«12. . .2,6402,6412,6422,6432,6442,6452,646. . .2,6522,653»
Welp, figured this would be a spicy one. Glad to see the discussion has gone about how I expected it to: a true affirmation of our commitment with Europe :)
I do apologize if I've offended anyone simply for creating the proposal, especially if you're from or currently in Europe or have a particular grudge against raiders. There were two alternatives. The first, there would probably have been an embassy request which I'd be constitutionally obligated to share anyway. The other, one of us arbitrarily decides as the sole executive authority to dismiss a request without due democratic (arguably congressional) process.
But like. Totally get if you'd like to stay mad at me anyway, that's totally valid :p wouldn't be doing mofa if I didn't expect a little bit of that.
I retain my neutral stance in my original post as the messenger of incoming requests (dw we've got another one we'll likely say no to, but I believe it'll be far less controversial than this one), and would like to remain neutral so as to not "offend" any parties. But uh... I'll... definitely consider changing that, since I'm getting the vibe I'm probably doing the opposite anyway ;p Still would like to be more neutral going forward but I think I can make an exception here if I opt to.
(idk if I will just yet though, seeing as I just woke up and have a French lecture I haven't done homework for in an hour :( believe me I'd rather be embroiled in intense debate that's how strong my shift in desire/strength to do much else has been for the last half year. I'll take it over sucking at chess.)
On that note, it took me so long to type this that Uan and Verdant made greatly appreciated posts of their own*. I thank you for your affirmations. (And I said this 40 minutes ago, I'm slow smh also sorry for overusing the word appreciated, I genuinely mean it every time.) That said, I will point this out:
Thank you for defending us here, Verdant. It is indeed a difficult thing to balance, and like I said, this was created so we could discuss this. Everyone should demand a say in any request; it is not on the whims of a single appointee to take that away just because something is "unpopular", even if it creates controversy with some of our closest embassies. I know a lot of regions do this. We just don't operate like that.
That doesn't mean I don't still respect others' concerns, in and out of the region. Europe absolutely has the right to be concerned about this, and I fully respect their right to pursue any further FA policy they wish as a region in light of this or any future event. Many thanks to Nardin for clarifying there is no "blackmail"; someone else personally noted they'd start a campaign to sever ties, which is perfectly valid. (Though, honestly, threatening an embassy closure due to an extremely controversial friend-of-an-enemy situation imo while not ideal would still also be perfectly valid lol, so I greatly appreciate your commitment to remaining friends with us even in your worst possible situation, Nardin.)
Lastly, while I greatly appreciate your argument that we don't "warrant" any criticisms ourselves, I'm still immensely grateful everyone's coming out hot with what they're feeling. What is a true democracy or a balance of powers without open and fervent scrutiny or criticism, after all? (ed: ideally as long as it's coherent and civil which it has been ;p)
I appreciate your honesty, and you do seem like a well-reasoned and likeable person.
I hope you understand, though, that in light of this, it's difficult for me to justify supporting the establishment of relations between our two regions. I am sympathetic to your reasoning and to your commitment to your allies, as I hope you are to our commitment to our allies. If we were to accept closer diplomatic relations, with an embassy presumably forthcoming, it does not sound like you would refrain from attacking Europe again. This puts us in a tricky position of choosing between two allies of ours, and I do not believe that this is a position we should put ourselves in. It is nothing against you or your region personally; I appreciate the time you took to respond. But, we must uphold our commitment to our current allies and I do not think that it is possible to have our cake and eat it too, here.
I would just like to apologise for my claim that this proposal and the poll were unconstitutional: having looked at and read the RMB over the past few hours I can see that I was wrong to posit this, and therefore I apologise for saying so.
I would like to note that the outrage that has been seen amongst the community and beyond because of this proposal is actually quite predictable, and while of course the correct legal proceedings pertaining to the constitution have been followed, it would have been unwise for anyone in the government to not have seen this coming. This does not mean that I am accusing anyone in the government of being short-sighted, for lack of a better term, this is just something I wish to put out there.
In addition, as far as how the discussion has gone since my initial opposition post, I would like to step up and remind everyone to please read others' messages carefully. In the heat of the moment it seems some have forgotten to do this, and we now have false accusations flying around which only serve to make the discussion more heated and less civil, which is not what we want. This is a topic many, including myself, are passionate about, which makes it all the more important we keep things civil, instead of flying off the handle. Misreading one or two words could make all the difference when it comes to people's understanding of others' views and intentions, as we have seen. Thank you.
(I say that last bit like I have any form of power here, I don't, but just thought it was worth saying.)
Dw, you do. Everyone has power here. We're just the elected/appointed executive ;P (and final arbitrator of judiciary in Ru's case and big WA guy in Verdant's)
Forest keeps becoming worse all the time. I may move out of Forest if this constitution edit goes ahead.
"Raiding is cyberbullying" is a claim I've heard way too much already. It's not. It would be if raiders just picked one region and wouldn't stop attacking them all the time instead of any other random region. They don't.
I think this post by Astoria's representative contradicts what you say:
I think it is fair to say that there is a movement to drive those considered fascists from the site by making it unpleasant and difficult for them to remain here. Some would call this bullying.
I should state that I am against fascism and do not support it. I simply disagree with the approach that many on NS take to combat it. I believe censoring fascists feeds into the right-wing narrative that the left is authoritarian and oppressive and suppresses free speech and freedom of thought. You do not change people's minds by silencing them; you simply allow these views to fester and proliferate underground somewhere else.
Esterild, Jutsa, Ownzone, Atsvea, and 2 othersLord Dominator, and Greater Morvonia
While I'm not knowledgeable about the workings of NS diplomacy, I find myself inclined to agree with what Sherp said here. I'm also concerned or alarmed with some terminology which I don't believe should be used in the context of neutrality, "allies" being the one I've seen most. I think that Forest should have close ties, partnerships, and cooperation with other regions but not committed/diplomatic/officiated alliances. Thank you 
Zerphen and 
Jutsa for having considered this proposition from Astoria and brought it forwards to vote, even if it may prove to be disliked or unpopular, because it's important to be aware of such opportunities where Forest can pragmatically expand its network. I am somewhat disappointed because it looks like are some sentiments, particularly from Europe or former residents, which shouldn't have a pronounced bearing on Forest specifically that will impact the decision-making process. In any case, I have a similar expectation that the region will be imposing the same standard and consistency it's voting for here towards all other embassies moving forward, as others have mentioned. Ultimately, I feel that Forest should truly be neutral and open to feasibly and pragmatically expanding its diplomatic contacts.
hi again all, I know I'm probably not welcome here and have zero place in this discussion, and I have no intention of commenting on it. I do however, as always, feel the need to correct the historical record wherever it is necessary as there has been much misinformation spread about my reasons for the raid, so to be clear: when I planted german social democracy I was not even aware that myrth was eurofounder. Even if I was aware, I'll tell you right here that of all the people on this game that I have an opinion on, myrth is by far one of the weakest opinions. like, if neutral had a value I'd be up there, I do not care about the man at all. If you wish to learn about the actual reasons it was raided and more about the raid generally, you can find more info 
here
anyways, that's it from me, apologies for the interruption and all that.
To be frank, I don't agree with this at all. Speaking OOCly, denying fascists a platform on this site is a just and noble goal. You may not agree with how the wider NS community conducts it through raids and social ostracization, but it is justified no matter how you look at it. Fascists should be censored; they should not be allowed to associate with respectable NS regions, and they certainly should be silenced. Astoria and I take necessary steps towards this. We approach the region first with good intent, we tell them what's wrong, give them evidence and reasons why this person or this region is not good to associate with, or why their beliefs are wrong. But if they disagree, that means they accept those people or viewpoints, and that means the best way to go about it is to prevent other people from associating with them. This is the best, and frankly only, way to deter fascists on this site. To quote something I clarified to some friends in Malice:
One approach that does serve the purpose of anti-fascism is outreach. Making the names of fascists and fascist regions known achieves far more. This was the intention behind the dispatch I created, which listed problematic regions. The goal was to dissuade regions and players from associating with them. Actively seeking out evidence of suspected problematic regions is also crucial for this purpose. Without such efforts, seemingly credible regions like Ardenia would remain unknown as toxic fascist cesspits.
Social isolation is truly key to ensuring fascists don't find a foothold on NS to spread their hateful ideology. I believe we've achieved this in Brebina. Previously "reputable" individuals are now scorned by the majority of the community after evidence against them came to light. I've had numerous natives telegram me seeking clarification on what makes a certain region problematic, and I always provide the evidence I have on hand.
In the best-case scenario, they sever embassies and connections, refusing further association with the problematic region and contributing to the ostracization of its members. Given how much F/S has hindered anti-fascism due to successors, this is, practically speaking, one of the only effective ways to combat fascism on NS at this juncture."
It matters little if fascists proliferate elsewhere after their main region is destroyed; the crucial point is that their main region is dismantled. By fracturing their base and dividing the community, they lose the means to reassemble to the same scale. Consider how different things would be if Nazi Europa still existed. Would you still advocate for allowing fascist idealogues to maintain massive, hundred-strong strongholds where they can freely spread their ideology to impressionable players? Or would you prefer that they are openly stamped out and denied a platform every time they emerge?
Rhodevus, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, and Zerphen
Returning to this debate in the morning, I can see that I completely misread this as a proper embassy vote, not just "we should open a diplomatic relationship with them". Whoops. That's on me, but doesn't really affect my argument. (In fact, it arguably makes some points stronger, that we are asking for so little as "we as a region might collaborate with these people" but stoking this intense of a debate. If our beliefs are this strong, should we actually consider a constitutional amendment?)
I, the player, would be interested to know where the rest of our feelings lay on the IC/OOC divide, as I feel a lot of the bullying rhetoric that's come up is on the real-world side of this line. I attempted to lay that out by editing my last post, but I fear the damage was done by the post itself, and it would have been better for me to completely overhaul what I had said to cut out the OOC argument entirely.
I can understand some of the sentiment, for sure - when I play D&D, I don't like playing a chaotic evil character, as those IC motivations don't feel compatible with my actual OOC desires. I have not personally raided, nor am I a raider in-character, for similar reasons. But my in-character position is that we should prioritise the health, activity, and safety of our region, and an embassy-less friendship with another active region ticks those boxes. It's not like opening a relationship with Astoria makes us a target; if anything, it makes us less of a target.
I don't really know where this is going. It feels patronising for me to end with a call for us to "examine our beliefs" and figure out where the IC/OOC divide really is, but I'm already late and only getting later while I write this post.
Well, when it comes down to it, you want to limit what other people are allowed to say to ME, because you don't trust me to make my own judgments about what they say. I would rather nobody appointed themselves the arbiter of what ideas I'm allowed to be exposed to.
Ok, sure, maybe you don't mean ME; you mean the impressionable people whose brains we're protecting. And I'll admit that people are largely idiots, including me. But people who join militaristic groups and try to silence a viewpoint they don't agree with are just as prone to be idiotic as the people they're silencing.
Basically you're saying that your judgment about acceptable opinions is superior to others' judgment and you're going to impose yours by force.
Actually, though, my suspicion is that most "anti-fascism" is just an excuse for people to feel superior about being aggressive. Not necessarily you; just in general.
I genuinely find this accusation very offensive. If you knew the reasons behind why we fashbashed Ardenia and Brebina, the abhorrent things they said, and the repugnant ideas they found acceptable, you wouldn't be making such bold claims. There are legitimate reasons to join anti-fascist militaries, but they are by no means motivated by "that feeling of superiority about being aggressive". I have fought alongside many of the most staunch and wholehearted anti-fascists on this game, and they do not view their efforts to curtail fascism on this site as mere power play. You are not the only person fascists will talk to about their beliefs, and if you're not as impressionable as others, congratulations. However, please remember that there are plenty of people on this site who openly accept fascist ideals and see nothing wrong with them. Do not misconstrue our actions as some form of political silencing; it is a just cause.
Jutsa, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, McClandia Doge 2, and 2 othersZerphen, and Greater Morvonia
To clarify, when I said, "Ok, sure, maybe you don't mean ME; you mean the impressionable people whose brains we're protecting," I was being facetious - although obviously I did a poor job of expressing that.
I would observe that antifash action is as noted essentially a universal exception to typical R/D lines. Our embassy partners in TSP or TRR (staunch defenders), TLA or DSA (staunch leftists acting through NSLeft) are just as likely to conduct antifash action as raiders are. If the target is big enough, all of those groups are likely to be on the same antifash raid - that they typically aren’t is more a function of target size than lack of interest.
Indeed, there’s a semi-formal process that raiders/etc will often use to check to see if a given region falls under what is called “do not defend” - wherein defenders have essentially said that a given region is fascist/hateful/similar such that they explicitly will provide no assistance to the region should it be raided.
If anyone's curious what my own GP input is (again [I've done this a few times]), Chan island, 
Lord Dominator and I (who've all been Forest ROs if not FKs) have indeed served in militaries (I believe all as raider) for some time in the past. I wouldn't have set out on a region-destroying rampage as a tag-raider (heck I even saved factbooks for a few small active "trophies" who were used to the vibe). I am however against raids of larger regions, even if they don't exactly do a whole lot of damage, and especially if they go all-out and destroy a whole community's history; I'm still sad about Mystical Council, and for what it's worth, I and a few others here are also indeed pretty uncomfortable on the whole destruction of Solidarity (even if I get the reasoning behind it; GP's a complicated thing that extends way behind raider/defenderdom. I will touch on this more later in this post don't you worry >.>). But I also am not totally against the idea of destroying some regions, particularly if they're frontiers... aight probably-proto-frontierist rambling incoming:
- I get, regional sovereignty all that - but do we as a site really want new players from all walks of like setting out to play a political simulator spawning in a region with the following traits: Has the name "Stubby Toe" or "Shiseballs" or (sorry but) "yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss"; Is solely an advertisement for another region and nothing else; Is solely an advertisement for a military organization; Is full of fascists (or something else repugnant); Is otherwise a toxic meme cesspool; Is run by kids who don't know what they're doing and get into petty arguments with newcomers for unendorsing them or something; Probably a few other things I'm not thinking up off the top of my head. I get the argument something-something-"you're-not-the-judge-of-that" but I also believe in an argument that goes something-something-"who-better-to-than-a-large-organization-of-site-regulars-because-what's-the-alternative". Keep in mind, I don't actually participate in any of those activities, myself. But by way of analogy I look at it like the site-wide equivalent of us with our RMB; A bunch of people go around making sure things are well-kept and high-quality, swiftly suppressing "spammy" inappropriate behavior. -
Self-rationale for frontierism that I'm sure many of you rightfully may vehemently disagree with aside (I won't get into my mixed kinda-in-favor but still a bit conflicted feelings about suppressing fascists as opposed to trying to help them or how fash-bashing can have a lot of grey areas or specifically how there's a whole detailed charter of provisions on it in the IC SC in the same category as hippopotamus weight, crabs of the apocalypse, and declaring potatoes the official food of the SC or whatever) I do agree there's some debate about having a "double-standard" when it comes to relations with any region that maintains some kind of military. That extends to TNP, TSP, XKI and I believe TRR - frankly anyone involved in gameplay in one form or another. Raider regions certainly raid and grief more often, and in Astoria's case, they certainly did some very inconvenient and non-consentual damage to a close embassy of ours. But they all do it to one extant or another.
But this touches on a taboo issue that we haven't discussed very much at all - perhaps because it is taboo, and also partly cause it doesn't actually concern us directly - which I do thank Sherp for bringing up. And that is that several of our other embassies (non-consentually) completely destroyed a project that another one of our embassies (The Leftist Assembly, namely) had put a lot of work into. Granted, this was due to their NSleft connections to TCB which itself performed a nonconsentual attack on TNP before that. But we've not exactly debated which "side" to chose there, and thankfully we haven't had a situation where one made us do so either. I know, the situations are a bit different - the fall of Solidarity happened well after we've all held established embassies, and Astoria's offering relations with us shortly after a level of participation in the raid of Europe. But still, it's been a bit of a taboo that I've wrangled with whenever I've interacted with folks from either side of the conflict - can definitely see the appeal of ignoring it entirely.
I'm certainly not suggesting we reevaluate our relationship with either side (though anyone is free to at any point with any of our embassies ftr, we've got a process for that); I quite like folks from all the regions regardless of "side" myself and I hope we can maintain good, genuine relationships with them. But I do hope that sort-of ties a nice loop back round to where we are at the poll, and sheds some light on the stance of where those in favor of this embassy proposal are coming from: y'can like individuals and communities from two regions that have an extremely unpleasant/awkward/hostile relationship. While I personally agree a formal relationship, as a region, of any kind with Astoria would be a huge slap-in-the-face (to put it lightly) to our friends in Europe (quite "OOC"ly as we've seen), I also hope that we'll refrain from making individuals feel guilty or afraid for freely expressing their opinion through a vote.
Final note: Can I just stress how much I hate the term OOC? "Out of character". Everyone uses it. Just use the word real for god sake. I know I've got brain rot worse than the present-day condition of Henry VIII but jeez why does in-character feel like the default and you have to specifically come out of it to be a real person again. Stinkin. /rant
I will also add in to cite something I have said similar to this:
To clarify, while we identify as raiders, fash-bashing operates on a completely different premise from traditional R/D activities. I would argue that fash-bashing transcends the typical raider or defender dichotomy. Our motivations for targeting fascist regions are as virtuous as we claim them to be, and we have consistently upheld this principle.
It's not uncommon for raiders to participate in or even direct fash-bashes. However, these actions are not the result of unregulated raiding but rather a commitment to denying fascists a platform on this site. Fash-bashing is both an IC endeavor, akin to how participating militaries express their R/D alignment, and an OOC endeavor, driven not by a desire for geopolitical advantage or victory, but by the noble aim of combating fascist ideologies that have proliferated on NationStates.
While do-not-defends are often filed by raiders, they are more of a formality than anything GP politically-motivated. DNDs still genuinely acknowledge a raid justification. However, even if these DNDs are often, but not always, filed by raiders, the raid on a problematic region that accompanies it is not done as an R/D move. That's an important distinction to make.
The names associated with these fashbashes are raiders, defenders, and independents + exclusively anti-fascist non-GP militaries. A good example of this scenario would be the Confederacy of Layem, with the most recent example being Ardenia. While organizations do name themselves for credit and have established GP alignments, their motivation isn't solely to gain an advantage over their IC enemies. IC enemies may still collaborate to deny OOC malicious individuals a platform.
EDIT: The perception that only raiders engage in this behavior might lead some to label it as "posturing to raid a region through blanket justification." However, this perception arises primarily because raiders are typically the faction most visibly involved in confronting regions. If the objective is to dismantle a region, it's not a bad idea to entrust this task to a raider whose entire in-IC identity revolves around such actions. Nonetheless, defenders also partake in such activities. Many defenders have spearheaded anti-fascist operations, just as raiders and independents have. It would be inaccurate to suggest that raiders engage in fashbashing solely to sow chaos, as that's not the case. We fashbash for the same reason as everyone else: to halt the spread of fascism on NationStates.
First off, am I allowed to vote on the poll? Have not just in case but I would like to since its non-binding even if I'm not a citizen or anything.
Secondly I am glad its not just Sol Aeternalis struggling to get Foreign Affairs with Forest. That was a stressful weekend watching that poll be incredibly close and come out at the exact needed support.
Now for my opinion, which again I am not a citizen of Forest. This is merely me offering an opinion. Please take it at that, and especially don't take this as an opinion from SA as a whole. I expect some will agree and more will disagree, but it is what it is. But I don't think Forest should reject a partnership from Astoria due to the fact that they raid. Not if you are a neutral region IMO, coming from a fellow neutral region R/D alignment isn't even something I consider when looking at partners. Granted I have the privilege of serving players who more or less could not care less about GP. So the situations aren't overly comparable.
Now the Raid on specifically Europe I think is a valid complaint, but perhaps one worth exploring the options. Now I am a individual who really enjoys hanging out with both sides of players in R/D, and as such I am a sucker for ever seeing the two sides come together and mutually respect each other going forward. yes I am aware its a pipe dream, but then again so was JEFF not even 24 months ago. Now unless I am mistaken Astoria has said they would approach and reconcile with Europe for a relationship with Forest. And really thats what me write this RMB post at all. I respect that a lot. It cannot exactly be easy walking up to a region you helped raid and intentionally smooth things over just for a relationship with another region. Frankly that is a level of respect for Forest and a desire for positive relations I am not sure Forest has a lot of. Heck if Astoria approached me with that kind of intention for positive relations, I would try to find a way to move heaven and Earth to get it to work with SAs own embassy request with XKI. If I ended up having to pick one that decision would keep me up at night, perhaps more than one.
To conclude, I think the level of effort Astoria is willing to put into a non-embassy relationship is commendable and rarer than I think Forest realizes, I wouldn't be quick to say no without exploring what Europe and Astoria can accomplish first. Granted perhaps I am being idealistic, but I do not see the downside of simply seeing what happens. If it comes to deciding between Europe and Astoria, obviously you keep your relationship with Europe no question. But IMO, see what happens first.
I mean. Others are free to disagree (which I'd definitely consider when "weighing" the very-clearly-against-at-this-time poll) but like... there's no constitutional provision preventing non-self-recognized "Forestians" from voting as long as they're resident native accounts (that's something we could potentially maybe discuss in a distant future; I think people might be getting sick of heated FA debate atm xd). It might still be polite to not do so if you don't consider yourself a "Forestian" per se, but like, it's not as though you're someone in the proposing region. Frankly I'm just glad you asked. But though I'd personally refrain (as I had in TEP's elections despite technically being in their government at the time [correct me if im wrong it's been so long]), your call I guess.
Edit: But hey your RMB input is still very much appreciated either way lol. (well, by me anyway.)
Edit3: Unrelated, but since I figured it didn't warrant its own post and this was kinda the least involved / most recent one I've got already, I did just cancel a request from The United Democratic States on account of a lack of formal invitation and its youth as a 2-month-old region. Just wanted to clarify that this region is different from The Union of Democratic States, for which we already and still maintain embassies with. Just in case anyone was confused, assuming anyone actually reads the activity feed. Both of which are different from 
United Democratic Christian States of Sol Aeternalis, who this post is replying to. Indeed.
UDCS, Atsvea, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 3 othersMcClandia Doge 2, Zerphen, and Bisofeyr
I shall refrain then, but I guess you could infer my position and weigh it as someone whos just a diplo with an account here. the account being here may not even be permanent either
Jutsa, Atsvea, and Lord Dominator
As expected, the vote in Astoria aligned with our predictions. While this outcome wasn't surprising, I find myself disheartened by certain accusations that have been directed towards us, some of which feel like personal attacks. However, I'll refrain from delving into specifics at this time.
To clarify, our interest in fostering relations with Forest has been purely driven by cultural appreciation, with a desire to cultivate a special kind of friendship. When I initially approached Zerphen with this idea, it was out of deep respect for both regions. I openly admit my admiration for Forest's culture and unique identity, I find it so deeply fascinating, which prompted our aspiration for friendship. Astoria places a high value on community and culture, and we believed that a friendship, even without formal embassies, would enrich both regions in a meaningful way, transcending petty gameplay politics.
I acknowledge the concerns raised here, particularly regarding Astoria's past involvement in the raid of Europe and our alignment with Raiderdom. However, I want to emphasize that Astoria encompasses more than just those aspects. Our intention was to separate political matters from our pursuit of relations with Forest, a point we made clear from the outset of negotiations. This is why we initially sought feedback through polls, rather than immediately proceeding to embassy votes, in order to gauge Forest's sentiments without causing unnecessary stress.
I urge you not to cast suspicion on Zerphen's role as the Forest Keeper in this matter. She acted in what she believed was the best interest of Forest as a whole, and we had addressed each concern raised well before the commencement of this poll. While we acknowledge Astoria's past actions, Zerphen's decision to pursue relations was pragmatic and should not be attacked for initiating or supporting the proposal.
Astoria has always valued friendship over politics. We absolutely love our allies, and we want to see them prosper. If we have to make some hard choices, we will not be strangers to doing them. Astoria is a region of loyalty and honor. We do not wish harm upon other regions that do not wish harm upon us. All Astoria asks from its friends is respect. If Forest so needed it and that in a hypothetical scenario this vote did come to pass, we would happily reconcile everything that happened with Europe. And I know that sentiment is not shared, but I'm just putting that fact out there. I do not have any hate for Europe or its members, neither does Astoria, and we completely understand if Europe does not like this idea, but nevertheless I want to assure Europe that this proposal was not done to undermine our actions.
I do not make it a secret that Astoria is willing to work with IC enemies (i.e. defenders, defender-aligned independents) on purely cultural events. Heck, I'd gladly run a cultural event with members of The South Pacific even after they've completely sanctioned us and barred us from participating in their OOC events. Even still, even if they are our IC enemies, we are still a region that values culture over everything else. The point is that Astoria does not hold any kind of real hate against any region or community. Our only real standards for hate is if you're fascist or a bigot, and that's that. But aside from that, all of our pursuits have been solely for the pursuit of raider glory and that of loyalty to our friends. But never have we expressed the need to isolate our IC enemies from our OOC gatherings, they are always more than welcome to join us. I just hope that the sentiment is shared by Forest.
Astoria fully respects whatever decision Forest takes moving forward. If Forest chooses to prioritize their friendship with Europe over this decision, we will accept it gracefully; it's only natural. Nonetheless, I sincerely hope that Astorians and Forestians can continue to maintain friendly relations despite the events involving us and Europe.
As for an OOC note, I am deeply hurt by the opinion expressed here that our status as raiders diminishes the virtue of our involvement in anti-fascism. We are fully committed to our beliefs and prioritize the fight against fascism over our raider identity. I have consistently demonstrated this commitment through my actions, as has Astoria as a whole. Our identity as raiders does not hinder our dedication to what is arguably the most noble cause on this site: combating fascism. We devote a significant amount of our time to this purpose. Therefore, it is disheartening to be accused of insincerity regarding our priorities over our IC affiliations.
- Rosartemis, Archkeeper of the Celestial Order
A couple brief and poorly-worded thoughts:
I don't think we need to take any more of a stance on raiding to be able to come to a clear decision on this vote. I would not want to see Forest try to enshrine some sort of anti-raiderism in the Constitution. I have always been primarily defender-aligned, but I think there is a particular value to Forest as a place that is accepting to people with both defender and raider R/D backgrounds (as well as, of course, the majority who have none). That's what our neutrality means to me: that Forest is a space that does not select its membership for a R/D alignment. Not that we can't take a stance on a particular raid when it's relevant. I think any amendment to the Constitution would likely to harm that kind of neutrality, though.
As VH already said, Zerphen and the gov't took the right approach in putting public discussion at the forefront here. If anything, I think their handling reflects on the administration positively. Even if it "should be obvious" how objectionable this would be -- I'd still rather have everyone discuss it than the FK just reject it out of hand.
I do also agree with Uan, though, that "informal diplomatic relations" that involve off-site connections but not an embassy are probably unhelpful diplomatic bloat in the long term, and strike me somewhat as the influence of the norms of the Gameplay world into our practices. A lot of GP regions don't care much at all about on-site embassies, and count off-site relations not only as a separate thing, but a more important one. I don't think that's a necessary division for Forest -- the situations we have with TNP and JEFF are unique and necessary for those particular contexts -- so I'd caution against that kind of approach in general.
On the note of GP influence: The largely ignored aspect of this diplomatic request that I'd like to highlight is that they seem to hit all the notes of an offsite-focused region that we might struggle to engage properly with. Jutsa's initial post suggests almost all of their serious activity is off-site, whether RP or GP, and their RMB is not a focus. Most of their WFE ultimately leads to offsite platforms. I completely believe that their culture is vibrant, and from Jutsa's description, they sound like a wonderful community. But I'm not sure we can really live up to their expectations, since our Discord is just as lawless as their RMB, and I'm not sure they'd get much in the way of engagement from us if they ever held an off-site-based festival or something like that.
All of the above notwithstanding, the bad history with Europe should probably be disqualifying. I do wish that Astoria were a slightly different region, one that hadn't participated in the Europe raid. They have clearly invested a lot in reaching out to us, and that is worth recognizing and appreciating. But actions do come with consequences (including our action in allying with Europe, which, even if we maintain neutrality towards raids in general, should probably be understood as a commitment to that region's side in direct conflicts involving it). Moreover, I'm not sure that Astoria's military policy can be so easily disentangled from their foreign policy as they suggest. They have already mentioned the importance they place on "Raider Unity" several times on this board, which is a political affiliation, policy statement, and strong assertion of values -- not just a mere participation in the raiding mechanic.
To clarify some confusion regarding this matter, "Raider Unity" is not a political affiliation, nor is it technically a policy; rather, it is a core value in itself. Raider Unity embodies the belief that raiders should not interfere in each other's operations and that being a raider should not entail opposition to fellow raiders; this is essentially the foundational principle of Raiderdom. Nonetheless, Astoria is a sovereign region with its own foreign policy and beliefs. Our allies in Raiderdom greatly respect this autonomy and understand that Astoria is free to make decisions it deems necessary for its prosperity. It's important to distinguish between our foreign policy and military policy; they are two distinct elements. While our military policy might be relatively simple, adhering to the principle of "Raid when we feel like it," our foreign policy is more intricate, albeit somewhat messy. However, it forms a solid foundation for our region. This is precisely why Astoria places emphasis on separating Gameplay matters from cultural concerns in all of our treaties and friendships.
Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Ownzone, Atsvea, and 2 othersLord Dominator, and Zerphen
When the choices are an actually successful region (like Astoria) and a region where the founder literally had to go ask in the NS forums to find out how to make the delegate unexecutive (like Europe), most regions would choose diplomatic relations with the first one.
Atsvea and Lord Dominator
What you seem to be missing is that Europe was successful prior to the raid, and that members of the region hated Eurofounder/myrth just as much as everyone else present.
The raid was targeting an entire region for the wrongdoings of one man, who wasn't even active until the raid happened, and had no bearing whatsoever on what happened in the region he created.
And why wouldn't he ask the forums about how to deal with a raid? Europe was widely believed to be immune to raiding at the time, because it was so large, so old, so powerful, no raider would dare try and attack it.
It's like how during the 2008 financial crash, the big banks were deemed "too big to fail" and as such had no countermeasures for severe economic downturn.
Most people who control a large region already know how to do stuff. And if you don't, finding out how to do it is easy.
Atsvea and Lord Dominator
«12. . .2,6402,6412,6422,6432,6442,6452,646. . .2,6522,653»
Advertisement
