Embassy with The South Pacific?
Yea
80.00%
8
Nay
20.00%
2
Abstain
0%
0
10 vote(s)
* You voted for this item.

Embassies with The South Pacific?

3 Replies, 6551 Views

Should we build an in-game embassy with TSP?
https://www.nationstates.net/region=the_south_pacific
Hello comrades! Normally I like to stay silent on issues involving your politics because I’m both an ambassador and frankly probably not a big enough part of the community to really deserve a say in how it’s run, but this is one issue that I feel I can’t stay silent on. Now disclaimer before I start, I am not saying these things because I am a raider as many in the south pacific may want you to believe, these are thoughts and opinions I’ve had since before I became a raider, and I will likely have them long after I’ve stopped raiding. Nor am I saying this due to any sort of conflict of interest with Wintercrest, Wintercrest has nothing against the south pacific as a region and has actually worked with them many times in the past so I have no reason to say any of this due to them. So with that out of the way, I shall now start. A few months ago, I believe some time in December, CCD was attempting to pass another repeal of their liberation, and this time it was actually in quorum, naturally as antifascist the north pacific was trying to do everything it could to prevent it from getting to vote. However, their efforts to counter campaign it had failed. So they went to what they saw as their final option, a quorum raid. For those of you who don’t know what a quorum raid is, it’s essentially a bunch of small del bump operations targeted against those who are approving a specific proposal in the world assembly, by del bumping them their approval is removed from the proposal, do this enough times and a proposal can be knocked out of quorum. the south pacific, decided that they wanted to defend the regions that were approving this proposal from the quorum raid, so they did defending the regions each update the north pacific attempted to quorum raid the proposal, though fortunately the north pacific was eventually successful in knocking the proposal out of quorum. Many in the south pacific have attempted to defend these actions by arguing that the proposal wouldn’t have passed the vote anyways, as such by doing this they weren’t aiding fascist, however I don’t see this as a very convincing argument. I think that we can all agree that the point of antifascism on NS is deplatforming the fascist, preventing them from having a space to advocate their ideas or advertise themselves. if this is the whole point of antifascism then surely allowing the fascist to have a platform as big as the world assembly security council should be seen as one of the worst things that can happen for an antifascist. The south pacific seemingly didn’t and don’t care about this however, as they have continued to defend their actions and have implied that should a similar situation happen in the future they would do the same thing again. While I’m not saying that the south pacific are fascist, they certainly aren’t as committed to antifascism as we should expect our allies to be, as such I recommend you all vote against an embassy with them.
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2021, 07:09 PM by Wolfmancal.)
(07-03-2021, 07:09 PM)Wolfmancal Wrote: -snip-

Hello, everyone! I'm the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the South Pacific, and I feel that I have to jump in and provide a rebuttal to an accusation made against the South Pacific, which is the accusation that we are less committed to antifascism. Lemme start by saying that the South Pacific is a defender region. The Charter, the constituting document of our region, prohibits the South Pacific Special Forces (SPSF) from undertaking offensive operations against innocent regions, except for those that espouse hateful ideologies, such as Nazi and fascist regions.

In January 2021, a few people in the SPSF defended some of the regions that were raided by The North Pacific in an attempt to remove approvals from the proposed Security Council resolution entitled Repeal "Liberate the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators". That much is true, but it does not take into account the fact that a number of the regions in question were not fascist and were just ordinary regions without any kind of relationship with fascist regions and may not have had all the facts in the repeal proposal when their delegates gave their approval. Furthermore, the South Pacific was prepared to vote against Repeal "Liberate CCD" if it ever came to vote, same as The North Pacific and all other regions committed to the antifascist cause. If the CCD's founder ever ceased to exist, the SPSF would be among the first to participate in a raid against them.

I would also direct you to May 2021, a month when NationStates took action against fascism in the game by deleting nations and regions espousing hateful ideologies. Because of that, the founding nation of Genua, a fascist region, ceased to exist and meant that Genua was unprotected against an antifascist raid. The SPSF participated in that raid, working with The Red Fleet among others in an effort to crack down on fascism.

Lastly, The North Pacific issued a statement in June 2021 with regard to the events in January earlier in the year. In that statement, The North Pacific stated in bolded text that they do "not consider The South Pacific to be a region that sanctions, condones or endorses fascism, in any way". That statement and our historical contributions to the antifascist cause are evidence enough of our commitment to combating Nazism, fascism, and all other hateful ideologies in NationStates. The South Pacific has always been antifascist, and we always will be.

I will not tell you how to vote in the poll above because it is not my place and that would be inappropriate, but I am compelled to present the facts from the South Pacific's end, and I hope that you will use all the facts presented to you to decide whichever way you end up voting in the poll.
A blue jay from the South Pacific

2× Minister of Foreign Affairs /// 1× Minister of Regional Affairs

My History
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2021, 08:28 PM by Jay.)
(07-03-2021, 08:21 PM)Jay Wrote: -snip-
Hello jay, would just like to jump in here and say a few things. first of all just want to make it clear (as said in my original post) that I am not accusing the south pacific of being a fascist region or in anyway condoning fascism. nor was I trying to say that you haven't in some ways contributed to the antifascist cause, just that when these events took place you were putting IC politics above the OOC fighting of fascism, and have implied that you would be willing to do the same again. which imo is completely unacceptable and does in fact imply less of a commitment to fighting fascism than many other regions. the fact that some of the regions targeted weren't themselves fascist doesn't really change much in my eyes, they were still doing something that ultimately would've aided the cause of fascism and that in itself justified the actions TNP took, and should've taken away any right to regional sovereignty they supposedly had (actions which I feel the need to point out were used as a last resort, a counter campaign telegram was sent out which should have given them all the facts they needed to conclude that they should unapprove the proposal, and ultimately a delbump isn't that big of a deal, it's not like you were defending regions from being taken and held for long periods of time, all you were doing by defending that was preventing a delegate from ceasing to be the delegate of a region for 12 hours, and I don't think stopping that can really be put above fighting a fascist proposal by anyone who is as committed to antifascism as they should be). but anyways that's pretty much all I have to say on this matter, not trying to turn this into a back and forth or anything and I'm fine with you pointing out most of what you said in your post, just wanted to clear a few things up about my position.
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2021, 09:06 PM by Wolfmancal.)



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)