WASC Global Discussions

View previous topic View next topic Go down

WASC Global Discussions

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:26 am

This is the area for discussing on-going issues within the WASC and for voicing your opinion to your WASC Representatives. You may post here if you'd like to join the global discussion or if your continent simply doesn't have a representative.

Thank You,
The United States of Scouting
Vice-President of the World Alliance Security Council
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  New Rhodinia on Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:44 am

First observation: we've seemed to just clog up this forum; would it be better if we had it as a sub-forum inside of World Alliance Affairs Dialogue?
avatar
New Rhodinia
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 324
Join date : 2014-09-22

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:47 am

New Rhodinia wrote:First observation: we've seemed to just clog up this forum; would it be better if we had it as a sub-forum inside of World Alliance Affairs Dialogue?

I was considering this, however I don't have any moderation capabilities.
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

NOTICE

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:17 am

Greetings World Alliance,

I'd like to welcome discussion on this topic to the General Public. Please keep any suggestions, comments, or concerns in this thread, or your Continent's threads.

http://worldalliance.postalboard.com/t733-on-going-wasc-secondary-seats-act-discussion

Best Regards,
Vice-President of the WASC
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Removal of New Korrea

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:06 am

Who outside of the WASC is in favor of the removal of New Korrea from the WASC?

avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  The Holy Empire of Artite on Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:51 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:Who outside of the WASC is in favor of the removal of New Korrea from the WASC?

I just need to quote this and you know my answer....
avatar
The Holy Empire of Artite
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 317
Join date : 2014-09-23
Location : Some where in space with Kim Jung Un.

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:23 pm

The Holy Empire of Artite wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:Who outside of the WASC is in favor of the removal of New Korrea from the WASC?

I just need to quote this and you know my answer....

Yea
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Apepistan on Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:18 pm

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:Who outside of the WASC is in favor of the removal of New Korrea from the WASC?

I am in favor too.
If not complete removal, then either suspending him for a while, or electing a new primary WASC member for that continent and he'll be secondary member.

avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:33 pm

Apepistan wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:Who outside of the WASC is in favor of the removal of New Korrea from the WASC?

I am in favor too.
If not complete removal, then either suspending him for a while, or electing a new primary WASC member for that continent and he'll be secondary member.


At least China China was funny. New Korrea is outright annoying.
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Shockwave on Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:52 pm

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Apepistan wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:Who outside of the WASC is in favor of the removal of New Korrea from the WASC?

I am in favor too.
If not complete removal, then either suspending him for a while, or electing a new primary WASC member for that continent and he'll be secondary member.


At least China China was funny. New Korrea is outright annoying.
I enjoyed China China as comic relief, China China was like the old Adam sandler movies, New Korreaa is the new comedies that use constant cliches and is easy to predict.
avatar
Shockwave
Potential World Power

Posts : 527
Join date : 2014-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Ebsotz on Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:25 am

Artite: You're not up my ass. Change it.
avatar
Ebsotz
Powerbroker

Posts : 297
Join date : 2014-10-07
Location : Southern California

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=ebsotz

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Apepistan on Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:10 pm

I finally had time to read through these WASC cases carefully, so I noticed some things. Here is my extended view on the recent cases in the WAC. I've posted a sketch of this in the RMB, here's the full thing:


War is not illegal. Eurussia: "After reviewing the law we have found that war in itself is not illegal."
BUT! "However Artitie did violate the law by occupying parts of New Korrea. Taking away their right to exist."

(Source: http://worldalliance.postalboard.com/t758p30-resolved-new-korrea-vs-artite#28131)

So what -is- war, according to the law of the WA? Poking your enemy from far away with a very long, pointy stick? War is, as defined by Carl von Clausewitz:

"War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."

Compelling our enemy by force to do our will obviously includes the use of ground forces which occupy the enemy territories, in order to put pressure on the enemy to submit to the others will.

On the Konzbator Peace Summit, Xolox has proposed a treaty that included a map. You can check it here:
http://worldalliance.postalboard.com/t752p60-konzbator-peace-summit#27481

You can see clearly that the Coalition did not intend to take away all of the Korrean lands, therefore they did not aim to take away "their right to exist".

Also: does "exist" refer to the state itself, or the people? I think there are major differences if we are speaking about a states right to exist or a peoples right to exist. It must be one of these cases, since, as I said before, the Coalition did not aim to take away all of the lands of New Korrea.

If if refers to the people: It's invalid as an argument, since the Coalition did not commit, nor did plan a genocide of the korrean people. Thus, they did not aim to take away their right to exist.

If it refers to the state: That means that every treaty that somehow limits or changes the structure or the functioning of the state (for example the past treaties between China-China and Artite, that China-China must hold free elections, or the treaty of the Korrean Liberation War, which changed the state structure of Korrea) are illegal, for they take away the right of the said state to exist as it did before.

Sine ira et studio, I think it's fair to say that these verdicts or laws are in need of precise definitions, otherwise these cases are simply pointless, if the definitions we are working with are not clear, and are changing with every subject. What I wrote, even though I used an example from the Artite-New Korrea case, are valid for all the cases in the WASC. Another quick example: laws and proposals about terrorism without defining what terrorism is.
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Apepistan on Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:59 pm

Bump. I won't let this sink. Any, ANY comments on this?
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  New Rhodinia on Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:55 am

Apepistan's absolutely right on this. I can't find any reason to defend these rulings as they are right now. As it is currenrly, it seems like "a nations right to exist" means "don't change anything about any country without their consent". While it is a noble reason, it's not very practical or precise. What if you have two nations who refuse to change under any circumstances? Both New Korrea and the opponents believe they are in the right and that the other side needs to change in order for them to be satisfied. By the definition we've been given, any kind of peace deal that demands anything from anyone is illegal and violates this "national independance" clause.

So what's the point of declaring war if the only way to end it is a stalemate, which both sides are unwilling to accept? As defined above, war has the goal to apply pressure to your opponent so they can do your bidding. We're essentially saying that it's okay to have your troops fight to the death to try and be superior in a conflict but you can't demand that the enemy change if you win in a landslide? That just results in thousands of dead soldiers all for nothing. So what is it? What do we do with war in the World Alliance?
avatar
New Rhodinia
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 324
Join date : 2014-09-22

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:16 am

New Rhodinia wrote:Apepistan's absolutely right on this. I can't find any reason to defend these rulings as they are right now. As it is currenrly, it seems like "a nations right to exist" means "don't change anything about any country without their consent". While it is a noble reason, it's not very practical or precise. What if you have two nations who refuse to change under any circumstances? Both New Korrea and the opponents believe they are in the right and that the other side needs to change in order for them to be satisfied. By the definition we've been given, any kind of peace deal that demands anything from anyone is illegal and violates this "national independance" clause.

So what's the point of declaring war if the only way to end it is a stalemate, which both sides are unwilling to accept? As defined above, war has the goal to apply pressure to your opponent so they can do your bidding. We're essentially saying that it's okay to have your troops fight to the death to try and be superior in a conflict but you can't demand that the enemy change if you win in a landslide? That just results in thousands of dead soldiers all for nothing. So what is it? What do we do with war in the World Alliance?

This is exactly ONE of the many reasons I'm re-evaluating my position in the region.
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Great Eurussia on Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:02 am

New Rhodinia wrote:Apepistan's absolutely right on this. I can't find any reason to defend these rulings as they are right now. As it is currenrly, it seems like "a nations right to exist" means "don't change anything about any country without their consent". While it is a noble reason, it's not very practical or precise. What if you have two nations who refuse to change under any circumstances? Both New Korrea and the opponents believe they are in the right and that the other side needs to change in order for them to be satisfied. By the definition we've been given, any kind of peace deal that demands anything from anyone is illegal and violates this "national independance" clause.

So what's the point of declaring war if the only way to end it is a stalemate, which both sides are unwilling to accept? As defined above, war has the goal to apply pressure to your opponent so they can do your bidding. We're essentially saying that it's okay to have your troops fight to the death to try and be superior in a conflict but you can't demand that the enemy change if you win in a landslide? That just results in thousands of dead soldiers all for nothing. So what is it? What do we do with war in the World Alliance?

If I may share my take on this? By the way this is just my opinion on this... I can assure all of you that this will in no way affect any of my duties being handled in the WA and even the court cases I am currently presiding over. This is an non-IC/non-OOC view.

This is what I like about the World Alliance. In my point of view, it may be annoying to others but for me this is how thrilling and enjoying how to be in our region. If you look at these thing on the short term, you will just see it as its very annoying, tiring, repetitive, and just want to kick the those involved out. But if you look at it in the long term, you will see here a true and natural roleplaying where nothing is planned, and things happen on a basis of engagements, and it is the you don't know what will happen next that makes it fun.

Aside from these, going to the technicality, aside from the roleplaying thing, the rulings teach us as well on how to mature and develop fairness and see the perspective of things when handling cases. We can see who are the nation capable enough of handling cases based on merits and evidences and those who make quick decisions based on trend or feelings or anger towards the other. Many nations are unaware that they are developing their strategic skills, diplomatic skills, and so on. And if you look at the situation, it should be the way it is, why? War is not legally prohibited (which is based on verdicts) but is not condoned as well. Nations would have to weigh in their actions based on the consequences of their actions under existing laws and their impact on their roleplay strategy to win over their opponents.

Who would have imagined that when Artite, Xolox, Zanland, Wirbanskia, and Chackle made wars against MEU and New Korrea then MEU managed to stop invasions against him and all focus when to New Korrea? Who would have imagined Trinity Sector went into the picture? Who would have imagined Ebsotz went on testing both sides of the fence? Who would have imagined New Korrea and Chackle made peace despite all the publicity of the wars? Who would have imagined New Korrea will run to the Security Council to file cases? Who would have imagined New Korrea will survive all attempts to remove him from the Security Council? Who would have imagined that New Korrea and his President will be able to continue to govern his country indirectly and cause problems to his invaders? Who would have imagined that despite all the negotiations that took place, nothing was agreed upon? Let us look at these things not on the perspective of just because one is powerful and is a alliance of more than two nations, the opponent will simply bow down and its the end.

Haven't you thought it would be so boring? If wars will just be like that? Now who can tell any of us what will happen next? I myself do not know what will happen next. It is the stalemate New Rhodinia is talking about that makes this roleplay interesting but annoying OOC speaking. Yet, if you look at the bigger picture, it is exciting and almost managed to shake up the region and its international system of rules and laws.

Speaking of the laws, the rights enshrined in the WA Security Council Act are the fundamental rights of all nations which I myself wrote. It was not written there not because it was all about wars but those provisions have been there ever since the World Alliance have wrote its first constitution, if I am correct. Our laws have its implications in all aspects of our actions in the region. What will happen if those rights where not written there in our laws? I can just simply invade a nation in a day. Take away lands of other nations for the sake of fun. The bottom line is, it is the uncertainty that forces us to engage with one another and make plan for what should be done next and not just easily give up and shout, I want to stop this, I don't like this anymore. New Rhodinia is also right that what is the point of sending thousands of troops and let them die to obtain lands. I don't even know an answer for that. But the point is, there is an existing international law that must be respected and if you think it is not useful, why not move to remove the law itself? Change or amend it to suit someones interests? But achieving that is another matter right? 

I guess this kind of uncertainty is something unique to the World Alliance. It forces nations to leave the region because they are tired to see these things. But it also makes them think in the end that they miss something in the World Alliance that other regions cannot give them. These makes them go back and many can attest to that. We do not plan things here as I always say. We want things just to flow its natural course and let us see where it takes us all. I don't even have an answer for New Rhodinia's question on the national independence clause, but as a sovereign government, Eurussia will insist on that law since it protects us and we don't care how will it affect New Korrea besides it doesn't affect us but is protecting us. It is our individual national interests (IC) and personal views (OOC) that makes these things more complicated and I could say, more fun, though!
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Trinity Sector on Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:25 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:Apepistan's absolutely right on this. I can't find any reason to defend these rulings as they are right now. As it is currenrly, it seems like "a nations right to exist" means "don't change anything about any country without their consent". While it is a noble reason, it's not very practical or precise. What if you have two nations who refuse to change under any circumstances? Both New Korrea and the opponents believe they are in the right and that the other side needs to change in order for them to be satisfied. By the definition we've been given, any kind of peace deal that demands anything from anyone is illegal and violates this "national independance" clause.

So what's the point of declaring war if the only way to end it is a stalemate, which both sides are unwilling to accept? As defined above, war has the goal to apply pressure to your opponent so they can do your bidding. We're essentially saying that it's okay to have your troops fight to the death to try and be superior in a conflict but you can't demand that the enemy change if you win in a landslide? That just results in thousands of dead soldiers all for nothing. So what is it? What do we do with war in the World Alliance?

If I may share my take on this? By the way this is just my opinion on this... I can assure all of you that this will in no way affect any of my duties being handled in the WA and even the court cases I am currently presiding over. This is an non-IC/non-OOC view.
This is what I like about the World Alliance. In my point of view, it may be annoying to others but for me this is how thrilling and enjoying how to be in our region. If you look at these thing on the short term, you will just see it as its very annoying, tiring, repetitive, and just want to kick the those involved out. But if you look at it in the long term, you will see here a true and natural roleplaying where nothing is planned, and things happen on a basis of engagements, and it is the you don't know what will happen next that makes it fun.
Aside from these, going to the technicality, aside from the roleplaying thing, the rulings teach us as well on how to mature and develop fairness and see the perspective of things when handling cases. We can see who are the nation capable enough of handling cases based on merits and evidences and those who make quick decisions based on trend or feelings or anger towards the other. Many nations are unaware that they are developing their strategic skills, diplomatic skills, and so on. And if you look at the situation, it should be the way it is, why? War is not legally prohibited (which is based on verdicts) but is not condoned as well. Nations would have to weigh in their actions based on the consequences of their actions under existing laws and their impact on their roleplay strategy to win over their opponents.
Who would have imagined that when Artite, Xolox, Zanland, Wirbanskia, and Chackle made wars against MEU and New Korrea then MEU managed to stop invasions against him and all focus when to New Korrea? Who would have imagined Trinity Sector went into the picture? Who would have imagined Ebsotz went on testing both sides of the fence? Who would have imagined New Korrea and Chackle made peace despite all the publicity of the wars? Who would have imagined New Korrea will run to the Security Council to file cases? Who would have imagined New Korrea will survive all attempts to remove him from the Security Council? Who would have imagined that New Korrea and his President will be able to continue to govern his country indirectly and cause problems to his invaders? Who would have imagined that despite all the negotiations that took place, nothing was agreed upon? Let us look at these things not on the perspective of just because one is powerful and is a alliance of more than two nations, the opponent will simply bow down and its the end.
Haven't you thought it would be so boring? If wars will just be like that? Now who can tell any of us what will happen next? I myself do not know what will happen next. It is the stalemate New Rhodinia is talking about that makes this roleplay interesting but annoying OOC speaking. Yet, if you look at the bigger picture, it is exciting and almost managed to shake up the region and its international system of rules and laws.
Speaking of the laws, the rights enshrined in the WA Security Council Act are the fundamental rights of all nations which I myself wrote. It was not written there not because it was all about wars but those provisions have been there ever since the World Alliance have wrote its first constitution, if I am correct. Our laws have its implications in all aspects of our actions in the region. What will happen if those rights where not written there in our laws? I can just simply invade a nation in a day. Take away lands of other nations for the sake of fun. The bottom line is, it is the uncertainty that forces us to engage with one another and make plan for what should be done next and not just easily give up and shout, I want to stop this, I don't like this anymore. New Rhodinia is also right that what is the point of sending thousands of troops and let them die to obtain lands. I don't even know an answer for that. But the point is, there is an existing international law that must be respected and if you think it is not useful, why not move to remove the law itself? Change or amend it to suit someones interests? But achieving that is another matter right? 
I guess this kind of uncertainty is something unique to the World Alliance. It forces nations to leave the region because they are tired to see these things. But it also makes them think in the end that they miss something in the World Alliance that other regions cannot give them. These makes them go back and many can attest to that. We do not plan things here as I always say. We want things just to flow its natural course and let us see where it takes us all. I don't even have an answer for New Rhodinia's question on the national independence clause, but as a sovereign government, Eurussia will insist on that law since it protects us and we don't care how will it affect New Korrea besides it doesn't affect us but is protecting us. It is our individual national interests (IC) and personal views (OOC) that makes these things more complicated and I could say, more fun, though!

What a rare sight. A well type explanation of things.
avatar
Trinity Sector
Powerbroker

Posts : 211
Join date : 2015-03-03
Age : 21
Location : New York, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=trinity_sector

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Ebsotz on Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:35 pm

I think we should bring back up the World Fishing "Permit".

This will tweak what Korea has made.
avatar
Ebsotz
Powerbroker

Posts : 297
Join date : 2014-10-07
Location : Southern California

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=ebsotz

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Xolox on Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:58 am

Ebsotz wrote:I think we should bring back up the World Fishing "Permit".

This will tweak what Korea has made.

Yes, let's bring up how ridiculous an idea that was...
avatar
Xolox
Regional Power

Posts : 470
Join date : 2014-09-04
Age : 19
Location : Florida

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=xolox

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Trinity Sector on Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:09 pm

Republic of New Korrea wrote:
Ebsotz wrote:I think we should bring back up the World Fishing "Permit".

This will tweak what Korea has made.

What world fishing permit?

On the case against Artitie, you cannot claim that he is coming a massacre or a genocide if your telling your own citizens to fight the soldiers; that's not a massacre, that's by context, a fight. If you told your citizen to peacefully protest and his soldiers still shot at them, then you can say it was a massacre or a conducted genocide.
avatar
Trinity Sector
Powerbroker

Posts : 211
Join date : 2015-03-03
Age : 21
Location : New York, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=trinity_sector

Back to top Go down

Re: WASC Global Discussions

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum