RefugiaBoard

On the subject of the current GA resolution, World Assembly Border Policy, I didn't really get the time to put together the statement and discussion post I wanted to, so for the most part we stuck to talking about it in the discord server. That being said, my against vote is now outnumbered within the region, so I am required by the Refugia Revised Statutes (7,iii) to make a statement as to why.

Per the discussion in the server, the main concern over the proposal is that it's vague, but the ways in which it is vague confuse me as to whether or not it's overreaching. One of the main concerns is the inclusion of the term 'consenting states' without ever defining what that means. As Junitaki-cho has said in the server, the lack of a definition isn't normally an issue, but it does make things strange when you come to, for example, clause 8:

wrote:

Forbids consenting states from restricting the right of individuals from other consenting states to travel or find employment within any consenting state differently from existing citizens of the state in question, subject to such reasonable restrictions that consenting states may institute in the interest of public health and safety,

Junitaki-cho wrote:

Is a consenting state one which consents to the details in the specific clause, or one which consents to be a part of the Zone?

So here are some further concerns of mine. In the drafting thread, the author goes on at length about how the main elements of this are opt-in, and if you don't want anything to do with it, you don't have to opt-in. But here are some clauses:

wrote:

9. Compels all member states, including those which do not join the WABC Zone, to conduct an annual review of their border policies,

10. Designates that each member state shall appoint at least one liaison to the WABC,

So everyone participates in the WABC Zone even if they choose not to participate in it. I'm not one for national sovereignty arguments per se, but I don't like when there's an alleged option that is not actually an option. I also don't like this one:

wrote:

5. Authorizes WABC to negotiate on behalf of consenting states with member states and non-member states in order to loosen border restrictions without necessarily having the member state or non-member state consent to join the WABC Zone,

(Emphasis mine) This is very strange to me. Remember the difference between consenting states, which isn't defined but probably in this context means a nation that has opted to be part of the eurozone, member state, which means a member of the World Assembly, and non-member state, which is a nation that isn't in the World Assembly. I don't like the idea that this committee will just take up the space of negotiating border law with people who aren't part of its organisation, and then with people who aren't even part of the World Assembly at all.

I don't know, I'm going to be honest the more I read it the weirder it seems to me. I'd just rather not for myself personally, but obviously everyone is able to chip in here and give your own thoughts. And, in fact, please do, I'm always curious what you have to think.

I interpreted the lack of definition of "consenting" to imply the possibility of differing agreements between "consenting" nations and the WABC. I would personally have a bigger problem with the resolution if it gave a very specific definition of what a consenting state ought to do because that would seem to me like a one-size-fits-all model which i don't believe would work. For me, the word "consenting" here is simply a synonym for "countries who have made an agreement with the WABC regarding border policy."

Furthermore, as a staunch globalist, I have no problem with Clause 6 which states that the WABC is able to override the national sovereignty of a consenting nation to enforce a single unified border policy. I believe it is generally more effective for international organisations to have the power to override national laws and sovereignty as it reduces the chance of protectionism and corruption.

Those are just my thoughts on the resolution and why I voted to pass it. I almost exclusively vote with our region, however in this vote the WA Delegate and Refugia as a whole had differing views so I ending up voting for what i thought was right.

Hello hello
We'll be playing skribbl.io in about 6 hours. I'll post the link here when the time comes. Hope to see you there ^-^

Terrabod wrote:

My bad for not realising Bele Levy Epies was keeping you all in the loop. I guess these things will happen when you’re running big interregional stuff (it is my, ahem, first time), but I’m sorry nonetheless.

Someone feel free to initiate the Morris dance of shame.

I can only speak for myself, but I really appreciated your timely and thorough write-up. Thank you for it :)

Lethodus wrote:

The time has come
https://skribbl.io/?zAsu7ReiDvOA

dang it, wish i wasnt busy

Adawu wrote:

eyo this is same person from Barn island felt i want my main nation here so yeah.
I removed Barn island from here and moved Adawu in its place :D

Welcome!

Adawu wrote:

eyo this is same person from Barn island felt i want my main nation here so yeah.
I removed Barn island from here and moved Adawu in its place :D

Welcome to the region ^-^ I'm glad that you felt comfy enough with us to move your main in!

If you're happy handing out endorsements, I wouldn't mind one as the delegate :P

High reiserland wrote:

Just got my first easter egg issue on this account. It took too long, but whatever. Yay to me, I guess.

It can take a very long time, it's super random once you meet the criteria. I put 'Reborn' as a trigger in March, I think? And still not a whiff.

Minskievian Refugees wrote:

Which one would that trigger? I've gotten every easter egg on my main except for the two month-related eggs. I don't recall using reborn.

Apparently the zombie one can trigger on reborn, since I'm not going to let my nation CTE I thought I'd give it a try.

Sylh Alanor wrote:

On Interregional Recruitment
Drafting Thread

Hey everyone! There’s an upcoming SC proposal tonight written and submitted by our very own Refugi Member State, Princess of the void ^-^

I’m curious as to everyone’s thoughts on this [...]

It’s a well-written resolution that's straight to the point and easy for everyone to understand. It’s beneficial for UCRs and is in line with my positions when I was in leadership over in the New West Indies. Full support! :)

IFV for Interregional Recruitment posted!

Refugia IFV: On Interregional Recruitment

by The Socialist Solarpunk Society of Sylh Alanor

On Interregional Recruitment

---

Useful Links:

---

• Proposal at Vote
• Drafting Thread

Summary:

This declaration states that recruitment, while an important piece of NationStates, can be used in less than stellar ways. It makes the argument that recruiting nations in regions that are not Feeders (those places where new nations spawn) or Sinkers (those places where nations which have previously CTE’d respawn) can be harmful to growth.

Opinion:

Declarations are inherently non-binding. Their primary intention is to create a stance that the majority of nations can agree upon, which can thereby become the official stance of the Security Council on a given subject, whether that’s a hard anti-fascist stance or a simple recognition that the General Assembly exists and is a valid organisation. The goal of this proposal is no different, but if anything I would argue it’s even less impactful and, therefore, less controversial.

Refugia already is fully in line with the ideology put forth in this proposal. When we send out recruitment telegrams, they are only received by newly-created nations, which can only spawn in feeder regions. When you attempt to recruit directly from a user-created region (UCR), you are taking a person from their region that they probably will not have an easy time replacing. There’s more weight to that decision, given that feeders and sinkers have a constant influx of new nations, while UCRs do not. The inclusion of the final clause (beginning as Hereby) adds an extra element to this that I find interesting, but ultimately does not affect us personally as a region. It allows for interregional recruitment between UCRs in the event that the regions are at war or if the region has marked itself as recruiter-friendly (which does happen).

I would argue that this proposal is uncontroversial from a Refugi point of view, given our lack of interest in getting into an NSGP-style war space, and that it is therefore perfectly fine to vote for.

Recommendation:

Given Refugia’s personal stance on ethical recruiting, the Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting for On Interregional Recruitment.

Read dispatch

I just want to start a debate on whether or nor feeder regions should be allowed to have WA delegates.

Personally, I don't think it's fair that regions with no coherent ideology which are also, through game mechanics, far larger than other regions are allowed to have 1 nation represent the entire region. For example, our own region of Refugia clearly has an ideology and it makes sense that we have a delegate who represents that ideology in the WA, however a region like The North Pacific (whose delegate has 977 endorsements/votes) has such a wide range of ideologies but is represented by a single nation. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair that regions, which most nations don't choose to join, get to have huge influence in the WA. In this current Security council debate for instance, the delegate for The North Pacific makes up 36.8% of all against votes (and 20.6% of all votes) at the time of writing, meaning they can single-handedly change the outcome of a vote. I don't think this is fair and I don't think this represents the goals of the WA.

Maybe I should write a resolution on this. I wonder what other people's thoughts are? I would love to here what other nations have to say.