Seludong and Manilenyos

Fort ilocandia wrote:That was what I have been saying Manilenyos. A delegacy tie, worse an accidental change in the delegacy, would be a blunder on our part as we try to build a new administration. What part of it have you confused?

I was confused by what you meant by "seesaw delegacies".

As for PFS, it's been pretty uneventful, but it's moving along with no problems. URA, on the other hand, doesn't currently have a voting member from the Philippines, and we were consulted just recently about it. Seludong appointed Guiuan, but they haven't been active.

As for the treaty, yeah, I wonder if we've ever done anything similar to this before?

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy, Seludong, and Nasapan

Does anyone want to continue or watch the Salutian Revolution the movie?

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy

Manlko union wrote:Does anyone want to continue or watch the Salutian Revolution the movie?

probably yes or no but i think we should put in factbook?

Nasapan

Manilenyos wrote:I was confused by what you meant by "seesaw delegacies".

As for PFS, it's been pretty uneventful, but it's moving along with no problems. URA, on the other hand, doesn't currently have a voting member from the Philippines, and we were consulted just recently about it. Seludong appointed Guiuan, but they haven't been active.

As for the treaty, yeah, I wonder if we've ever done anything similar to this before?

As to Guiuan being the URA representative, I have already contacted Scali on the server regarding my suggestion to temporarily fill in for them. I had previously sent them the link to the URA server but my messages there don't seem to have been read so I'll shoot them a telegram. I initially appointed them but I was told it might be construed as an unlawful unilateral move, so I had to temporarily withdraw it from them (with their knowledge) until the current URA Vice President was elected. They had notified me that I can stand in for the time being.

Regarding initiation of a treaty/agreement from our side. I have not seen anything regarding a bilateral agreement initiated by us yet, so this is definitely something unusual for us. We can discuss an initial agreement verbally, then proceed with putting the basics on paper for their review. Let's give it a try with at least three regions.

Manilenyos and Nasapan

I agree, we should try to draft something up, and get a concrete idea of what to offer. However, three regions seems like too much for a starting number, considering some regions that are already considered influential float around that number of bilateral treaties. Trying to make one, and sticking to it, should be fine for now - especially since we haven't returned the regional newspaper.

On that note, I think I could probably compile stuff for an [end of] May publication, if anyone would be willing to contribute/write. Some stuff we should definitely aim to include would be the Delegate election, PfS membership, and any Filipino trivia/slices of anyone's RP history, I imagine.

Seludong and Nasapan

Deouvz Harneshaschilk!

Atraewa wrote:Deouvz Harneshaschilk!

Deouvz Harneshaschilk!

Manlko union wrote:Deouvz Harneshaschilk!

Yut haje werku mavi jeki oulseionkentor vich?

Atraewa wrote:Yut haje werku mavi jeki oulseionkentor vich?

Taik. Vich gwat hereswion haski elen tokivue.

Kalayaan and sabah confederacy

«12. . .321322323324325326327. . .381382»

Advertisement