Shireroth

The Small Commonwealth has many purposes, but as far as I understand it, the one that everything else depends on is standardisation. The Small Commonwealth is a place for nations to come together in multilateral negotiation, to bring in their viewpoints, knowledge, and expertise in order to standardise well-founded treaties of cooperation. Any two nations can hammer out a treaty, but in the SC, there are many working together to find a middle ground that's agreeable to all. The standardized treaties are then signed and ratified separately, and whether a nation was originally involved in the drafting of a treaty is irrelevant to whether it can later be a participant in that treaty.

You with me so far? Good, because that paragraph leads directly to a question: Precisely why is the treaty of general membership a requirement for any of the other treaties? Suppose a nation is happy with, say, the SCUE, but does not want to be a commonwealth member. I understand that from the point of view of a happy SC member there seems to be little reason not to join the treaty of general membership, and there certainly is the significant negative that you wouldn't have a voice to vote against amendments to the treaty that you mightn't be happy with... but if a nation would join the SCUE on those terms anyway, what reason does anyone have to stop them?

I yield the floor to your opinions .

I've always thought that the Small Commonwealth found it's purpose in the benefits it provided to its members by being part of its various associated treaties. If people can get the benefits without being a member ... it would seem the Small Commonwealth loses its main purpose; and in that case, why don't people just get on MCS and say "Hey guys, who'd like a combined economy?"

I can see why someone wants to become a member (the specific treaties) and why someone isn't interested (don't care about the specific treaties). But can anyone tell me: if you want some of the specific treaties, what's the disadvantage of signing the general treaty?

Gert Geens wrote:I can see why someone wants to become a member (the specific treaties) and why someone isn't interested (don't care about the specific treaties). But can anyone tell me: if you want some of the specific treaties, what's the disadvantage of signing the general treaty?

None, really. I suppose it's just the 'feeling' you're part of an organisation

Gert Geens wrote:I can see why someone wants to become a member (the specific treaties) and why someone isn't interested (don't care about the specific treaties). But can anyone tell me: if you want some of the specific treaties, what's the disadvantage of signing the general treaty?

Various people I have spoken to about it say that nations like Shireroth have too much influence in the SC. They don't trust their intentions and also believe that they give up parts of their identity in some form or another.

I'm not a believer in this ethos myself, but I realise that it does exist. What may seem silly and pathetic to some might be of the greatest importance to others. I have often wondered what the reaction to the Small Commonwealth would have been had it been based either on the MCS forum or another forum and if it's name had been different.

Small things really, but my feeling is that for some it may have given them a different impression of the organisation at the start.

Dr Bjorn Olsen wrote: Various people I have spoken to about it say that nations like Shireroth have too much influence in the SC. They don't trust their intentions and also believe that they give up parts of their identity in some form or another.

I'm not a believer in this ethos myself, but I realise that it does exist. What may seem silly and pathetic to some might be of the greatest importance to others. I have often wondered what the reaction to the Small Commonwealth would have been had it been based either on the MCS forum or another forum and if it's name had been different.

Then we would probably been dead now and been seen as a YAMO which didn't reach anything. It's not the Shirerithians their fault that they have the people that can develop the bank (a small thing). In that way, yes, Shireroth (or Shirerithians) have some influence. I'm not sure you would have gotten that participation when we had been on the MCS-forum.
But the fear that Shireroth has too much (political) influence is untrue. It has one vote and can't decide what other nations do. Besides, it's the choice of every member to join or not join a treaty.

And the admin of Batavia has told me that the MCS-forum can be hacked pretty easily. Then I prefer this forum.

Jonas wrote:And the admin of Batavia has told me that the MCS-forum can be hacked pretty easily. Then I prefer this forum.

All Forums can be easily hacked, preparing for a hack and recovering from a hack is also just as easy. However I find myself saying the above statement about what others think about the SC all the time, I'm ready to move on from that, I get the same response too, I don't need to be converted, i get it, i understand it.

Dr Bjorn Olsen wrote: All Forums can be easily hacked, preparing for a hack and recovering from a hack is also just as easy. However I find myself saying the above statement about what others think about the SC all the time, I'm ready to move on from that, I get the same response too, I don't need to be converted, i get it, i understand it.

I know, but you aren't the only one who will read these posts. It's better that I respond instead of saying nothing back.

Jonas wrote:It's better that I respond instead of saying nothing back.

Dr Bjorn Olsen wrote: Various people I have spoken to about it say that nations like Shireroth have too much influence in the SC. They don't trust their intentions and also believe that they give up parts of their identity in some form or another.

I come from a nation (Flanders) that has rather strong isolationist tendencies and I'm very suspicious of our sovereignity. But even I can't see the "loss of identity". This might be the case if you join one or more of the specific treaties, but this discussion was about nations that actually wanted to join exactly these treaties (without becoming a member).

About the influence of Shireroth, I can see why people consider the hosting of the organisation as having influence. Politically and diplomatically however, I'd say the Shirerithian influence depends on the number of members: the more members, the less influence Shireroth (and everyone else) will have.
But the main thing regarding Shirerithian influence should be the following question: if you don't want to become a member of an organisation because Shireroth has too much influence, then why do you want to sign a treaty drafted by that same organisation? Wouldn't Shireroth have had a lot to say about the contence of that treaty? Won't Shireroth have a lot of influence in the institutions (and so one) created by that treaty?

As such I can't, personally, consider neither argument a good reason for the SC to (de facto) abolishing itself in order to loosen up the ties between membership and the specific treaties.

Gert Geens wrote:

Dr Bjorn Olsen wrote: Various people I have spoken to about it say that nations like Shireroth have too much influence in the SC. They don't trust their intentions and also believe that they give up parts of their identity in some form or another.

I come from a nation (Flanders) that has rather strong isolationist tendencies and I'm very suspicious of our sovereignity. But even I can't see the "loss of identity". This might be the case if you join one or more of the specific treaties, but this discussion was about nations that actually wanted to join exactly these treaties (without becoming a member).

About the influence of Shireroth, I can see why people consider the hosting of the organisation as having influence. Politically and diplomatically however, I'd say the Shirerithian influence depends on the number of members: the more members, the less influence Shireroth (and everyone else) will have.
But the main thing regarding Shirerithian influence should be the following question: if you don't want to become a member of an organisation because Shireroth has too much influence, then why do you want to sign a treaty drafted by that same organisation? Wouldn't Shireroth have had a lot to say about the contence of that treaty? Won't Shireroth have a lot of influence in the institutions (and so one) created by that treaty?

As such I can't, personally, consider neither argument a good reason for the SC to (de facto) abolishing itself in order to loosen up the ties between membership and the specific treaties.

Indeed, good point

See my simile to north korea and the UN.

From the start we've tried to make the SC have full accountability to it's members. And to allow members to decide just how deep they want to go into it. The fact that we have been agonizing for months about the idea of just putting the basic outline/structure of the court into the GM treaty should show we are serious about not compromising member nations, or creating a monolithic organization.

I feel we should keep the basic loose structure of the Organization, as a place for nations to come together on common and agreed upon terms and work out treaties for many nations to join.

The SC provides, like an organization, a place to come together and talk, work things out, with the structure of that Forum agreed upon by all member nations. But unlike other organizations, the SC wants something to come out of those interactions that benefits not just the two nations that might talk about a treaty, but MANY nations that could also benefit from inclusion.

Many other organizations try to shove everything that might benefit many into the core of the organization. They create some monolithic charter that binds everyone to a myriad of requirements and obligations. So, I think we should keep our layers structure. While I feel we may need to reinforce the core a bit, we shouldn't pile it all up into a single kernel with all of our institutions. Yes.. I realize I'm talking about the Linux OS now... but I used it as a model in the early days.