What a bad vote - Conflict of Interest perhaps?

[Austi Scot]

David,I live in Kildare - you seem to be voting for Kildare so I wish to put in my thoughts.This is a bad treaty, please vote no with the votes you have!Quote:ARTICLE ONE: Lac Glacei shall be held jointly by Treesia and Shireroth Any jointly held land is a thorn in the side to both nations. It means there will be disputes later. Who elects or appoints the authority in a jointly held land? What if there are different methods of deciding who is the authority in this land? What if one has a Governor and the other a Regent – or pick any titles you like. How is it possible for a jointly held land to have laws that conflict with at least one nation? Of which nation are the people of this land citizen? Do they have all the rights of both nations or none of the rights of either? Do they have the responsibilities of one held higher than the responsibilities of the other? What national voting rights in which nation do the citizens of this jointly held land have? What happens to the jointly held land if any reason there arises a conflict between the two nations? Quote:ARTICLE TWO: David Northworthy-Beckford shall be Governor-General of Lac Glacei. He may be removed or replaced at the discretion of Shireroth, with Treesian approval.This means that Shireroth must give up part of its sovereignty to Treesia. The sovereign right to determine who shall govern part of its land.Quote:ARTICLE THREE: Eoin Dornan shall retain the noble title of Grand Duke of Lac Glacei; this title shall, however, be purely honorary and not to be construed as giving any authority to govern. This is a tacit statement that the title of Grand Duke of Lac Glacei already exist and has been recognized by Shireroth. Shireroth has the title of Duke – shall those in a “jointly held land” now have a title that appears to be of higher Royalty?Quote:ARTICLE FOUR: The Governor-General will be given administrative access to the forum created by Ryan Caruso, which will become Lac Glacei's forum from this point forward.There is no such thing as “administrative access” to a forum – there is becoming moderator but you are being fooled if you thing that is administrative access. Quote:ARTICLE FIVE: Jacobus, Imperator will be given the honorary title of Emperor Emeritus, with all the honor this title may accord.Jacobus is a friend of mine and he knows that, but I can’t see someone in Shireroth having the title of Emperor when our own head of the national government retains the title of Kaiser. It just doesn’t seem right – honorary or functionary – it just doesn’t seem right! Saying “with all the honor this title may accord” is so vague and may lead to claims that are not anticipated.Quote:ARTICLE SIX: Both Shireroth and Treesia affirm that Ryan Caruso has no claim whatsoever to Lac Glacei; he is, however, invited to remain in the territory as a cultural advisor and Grand Duke Emeritus, with all the honor this title may accord. Again, no one should be afforded the title of Grand Duke when we have Dukes who are the rulers of Duchies and there’s that “with all the honor this title may accord” problem again.Quote:ARTICLE SEVEN: Both Shireroth and Treesia will unite to fight any party illegitimately claiming Lac Glacei contrary to this treaty, particularly the aforementioned Mr. Caruso, should such an event occur.This statement amounts to a Bill of Attainder. I for one, do not like Bills of Attainder. If someone is claiming Lac Glacei illegally right now let that person answer for the crime, but if is only a dispute over the name – let it be understood that many places in the world have the same name but are actually physically different places. Quote:ARTICLE EIGHT: Both Shireroth or Treesia may, should they wish, trade their share of Lac Glacei to some third party should they wish to do so.Whoa! – Trade it away – no restrictions – such as trade it away to one of our enemies. And I thought this kind of thing didn’t start until after the treaty but here it is right in the treaty. What a formula for a war this is! Does the third party get to make the laws, appoint the ruling authority, change the culture – do things the retaining nation of their part have laws against? BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD Quote:ARTICLE NINE: Should either nation withdraw unilaterally from this treaty or collapse, Lac Glacei will revert fully to the control of the other. Should Shireroth and Treesia break off relations completely, the matter will be referred to the Emperor Emeritus for mediation, and his decision will be final. And herein lies the formula for Shireroth to lose Lac Glacei. This almost makes me hope this is ratified so that my friend can get his land back. This article ties Treesia around the neck of Shireroth forever for fear of losing this land – something Shireroth already hates to do.Quote:ARTICLE TEN: Should a dispute over Lac Glacei come up not covered by this treaty, Treesia and Shireroth will seek a neutral third party agreed upon by both to mediate.Seek but not find? Why is not a third party named right now? Why not Emperor Emeritus as named in Article nine? Quote:ARTICLE ELEVEN: Shireroth will publically and officially apologize to Treesia for consistently and flagrantly mocking their treaty names. Really? But once the apology is made can we go back to mocking? Or how about if we just do it inconsistently from now on – or maybe if we aren’t so flagrant can we continue? Is this a restriction on the speech of others or just on their thoughts? Quote:ARTICLE TWELVE: Lac Glacei will be shaded in both Treesia and Shireroth's respective colors on the MCS map.So a bad treaty between two nations can dictate what the MCS does?Quote:ARTICLE THIRTEEN: Treesia recognizes Shireroth's full claim to Cognito and all other land it currently claims. Why would Shireroth even want the mention of Cognito if it isn’t dispute to start with? This is an underhanded way of saying that if Shireroth doesn’t make this treaty there will be trouble with Cognito next! Quote:ARTICLE FOURTEEN: Everyone agrees to finally forget all the bad feelings about the whole merger issue.BULL – what makes any of you guys think you can make anyone forget bad feelings by putting such a line in a treaty – this is just plain stupid to put in a treaty. What if someone a few months from now says something about not liking what happened here? Will that constitute a violation of the treaty and thus cause Shireroth to have to “seek” a neutral third party? What makes you think you can legislate feelings? Quote:ARTICLE FIFTEEN: Treesia and Shireroth reaffirm their long history of friendship and their strong cultural ties and agree to seek closer and friendlier relations in the future. UM, I have to admit I was not aware of a long history of friendship nor of any cultural ties. Ok, David – can find at least one good enough reason in all that?

[david northworthy beckfor]

Quote:Who elects or appoints the authority in a jointly held land? The treaty says I am the governer, and it will allways be shirerothianQuote:What if there are different methods of deciding who is the authority in this land? What if one has a Governor and the other a Regent – or pick any titles you like. the treesians only get cerimonial stuff anyway, we still ruleQuote: What national voting rights in which nation do the citizens of this jointly held land have? neither nation is a direct democracy, so voting would only be done by those admitant into the houses in either nation, so it matters not.Quote:This is a tacit statement that the title of Grand Duke of Lac Glacei already exist and has been recognized by Shireroth. Shireroth has the title of Duke – shall those in a “jointly held land” now have a title that appears to be of higher Royalty? it is only the same as what people do when in a treaty of recognition, they say they will recognise titlesQuote:There is no such thing as “administrative access” to a forum – there is becoming moderator but you are being fooled if you thing that is administrative access.yes there is, there is Admin!after that, my head started hurting...to much stuff....but basicly, most of it, to me doesnt matter or is acceptable riskknowing that you are wiser then me makes me lean toward voting abstain, theough I dont understand why I shouldplease show that these are of un acceptable riskQuote:Conflict of Interest perhaps?what do you mean by that?by that fact that you seem to believe that this is too pro treesian, you must think that I wish to advantage Treesia.why on earth would I wish to do that? "Disclaimer: Whatever is in the above post is probably a result of my blind following of Kieran Bennett, because I have even less of a brain than Kieran. Don't even get me started on my lack of independent thought."

[Scott Alexander]

Quote:Any jointly held land is a thorn in the side to both nations. It means there will be disputes later.Disputes later? Have you been following this issue? We've been disputing it NOW for the past three months! This is a way to just sweep the whole issue under the rug in a way acceptable to both parties. If six months down the road some problem comes up, then that's six months in which we haven't had this issue that's been bothering us since the beginning of the year. Considering how 99% of territories become inactive and irrelevant, I don't think there will be much opportunity for conflict.Quote:Who elects or appoints the authority in a jointly held land? What if there are different methods of deciding who is the authority in this land? What if one has a Governor and the other a Regent – or pick any titles you like. How is it possible for a jointly held land to have laws that conflict with at least one nation? Of which nation are the people of this land citizen? Do they have all the rights of both nations or none of the rights of either? Do they have the responsibilities of one held higher than the responsibilities of the other? What national voting rights in which nation do the citizens of this jointly held land have? What happens to the jointly held land if any reason there arises a conflict between the two nations? You will find a number of your objections answered in the rest of the treaty. As for the other, Lac Glacei, being a territory, does not have ANY rights in Shireroth or any necessity to follow Shirerithian law, if I remember our laws correctly. It is completely under the control of its governor. If the Treesians want to give Lac Glaceians rights in Treesia, that's their business, but I doubt they will.Quote:This means that Shireroth must give up part of its sovereignty to Treesia. The sovereign right to determine who shall govern part of its land.No, it means that the land is held jointly, which is what the first part of the treaty said.Quote:This is a tacit statement that the title of Grand Duke of Lac Glacei already exist and has been recognized by Shireroth. Shireroth has the title of Duke – shall those in a “jointly held land” now have a title that appears to be of higher Royalty?Eoin is a Grand Duke of Lac Glacei, not a Grand Duke of Shireroth. This is no more significant to us then the fact that he's a Baron in Treesia - that still doesn't make him a Baron here. Lac Glacei is not part of Shireroth, it is a territory held by Shireroth. All this statement means is that we are letting him keep a meaningless noble title so that he can feel better about the treaty.Quote:There is no such thing as “administrative access” to a forum – there is becoming moderator but you are being fooled if you thing that is administrative access.The forum which is being referenced here is in fact an entire EZBoard created by Ryan Caruso. I'm sure you can find a link to it somewhere. Administrative access to an EZBoard DOES exist and CAN be given.Quote:Jacobus is a friend of mine and he knows that, but I canÂ’t see someone in Shireroth having the title of Emperor when our own head of the national government retains the title of Kaiser. It just doesnÂ’t seem right – honorary or functionary – it just doesnÂ’t seem right! Saying “with all the honor this title may accord” is so vague and may lead to claims that are not anticipated.Once again, he is not Emperor Emeritus of Shireroth, he is Emperor Emeritus of Lac Glacei. As for the honor that accords, all it means is that he can put that in his signature or whatever else he wants to do with it.Quote:Again, no one should be afforded the title of Grand Duke when we have Dukes who are the rulers of Duchies and thereÂ’s that “with all the honor this title may accord” problem again.See my previous responses.Quote:This statement amounts to a Bill of Attainder. I for one, do not like Bills of Attainder. If someone is claiming Lac Glacei illegally right now let that person answer for the crime, but if is only a dispute over the name – let it be understood that many places in the world have the same name but are actually physically different places.No one is claiming it right now. But if someone does claim it I want Treesia to be obligated to help defend it. Ryan has a habit of claiming any piece of land he's had a claim to at any point in the past (no offense to him, we love him anyway - disclaimer) and if he tries that I want to make sure that we've got allies who will join us in saying no way.Quote:Whoa! – Trade it away – no restrictions – such as trade it away to one of our enemies. And I thought this kind of thing didnÂ’t start until after the treaty but here it is right in the treaty. What a formula for a war this is! Does the third party get to make the laws, appoint the ruling authority, change the culture – do things the retaining nation of their part have laws against? BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BADThe third party gets exactly the same rights over Lac Glacei that the nation they traded it from has in this treaty. If Treesia traded their half to Babkha, then we would have joint dominion with Babkha. It's that simple.Quote:And herein lies the formula for Shireroth to lose Lac Glacei. This almost makes me hope this is ratified so that my friend can get his land back. This article ties Treesia around the neck of Shireroth forever for fear of losing this land – something Shireroth already hates to do.The article specifically naming the Emperor Emeritus was a mistake from an earlier version of the treaty. It has been replaced with the article below saying a neutral third party.Quote:Seek but not find? Why is not a third party named right now? Why not Emperor Emeritus as named in Article nine?This may happen two, three years down the road. Who knows who will still be around then. Better to have a clause that will work no matter who has collapsed or resigned or gone inactive. Considering that the Babkhan judicial system lives for situations like this and that the Treesians are usually reasonable people, I don't think this is such a gaping loophole.Quote:Really? But once the apology is made can we go back to mocking? Or how about if we just do it inconsistently from now on – or maybe if we arenÂ’t so flagrant can we continue? Is this a restriction on the speech of others or just on their thoughts?This article has also been deleted, because I like mocking their treaty names. It has been replaced with what it was supposed to be, namely that they will apologize to us for various stuff they shouldn't have done.Quote:So a bad treaty between two nations can dictate what the MCS does?Yes. If you had followed the MCS, you'd know that it is their *job* to deal with treaties transferring land. I work for the MCS, Austi, I know how this works.Quote:Why would Shireroth even want the mention of Cognito if it isnÂ’t dispute to start with? This is an underhanded way of saying that if Shireroth doesnÂ’t make this treaty there will be trouble with Cognito next!No, it is a way of saying "better safe than sorry". I have no desire to see anyone pull anything else and force me to write another treaty that another person comes and tears apart without offering a viable alternative, so I figure I might as well make them say outright they don't claim anything else rather than deal with them claiming someplace a week down the road. If you would rather I allow that to happen for absolutely no reason when I have a perfectly good opportunity to prevent it here, by all means keep objecting.Quote:BULL – what makes any of you guys think you can make anyone forget bad feelings by putting such a line in a treaty – this is just plain stupid to put in a treaty. What if someone a few months from now says something about not liking what happened here? Will that constitute a violation of the treaty and thus cause Shireroth to have to “seek” a neutral third party? What makes you think you can legislate feelings?No one is legislating feelings. Eoin, Iain, and I talk a lot about this, and this is my way of saying "Can you shut up about the failed merger already?" I am sure that they, for one, understand this. Quote:UM, I have to admit I was not aware of a long history of friendship nor of any cultural ties. Then you haven't been watching. We have loads of dual citizens, we are the only two nations still around that originate from the same historical tradition of the Apolyton Sector of the year 2000, even if we have since grown very divergent from that tradition, and we have frequently shared information and worked together on various projects. Slightly before you returned, we were very seriously considering a merge. The Ard-Baron of Treesia is our Praetor, and the Ministry of the Exterior is an administrator in Treesia. Now, I have to congratulate you, because you have managed to object to every single article of this treaty. But this would be much more productive if you had a better idea. Lac Glacei has been haunting us since the New Year, and this would FINALLY put the issue to rest in a way that satisfies both parties and gives us, more or less, governmental control. I'm not saying this is a brilliant ironclad work of diplomatic literature that will go down in the history books as a stunningly well-crafted solution to a difficult crisis. But since no one ever cares about these little protectorates, I think that getting something that solves the issue enough that Lac Glacei will never come up again is enough, and that if it can leave open the possibility of closer cooperation with the Treesians, even better. Sir Iain de Vembria is the Treesian Chancellor. If you can get him to agree to a treaty on better terms than these, then by all means, go do so and I'll propose it to the Landsraad. But since I suspect that would be impossible, and since an agreement on good terms is better than a horrible conflict that festers and infects all of our relations with every other country in the microworld (the first thing that the Ascalonese asked when considering foreign relations with us is - "Don't you guys have an outstanding conflict in Lac Glacei that makes your current international position unstable?") I would suggest we just go with this treaty right now, especially as (and no offense to you, David) LAC GLACEI IS A TINY LITTLE GODFORSAKEN PIECE OF NONEXISTENT LAND THAT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER! Okay, glad I got that out.Or if you want to go all out and start a major conflict with Treesia over this, why don't you go ask Ardashir Khan how that worked when he tried it?I commend you for your diligence in keeping the Ministry of the Exterior honest, but I think you've got to choose your battles.And just whom are you accusing of having a conflict of interest? Edited by: Scott Siskind  at: 3/9/04 10:11 pm

[david northworthy beckfor]

*blinks**decideds to vote Aye* "Disclaimer: Whatever is in the above post is probably a result of my blind following of Kieran Bennett, because I have even less of a brain than Kieran. Don't even get me started on my lack of independent thought."

[Austi Scot]

My suggestion is that both Shireroth and Treesia recognize Emperor Jacobus as the original owner and agree to give the land back to him.After that the Emperor can rule the land of Lac Glacei since he is the creator of the name and the territory. I also think whoever is holding Cognito should give it back to Emperor Jacobus!Austi Scot

[david northworthy beckfor]

but that would mean giving up the land completly, which is worse then merely having a not so good treaty.also, he gave it away! "Disclaimer: Whatever is in the above post is probably a result of my blind following of Kieran Bennett, because I have even less of a brain than Kieran. Don't even get me started on my lack of independent thought."

[Scott Alexander]

Quote:My suggestion is that both Shireroth and Treesia recognize Emperor Jacobus as the original owner and agree to give the land back to him.If Jacobus wants Lac Glacei back, which I have yet to see him say he does, he is welcome to petition a noble to bring the matter up in the Landsraad. I suspect if Ryan had done this to begin with we would have given it to him and there would not have been a conflict. Until that happens, though, I think it is important for reasons of symbolism and precedent that we assert that the land is, in fact, ours, and having been given up by Jacobus he has no *official* rights to it. In other words, to state that if he wants it back he needs to ask us rather than in any way give the impression that it was his all along.I realize this may sound sort of callous, as he may be attached to the land and he definitely does have a connection to it, but we've had incidents with people trying to steal our land on that sort of basis so many times that we want to take as tough a stance as humanly possible against it.

[Austi Scot]

Scott,I agree with you entirely. In fact that was my second piece of advice to the Emperor quite some time ago. My first advice was to rule the land himself as a Baron or Duke within Shireroth.I agree that the Emperor should petition both governments to have the land returned to him – thus ending the controversy on both sides. I agree that he shouldn’t just attempt to claim it by saying someone gave it away without the legal authority.I intend to make that suggestion to him again.Austi