Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
I was basing my arguments on the UN Security Council, not something else.
Okay, I understand. I'm not very familiar with this. Anyway, I've read about it now. The Security Council passes resolutions, and they are binding. In the context of our game, joining two Security Councils means you won't be able to fulfill the obligations you've taken on.
В тихой однообразной жизни всегда так бывает: каждый отдельный день бесконечно долог, но месяцы и годы мчатся с непостижимой быстротой.
I wanted to offer you some flowers, but a crown would suit a princess like you much better
Смысл жизни в том, что жизнь на тебе не заканчивается
Okay, now for Roger Quasardastan's response. -- We are very pleased and thank you for joining the economic alliance. We also thank Kittypink. Now, regarding your concerns about KOSAP and RPA. -- I must say that I haven't studied the KOSAP regulations closely enough and don't know a rather important thing: whether KOSAP members are allowed to be part of other military alliances. Specifically, according to your agreements and regulations. But I can say that for an RPA member, this is permissible; we have no restrictions on this. If KOSAP also allows it, then, from a formal point of view, joining both alliances would protect the state twice as effectively. Both alliances emphasize the defense of "their" states against external aggressors. This means that, formally, whoever acts as an aggressor against a country that is a member of both alliances, both alliances will be obligated, according to the agreement, to come to the defense of that state. Obviously, this is only a positive thing. The negative aspect is that the real situation does not always match the formal one. If any KOSAP state additionally joins RTA, it is completely unknown how the founder of KOSAP, Rex Ventorum, and the remaining members of KOSAP will react. Perhaps nothing terrible will happen. But most likely, this will have a very negative impact on relations with that country, up to and including the termination of previous agreements. -- Therefore, I am in no way insisting that Quasardastan join RTA. Obviously, this is a legally ideal solution, but in reality, it would be a significant risk and sacrifice. Well, in any case, it's already good that we have gathered here within the framework of the Acteia Security Council. I hope that cooperation with Quasardastan will ultimately be another step towards establishing peace and security throughout the region.
In any case, I've read about it now. The Security Council passes resolutions, and they are binding. In the context of our game, joining two Security Councils means you won't be able to fulfill your commitments.
Well, they can't force a war; they force peace. Two resolutions prohibiting aggression or, say, refusing to use chemical weapons cannot contradict each other. That's one thing. Secondly, the Mushroom People emphasized that the first Security Council didn't exist and still doesn't, because many countries were initially excluded from it. In other words, this means that the first Security Council is essentially powerless. It won't be able to do anything if, for example, the Steelmen start open aggression. It won't be able to negotiate; at best, it will send a contingent there (if the first Security Council even has such authority, which it probably doesn't). In other words, it's essentially useless. As a place where people can discuss and agree on certain treaties, it's fine. But as a governing body that could somehow regulate the military situation, it's not.
An increasing number of land owners have been fencing off footpaths which run through or near their property and as a result you have been petitioned by The Rambler's and Hiker's Association to allow the 'right to roam'.
Could you remind me what the options were when choosing the first one? Allow people to walk anywhere.
I said this primarily as a player, Mage Guild, don't accuse me of favoritism; if I wanted to play world domination, I would have chosen Civilization instead of wasting dozens of hours on all of this. But now I will say it as a GM.
Example: There is the UN, and member countries have signed certain agreements (primarily related to their membership). Suddenly, out of nowhere, another UN appears that declares, "This UN is not real; ours is the real one!" Does that sound silly? Yes, it does. And yet, that’s exactly what it is. In our case, this isn’t just “some other organization whose membership no one has forbidden me from joining”; it is precisely a clone of an already existing Security Council.
- It pursues similar goals.
- It has a similar structure.
- It even has the same name in the end.
In this case, with both identical organizations, one will always be illegitimate (it’s like having two different governments in one country).
Another example: Let’s say there is NATO. Ukraine really wants to join it. What should it do? It should try every possible way to achieve its membership. But how does it happen within this game? Ukraine creates its own NATO and invites current members of that organization to become its members.
My position: Member states of the original Security Council can quite possibly become members of its clone (after all, this is politics, and I won't hinder this in any way), but this will mean that they are not fulfilling their international obligations.
Here's another example. Let's say there's NATO. Ukraine really wants to join. What should it do? It should try every possible way to achieve its membership. And how does it happen in this game? Ukraine creates its own NATO and invites current members of the organization to become its members.
It's a clever idea, by the way. It's a shame the government didn't come up with it. Mushrooms turned out to be smarter.
I said that you shouldn't pay attention to the text after the issue number. You should focus on the actual version described in the issue or on the numbers. Besides, this is a faction from the southern continent, so everything is fine.
Example. There is the UN, and the member countries have signed certain agreements (primarily related to their membership). Suddenly, out of nowhere, another UN appears and declares, "This UN is not the real one; ours is the real one!" Does that sound silly? Yes, it does. And that's exactly what it is. In our case, this is not just "some other organization whose membership no one has forbidden me to join"; it is precisely a clone of an already existing Security Council. - It pursues similar goals. - It has a similar structure. - It even has the same name in the end. In this case, one of the two identical organizations will always be illegitimate (it's like having two different governments in one country).
It wasn't intended to sound smart; it's just Mushrooms ) However.
It pursues similar goals.
It doesn't. It doesn't aim for dialogue between all the countries of Actaea regarding peace.
It has a similar structure.
The structure is similar. The regulations are different, and many things differ. It has different, more reasonable powers, in the end. Your Security Council will be useless in many cases, while the real Security Council of Actaea will, in most cases, only need to issue a formal resolution, and the issue will be resolved. Theoretically, of course, because in practice, the old Security Council, which has already outlived its usefulness, will somewhat hinder this function, but this can be corrected over time.
Another example. Let's say there is NATO. Ukraine really wants to join it. What should it do? It should try in every way to achieve its membership. And how does it happen in this game? Ukraine creates its own NATO and invites the current members of this organization to become its members.
First, NATO is a different alliance with different goals. Second, most likely (99%), they have a direct ban on joining other military alliances there. Third, I'm already poaching your Heroist from COSAP. And finally, NATO doesn't have an urgent need for a replacement, as it is functioning normally. I'm saying this as if on behalf of the state, but in other words )
It's a great idea, by the way. It's a pity that the government didn't come up with it. Mushrooms turned out to be smarter.
))
It even has the same name in the end.
Oh yes, well, it's clear here. You took a collective name, "Actaea." If you hadn't taken it, there would be no problem. But you did. It's like creating an organization called the UN, but including only America, France, and Canada, for example. No, these are good countries, with good goals... But... Why create an organization with the claim to regulate relations around the world if it only includes three countries? It's the same here. In this case, the Mushrooms implemented a good idea, but it was not fully realized by those who proposed it.
He is not pursuing the goal of dialogue between all the nations of Antagarich regarding peace.
Is this about "not inviting everyone" again? Well, let me tell you. The Steel Nomads don't have a government at all; there's no one to invite. Ahassan's government automatically rejects all invitations (there's no one to have a dialogue with). And the Mushroom People were represented in international treaties by a drug addict who can barely string two thoughts together. If you think that such a nation should be perceived by the international community as a nation with which normal dialogue can be conducted, then, unfortunately, our views on this matter differ, and there is nothing more to discuss. As for Kittypink, it was decided that the first session of the Council of Beasts would be held without him. Problems? We turn to the Security Council -> submit an application for membership -> the majority of the Council of Beasts members vote in favor -> voilà! This is my last word on this nonsense.
Let's say NATO exists. Ukraine really wants to join it. What should it do? It should try in every way to achieve its membership. And how does it happen in the context of this game? Ukraine creates its own NATO and invites the current members of this organization to become its members.
The NATO example isn't suitable because NATO is a military bloc. Jinhai
Suddenly, out of nowhere, another UN appears, claiming, "This UN is not the real one; ours is the real one!" ... - It pursues similar goals. ... In this case, with both organizations being identical, one will always be considered illegitimate (it's like having two different governments in one country).
Yes, if the second organization immediately declares that the first one is "not real," then they clearly won't recognize each other. But take the Security Council, for example. The goal? Peace throughout the world, so that no human blood is spilled, whether at the hands of terrorists or anyone else. Another organization appears with exactly the same goal. Is that bad? The first one will be against it, won't recognize it, saying, "Only we are the true fighters for peace?" Therefore, I allow for the existence of a similar organization. But this is all in an ideal scenario. In reality, ASC doesn't seem to be about peace, but rather against Kittypink. If everyone, even enemies, could come together and prevent war, that would be great.
It seems that neither of our "security councils" is thinking about peace. :D
В тихой однообразной жизни всегда так бывает: каждый отдельный день бесконечно долог, но месяцы и годы мчатся с непостижимой быстротой.
I wanted to offer you some flowers, but a crown would suit a princess like you much better
Смысл жизни в том, что жизнь на тебе не заканчивается
MedjersoN_HP
