Taijitu
Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Allama on August 03, 2015, 07:20:16 PM
-
Kobomania (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=kobomania), the WA Delegate from Demoregion (http://www.nationstates.net/region=demoregion), has placed a formal request (http://forum.taijitu.org/embassies/kobomania) for an exchange of embassies between their region and Taijitu. He states:
Hello, this is Dwight Drummond, Foreign Affairs Minster for Kobomania, WA Delegate for Demoregion, who has requested an embassy with your impressive region.
Our region is about a social Nationstates experience, protecting local democracy, and letting people get however involved in the region as they want.
Thank you for reading.
They appear to be a new and still quite small community. They currently boast 5 resident nations and the oldest entry on their RMB was posted 10 days ago.
Should we consider their application now or wait for Demoregion to be more firmly established, as we have done previously with newish regions?
-
I feel we should wait for them to grow. Maybe to about 25 or 50 nations, before we open embassies with them. With only a population of 5, it could only be either beneficial to just them or neither party.
-
I quite agree. Choosing a nation-count threshold is a good measure of regional growth. Any arguments for a firm timeline instead? (or arguments for considering the application now?)
-
Well, if it's pure nation count it's easily abused. How about 10 WA nations?
-
I don't want to bully them because we're simply larger than them. I propose waiting until they create an IRC page, at least.
-
At this size range, WA count is probably the best bet (10 sounds reasonable, 15 would work too). We should also tell them that whatever number we give them will just be a guideline, and we are not binding ourselves to a future embassy
-
At this size range, WA count is probably the best bet (10 sounds reasonable, 15 would work too). We should also tell them that whatever number we give them will just be a guideline, and we are not binding ourselves to a future embassy
I see no reason not to go forwards with an embassy. They are a nice, small region dedicated to democracy and choice, just like us.
Official Citizen-Liaison Statement: Let them develop a little bit, and let's go ahead! :)
-
At this size range, WA count is probably the best bet (10 sounds reasonable, 15 would work too). We should also tell them that whatever number we give them will just be a guideline, and we are not binding ourselves to a future embassy
I agree with this. I think we should be somewhat choosy with who we set up embassies with. The Ambassador service is overstretched as it is.
-
At this size range, WA count is probably the best bet (10 sounds reasonable, 15 would work too). We should also tell them that whatever number we give them will just be a guideline, and we are not binding ourselves to a future embassy
I see no reason not to go forwards with an embassy. They are a nice, small region dedicated to democracy and choice, just like us.
Official Citizen-Liaison Statement: Let them develop a little bit, and let's go ahead! :)
Don't be so pompous with your position Citioyen! You are a liason, not a duke! Every citoyen's opinion is equal to your "official statements"
-
At this size range, WA count is probably the best bet (10 sounds reasonable, 15 would work too). We should also tell them that whatever number we give them will just be a guideline, and we are not binding ourselves to a future embassy
I see no reason not to go forwards with an embassy. They are a nice, small region dedicated to democracy and choice, just like us.
Official Citizen-Liaison Statement: Let them develop a little bit, and let's go ahead! :)
Don't be so pompous with your position Citioyen! You are a liason, not a duke! Every citoyen's opinion is equal to your "official statements"
Wha? "Official Citizen-Liaison Statement" just means my own opinion. Nothing more.
-
Except you're attaching "Official Citizen-Liason Statement" to it, clearly intended to make it more important. It is in a very real sense an anti-direct democratic thing to do.
-
Except you're attaching "Official Citizen-Liason Statement" to it, clearly intended to make it more important. It is in a very real sense an anti-direct democratic thing to do.
It's just my opinion. I didn't mean it to be any more important than your opinion, and I apologize if that's how it came off.
-
Official bigbaldben Statement: I liek pie.
Also, I agree with the 10-20 range.
-
I have nothing new to add, so I'll echo the sentiment that we should wait until they have 10-20 WA nations.
-
I'd rather the minimum be more ~30-ish nations w/ 20 WA, if they want a region with staying power.
-
Alright, it seems that we agree on waiting to approve or deny this request. I've added an informal 4-day poll to this thread so that we can confirm this is the will of the Ecclesia (including those who only sign in on the weekends).
-
Alright, it seems that we agree on waiting to approve or deny this request. I've added an informal 4-day poll to this thread so that we can confirm this is the will of the Ecclesia (including those who only sign in on the weekends).
Should I not be able to see the results?
-
The Taijitu of old: voting on whether to vote or not.
-
waiting is virtually nothing, say no and let them know we expect better, that we will re-start talks when certain conditions are met. They could either introduce the love for Guillotine or install the church of Pha.
-
The option I prefer is not in the poll, so I voted to Reject.
I would rather say No now. If they are still interested in relations with us after a certain WA target is met, they can reapply.
I don't want to automatically move them to a vote after that target is met - such a system would require us to monitor their WA count, which seems like pointless work.
-
The option I prefer is not in the poll, so I voted to Reject.
I would rather say No now. If they are still interested in relations with us after a certain WA target is met, they can reapply.
I don't want to automatically move them to a vote after that target is met - such a system would require us to monitor their WA count, which seems like pointless work.
I see your point. Monitoring their count would be an unnecessary pain in our asses.