Sonindia embassy?

Turbeaux

My vote against stands but I would like to see others' opinions. They come off as a rather generic defender region to me. I wish them the best but striving for an increased global footprint does not mean that we should be opening embassies with regions that don't really share our values (excluding regions like Europe of course!).

Uan-aa-Boa

I think this is a difficult feature of our system. It's hard to turn down a region sending keen and friendly puppets to tell us how wonderful we are as we sit in judgement on them. I still feel bad about what happened with Agora. Yet a number of our recent acquisitions ( eg LCRUA, New Western Atlantic, Conch Kingdom) have done pretty much zero since the day they opened. This isn't an argument for changing the constitution, just an observation that this is what our system does. What I want to focus on is quality diplomatic communication with the more important regions.

I also notice a real contrast between the old guard voting no and the new arrivals voting yes. I'm not sure whether that makes me feel vindicated or in need of overthrow.

Turbeaux

Uan-aa-Boa I have also observed that divide. It would not be horrible if the vote goes for Sonindia but I would rather see the opposite.

Mount Seymour

Uan-aa-Boa I think this is a difficult feature of our system. It's hard to turn down a region sending keen and friendly puppets to tell us how wonderful we are as we sit in judgement on them. I still feel bad about what happened with Agora. Yet a number of our recent acquisitions ( eg LCRUA, New Western Atlantic, Conch Kingdom) have done pretty much zero since the day they opened. This isn't an argument for changing the constitution, just an observation that this is what our system does. What I want to focus on is quality diplomatic communication with the more important regions.

I was actually impressed with how regularly LCRUA sent us updates, but I do agree about some of our other recently established embassies.

Looking at Sonindia from my defender side also makes me a little cautious. In the defending world, there tends to be a rough division into two groups of defenders: new people who are extremely zealous but often proportionally unskilled and unaware, and who tend to like the idea of running their own organizations only to see them fall inactive fairly quickly; and the more established and highly technical defenders like TRR and 10000 Islands. (I myself fit the former model perfectly two years ago ? .) Sonindia strikes me as very much the former type. That worries me because, at least in my experience, those groups tend not to grow into the latter type, as one might hope-- instead they fizzle out. And given that Forest seems to (as should be expected) prefer the more established, mature defender regions as far as embassies go, I think that dynamic is relevant for our embassy decision as well. I'd most prefer to wait a while and see what path Sonindia takes before establishing embassies with them.

Turbeaux

Also, Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar has been a little snippy with me over TGs. There was some sort of issue with me posting that TG they sent to me on the RMB. ?
Not a point in Sonindia's favor as far as I am concerned.

Uan-aa-Boa

Mount Seymour I was actually impressed with how regularly LCRUA sent us updates...

Memory is fallible, so I apologise to LCRUA if I'm being unfair to them.

Anyway, at 18-13 right now it looks like the die is cast, so it'll be on Sonindia to prove us wrong - us grumpy old buggers who've retreated offsite to be all negative away from the enthusiastic crowds. ? I can't help thinking popular over-ruling of the old order is an inherently healthy thing.

Mozworld

Not that I'm necessarily saying this is the case here, but this poll has shown me how easy it would be to rig the result. Several voters are brand new nations and as such become native almost immediately.

Uan-aa-Boa

Mozworld That's certainly true, and presumably why we use WA-only votes for elections and constitutional changes - and in elections you have to be willing to tie up your WA here for at least 10 days. Technically speaking that Sonindian puppet nation could probably vote in the current poll (though it hasn't). On the other hand, I do value the fact that we don't make people jump through additional hoops to become citizens before they get a say in anything. It's one of our more distinctive features and it really promotes inclusion.

Turbeaux

If we get outvoted, so be it. No need to tighten up requirements to exclude nations from participation! That would be unfair! Having an embassy with Sonindia could go well, they are actually older than is indicated on their page. Like Forest, they were invaded and had to reform. I would still like to see a bit more of a focus on like-minded ideals.

Mozworld

When I was trying to decide which way to vote I kept thinking if they weren't bestowing their first embassy on us how would we vote. And just said the same thing you did, they just seem like a generic defender region. What I'm unclear on is that because our ideals aren't all that like-minded why are we their first, and what had changed to want them to start seeking embassies.

Turbeaux

Mozworld Are we really their first? They had to reform, so I am not certain of the veracity of that claim.

Mount Seymour

Turbeaux Their WFE actually states they are in the middle of seeking relations with the East Pacific. We are not really their first. ?

Well, I can’t help but feel a little grumpy about the result. Compared to some other prospective embassies who have send over ambassadors, this one just felt so forced— nothing seemed quite sincere, like they were trying to pander to us to get votes. They didn’t leave me with a great taste in my mouth, and the result of this poll makes me concerned, oddly, because we haven’t rejected enough embassies recently. It does feel to some extent that we would have trouble rejecting even a clearly unreasonable embassy request in the future because of sentiment that “hey, they seem friendly, why not?” I think we really need to have another discussion on what we expect from embassies, especially involving the “new generation”. I hope Sonindia proves me wrong though.

I agree with Mozworld, it also highlighted how easy it would be to rig a poll. Even a Forest Keeper election could be rigged with minimal skill (just need a small group of people and the length of a standard R/D operation). We’ve been out of the world picture for a long time and managed to avoid having anyone who would want to do that, but while I hope that remains so we do still need to keep it in mind.

Oh well, though. C’est la vie. Count me as an old grumpy elder, I guess. ?

Uan-aa-Boa

I do hear the concerns here. If friendliness is sufficient what will we turn down? You rarely see an unfriendly embassy request. With the constitution as it is I believe that it's impossible for us to have a coherent embassy strategy i.e. one where there is a consistent standard that's applied to all applications. We can start discussions on what such a standard should be, and try to persuade others to see things our way, but as long as regional polls are the crucial factor the standard will change as people come and go and the regional mood changes.

I also believe, however, that the open nature of our government is a precious and fragile thing. Delegate endorsements are a good measure of active regional population since each one should represent a distinct player who has selected the region in preference to all others and is at least minimally engaged. Right now we have 81, and there were 35 votes in this embassy poll.Europe, by comparison, has 363 delegate endorsement and 80 votes in a poll on whether to open an embassy with us. This means respective scores on Uan's Engagement Metric of 0.43 for Forest and 0.22 for Europe. If you start comparing us to the off-site legislatures of the GCRs - well, The Rejected Realms has 214 delegate endorsements and only 100 citizens. They'd need a totally implausible 92% of all eligible voters to participate in order to match our UEM score. This is greatly to our credit.

I really don't think anyone here wants to start down the road of restricting the franchise. The GCRs do have (arguably) valid security reasons for doing so. As a region with an executive founder, we don't. So let's celebrate what we have, remembering that we just took a minor decision riding the wave of post Z-day recruitment. If that leaves us a little anarchic, so be it. Let's be realistic about what we can expect in terms of logical policy outcomes.

I would be open to giving new embassies a probationary period of 6 months, after which the Embassy Officer or Forest Keeper could start a vote on closure if, in their opinion, it hadn't worked out. That can be done within the framework of the current constitution, and while the region voted decisively against turning our back on an old friend in decline when we looked at Futaba Aoi last year I think this would be a very different sort of closure.

Ultimately, however, if Forest wants to accept and maintain every eligible request out of a desire to be friendly there's really not much to be done.

Turbeaux

Uan-aa-Boa Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar was not especially friendly with me. Somewhere between cold and rude. That was over TG though.
EDIT: I like your concept of having a probationary period! I would wholeheartedly support any actions made to enable that. It would require a constitutional amendment right?

Mount Seymour

Might be a good idea to update the RMB on this discussion before going any further.

Turbeaux

Mount Seymour Done. I plagarized @Uan-aa-Boa and put something up.

Turbeaux

So far, people on the RMB seem to like that idea. I am sure that someone will argue against it sooner or later though.
EDIT: The constitution already allows embassies to be closed but the Forest Keeper has to initiate the process. Giving the Embassy Officer the ability to initiate the process would require a small change to the constitution.
EDIT #2: I have posed the question about said constitutional change.