Mock Parliament Diplomacy

[Leinad]

In theory this sounds nice and all, but in reality I think it's just a path to a simultaneous officeholding ban, which they tried to pass in the provisional parliament. Fortunately it failed (some have credited that to me, but I would be arrogant to openly agree with that).

A ban on holding office in both places will surely be destructive. I ask you: if we can't sustain 5 regions in one nation (which we've almost unanimously agreed is fact), why would anyone think we could sustain 2 separate nations, without sharing some active members? Fortunately Oakvale (one of the many people Atlasia would lose as a result of this rule) has said he plans to limit it to only 2 people (Prime Minister and Foreign Minister), which I thank him for, but I'm uncertain it will last.

The fact is that the Mock Parli[a]ment has a strong, irrational anti-Atlasian sentiment. Maybe some people think that isn't true, or think Atlasia is so bad it deserves it, but I only speak what I observe to be correct. In the very first page of the very first parliamentary thread, they responded to a simple rules question with cries of Atlasian "legalism," and many people were originally hostile to a constitution, seemingly for no other reason that the fact Atlasia has one.

I'm interested in hearing what other people think of this, specifically declared and potential Presidential candidates. This is simply my knee-jerk reaction as someone who's spent probably more time over there than anyone else still in Atlasia.

[Leinad]

Look, what you guys decide to do is up to you, but at least have the decency to actually read what we are doing instead of just talking around in circle about it.  This is from our proposed Constitution Act that is presently before the Parliament.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I alluded to in my post:

Fortunately Oakvale (one of the many people Atlasia would lose as a result of this rule) has said he plans to limit it to only 2 people (Prime Minister and Foreign Minister), which I thank him for, but I'm uncertain it will last.

At least have the decency to actually read what I said.

[Leinad]

Here's a breakdown of my argument:

1. A complete ban on simultaneous officeholding would be disasterous.

2. The only rationale for a complete ban is "diplomacy" between the two nations.

3. The chances of a complete ban passing in South America is fairly likely, given the well-documented anti-Atlasian sentiment over there.

Therefore, it's not a stretch at all to say that the chances of this destructive ban will go up a lot if diplomatic relations are opened, since point 2 will no longer be moot.

Speaking of which, I'd like to make it clear that President Bore and then the next president will need to make sure that South America won't gain any benefits--and there won't even be diplomatic relations--if they institute a ban on simultaneous officeholding any larger than the proposed ban--which is certainly reasonable, and I actually support it.

[Leinad]

Here's a breakdown of my argument:

1. A complete ban on simultaneous officeholding would be disasterous.

2. The only rationale for a complete ban is "diplomacy" between the two nations.

3. The chances of a complete ban passing in South America is fairly likely, given the well-documented anti-Atlasian sentiment over there.

Therefore, it's not a stretch at all to say that the chances of this destructive ban will go up a lot if diplomatic relations are opened, since point 2 will no longer be moot.

Speaking of which, I'd like to make it clear that President Bore and then the next president will need to make sure that South America won't gain any benefits--and there won't even be diplomatic relations--if they institute a ban on simultaneous officeholding any larger than the proposed ban--which is certainly reasonable, and I actually support it.

I can only speak for the present administration, but take it from me - the current South American Conservative-Social Liberal government will not under any circumstances introduce a stricter office-holding ban than that proposed on the positions of Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and ambassadors.

Good to hear, although I'm still skeptical in the long-term. Considering how close it was to passing the first go around, and the fact that most people in the game are disgruntled ex-Atlasians who outwardly dislike Atlasia more than rational people should dislike a forum elections/government game, I would not be surprised to see a future administration put forward a stricter ban.

Also, Kal's spot-on regarding the GM. Makes sense given that he had that role for a fairly large part of this year. (By the way, we really need a new GM.)

[Leinad]

As for the idea of "anti-Atlasian sentiment," there may be some present, but it's by no means "irrational," as the good Governor claims. The people who founded this iteration of the Mock Parliament were, by and large, people dissatisfied with Atlasian legalism - by that, I mean arguing over tedious and unimportant amendments to legislation, crafting a complex and difficult amendment process for the Constitution, and doing things like attempting to install a member as speaker who was not a member of the Parliament. It seems natural that these people would want to improve on the flaws that are apparent in the Atlasian system of government. That does not seem irrational.

I never meant that the sentiment itself was irrational, per se, but rather it's taken to irrational lengths.

I disagree with the sentiment, but it's understandable given that it's a place mostly founded and led by people pissed off at Atlasia. It's to be expected that they won't have fond feelings for us, but it's unwarranted quite the levels that it's at. As I mentioned before, the very first page of the parliament thread was met with "oh no, not Atlasian-style legalism!!!" in response to a basic question, and that sentiment is regurgitated in basically every single thread on that board. It's absurd how much they obsess over their mutual dislike for Atlasia, and I'll elaborate to show you I'm not just blowing hot air:

In the Question time thread, PM Potus mentioned Atlasia 3 times in responses to questions, none of which had anything to do with Atlasia. Here's an example:

Each day, millions upon millions of Atlasians are forced to endure oppression where they know nothing of freedom.

Check the source of the quote and then, if you don't believe me, read over the page and you'll see the other two times. 3 questions that had nothing to do with Atlasia, and he responds with utter [male bovine waste] regarding our nation.

Here's the deputy PM, the Atlasian Senate speaker only a few months ago, who left not long after starting a thread which partially triggered this whole clusterfudge, in that same thread:

Atlasian-style fragmentation to create multiple additional ministries would be far more inefficient and wasteful than the rational system that the government has put in place.

And here's another former Senate speaker, in a different thread:

We need to make sure that all our proposals are funded, put towards the Cabinet and discussed-not Atlasian style of just throwing policies into the Senate

I'm not discussing the merits of their concerns, that's beside the point, just that their go-to talking point is Atlasia, in all cases.

I could dig up more examples if I wanted to, but this post is more than long enough as it is. This is the type of stuff that just clutters up that board. Everything is "oh no, Atlasia's so crap, and we don't want that Atlasian-style [insert whatever] in our utopia!" and it's annoying.

Not to mention the fact that, in the scenario overview:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that's not an intentional "Atlasia is crap amirite?!?!?" than I don't know what is.

Basically: the dislike of Atlasia is quite irrational, indeed. As I said previously, their hatred for Atlasia is far more than any stable, rational person should hate a forum game.

As for the discussion of technical issues, the lack of a GM doesn't seem to be a significant issue for government-to-government interactions. Each nation's GM could simulate the effects of things like foreign trade - I'm really not seeing the need for an 'impartial' GM unless we end up in significant conflict.

Relations with just two nations would get rather boring, I think. It would be like if the Premier League had only two teams--it would be fun seeing them play each other at first, but 38 times each year and it would get dull quickly. There would need to be other countries involved for it to be interesting, and obviously an active GM can simulate those.

And also, there would need to be some sort of arbiter of truth--a function of the GM, in addition to creating events and such, is saying what's real or not. Just because TNF says he's nuked every major city in the nation doesn't mean he has. I mean, as I just stated, the Mock Parliament thinks Atlasia's already dead, or at least some completely failed nation. Obviously there will need to be an independent person defining the exact state of things to both groups, or it will be chaotic.

[Leinad]

So Leinad's argument is that because the collapsing scenery of Atlasia provides a good example of what not to do we shouldn't establish foreign relations because your feelings are hurt?

Not at all. You really think the Prime Minister answering 3 different questions that had nothing to do with Atlasia by talking about how Atlasia is a socialist wasteland is warranted, and not clear evidence of bias? And do you think that it's warranted for Al to go crazy about "Atlasian legalism" the first time someone asks a rules question in Parliament?

My argument was clear and exhaustively detailed--far more than "my feelings are hurt." I'm confused as how you even got to that point, my feelings are rarely hurt by rhetoric on internet forum games; if it was that easy to hurt my feelings, I'd be an emotional wreck 24/7.

Back to the point: the reality according to most in the mock parli[a]ment is that Atlasia is some kind of desolate wasteland--a tremendously failed state if it hasn't fully collapsed. That's okay if they want to think that, but those of us sticking around don't agree with that reality. Bias or sentiment aside, these are irreconcilable differences if we want to try to co-exist in the same universe. For relations to work, we need to at least synchronize our perceptions of reality.

[Leinad]

My point seems to have been missed. I guess that's partially my fault for creating a rambling 172-paragraph novel to state them. Oh well. I'll try to clear things up:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? I'm not particularly keen on having LOL NUKES if I can avoid it.

Not sure what that has to do with it. The fact is that if South America thinks Atlasia is dead, but Atlasia thinks it isn't, how can they operate with each other? It's similar to how someone can't believe in Christianity and Atheism at the same time--they're explicitly incompatible realities. I'm not sure how much diplomacy we can do if we disagree on simple facts of reality.

I'm sorry but is Leinad basically saying that no-one can criticize Atlasia? Surely people like me, Talleyrand and Oakvale have a right when we've been in the game for a very long time even if we disengaged . IMAO I have every right to point out what is wrong when I served as a Senator for 4 months

No! I'm not saying you can't criticize! I'd never say that. My point is that when you go out of your way to criticize Atlasia consistently, it's a problem. I've never said Atlasia is perfect or that you don't have a right to criticize it, simply that the anti-Atlasian sentiment is clearly excessive.

The fact that you blame Talley for starting the 'collapse' is wrong-creating a thread didn't cause this crisis.

Yeah, I regret that statement, although I'd like to clarify that I never said he was the cause, just what partially triggered it. Either way, it's solidly beside the point, and I wish I had refrained from saying that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kettle----Pot

I don't hate the Mock Parliament. I've spent a good bit of time there, and even made a newspaper--which I haven't quit despite a lull in publishing. I have no hatred at all for the Mock Parliament, just an annoyance at the hatred for Atlasia that is all too common there.

I'm not sure why "criticisms of Atlasia" prohibit the two nations from co-existing in the same universe. Surely nations far more explicitly opposed to Atlasia's policies (North Korea, etc - ones that surely use much more violent rhetoric than 'tremendously failed state' to describe Atlasia) are considered to exist in this universe?

Never said that. My overly-extensive post was merely to prove that the criticisms are irrational in that they go to far. The Prime Minister responding to 3 different questions that weren't even vaguely related to Atlasia with anti-Atlasian rhetoric is irrational.

Why it would be hard to co-exist is that they think we're a dystopia, but we think we're not. It's a fact that two countries can't really work together on diplomacy when they don't recognize the same reality.

[Leinad]

Otherwise, I basically agree with what Kalwejt said: I'm not opposed to diplomacy with South America, but I do think we need to have some sort of unified game engine for it to work.

I agree with that as well. I'm not against diplomacy with them in theory. My whole argument wasn't that it's a bad place, but to prove to SJoyce and everyone else that it is irrational to hate Atlasia as much as many over there do. Although I think what would make relations the hardest is the fact that we can't co-exist if our realities are not synchronized. I also don't think that's a silver bullet to fix all of our problems--two-way diplomacy wouldn't increase activity as much as Oakvale, etc. seem to think.

Again, though, I'm not against diplomacy in theory.

But apparently I'm the one against criticism, the one with an irrational bias, and a "pigheaded isolationist"...

I'm certainly okay if you disagree with me, or hate things I like (e.g. Atlasia), but I'd rather people refrain from attributing positions to me that I don't have (e.g. that you can't criticize Atlasia (you can), or that I hate the Mock Parliament (I don't)). Thanks.