ENN Election Platforms Chat — Foreign Affairs

HEM

former
Jorts Connoisseur
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Pronouns
he / him / his
"ENN Election Platforms Chat — Foreign Affairs"

Welcome to ENN's Political Chat, where we talk about the nitty-gritty issues that impact Europeia.

Today is the first installment in a series that breaks down the candidates' platform. Keeping most the emphasis on policy, we try to help voters cut through the multi-thousand word platforms with thousand word content of our own!

The transcript below has been lightly edited. After the introduction, GraVandius did not participate in the foreign policy topics, but will be featured tomorrow in the domestic policy chat.




HEM (HEM Tiberius, ENN Publisher):

Hello everyone, welcome to ENN's August 2017 platform chat!!!!

Festavo (Senator):

I'm only here so I don't get fined.

Kylia Quilor (Grand Admiral):

who are you on the forums?

Festavo:

I'm uh...I'm Brunhilde. Yep that is it.

HEM:

Okay so guys, basically we are going to compare and contrast the three platforms based on policy area. (i.e. Foreign Affairs, Navy, Interior etc.). We will discuss "Euroworks" in the context of Interior for the record, since the other tickets don't necessarily have an equivalent section.

HEM:

Might be good to open each platform in a tab.

Festavo:

Yeah I need to do that. Honestly I never read snowball's fully. I don't see him as a serious candidate.

GraVandius:

Are we even going to bother with snowball?

Festavo:

It's a race between Brun and Cat imho.

HEM:

No last minute surge for Fox / Verteger?

Festavo:

No platform yet and I just don't see him pulling it off.

Kylia Quilor:

I doubt it. Verteger is not going to do Leo any favors.

HEM:

Also the name change really threw me.

Festavo:

He doesn't have the accomplishments and likely won't have anything else to offer that either cat or Brun cannot offer

GraVandius:

No they're the old forgotten candidate ticket that goes nowhere.

HEM:

Maybe I'm just out of it, but I was like "who is this..."

Festavo:

I knew he would run. He just does not stand a chance in this landscape.

He is a more serious contender than Snowball but that is not saying much.

Kylia Quilor:

The most Leo could do is with Snowball siphon just enough votes to force a runoff — and even then, I doubt it.

HEM:

Right, I think that's likely actually.

Festavo:

A runoff is likely imho. I see it as a tight race between cat and Brun. I'm still undecided personally.

HEM:

I am too.

Kylia Quilor:

I want to vote Brun, but I have some misgivings about her FA instincts. I LOVE that she wants to leave CAIN, but she was a key figure in getting us into it, so...

Festavo:

Honestly I was leaning towards Cat until Brun said Cat would be the Grand Admiral so now I am leaning towards Brun. I really liked Cat's military section, so if she is going to handle military for Brun then...

Kylia Quilor:

Cat's nomination does count for a lot with me when it comes to Brun's platform...some of what she said made me worry she had someone far more off the wall in mind than Cat.

GraVandius:

I'm still very much undecided. I wish I could combine the good ideas of the two.

HEM:

Cool, if we are all ready, let's start with Foreign Affairs. While the focus is ideally on the policy in the platforms, we can slip in some political horserace talk too - will keep it interesting.

Kylia Quilor:

Well, I like that Cat wants to make more a shift to the UCRs than Brun.

Festavo:

I was gonna say...

Kylia Quilor:

I'm always a proponent of a more UCR-leaning Foreign Policy. Don't ignore the GCRs, but they aren't the whole Gameplay world.

Festavo:

Honesty, I am glad Brunhilde dropped the GCR Awards idea. It did not seem like it is our place and I don't think it would have helped us.

HEM:

Right that seemed like a really bad idea.

Festavo:

I wouldn't say really bad. It just seemed...not worth it

HEM:

Do you think that people are impressed with her humility in dropping it, or do they see it as a stumble?

Kylia Quilor:

Bad idea, bad optics, waste of resources all around. It was a stumble to have it, but she gets points for appreciating that it wasn't a good idea.

Festavo:

She is a risk taker and I appreciate her taking a step outside the box. It was a miscalculation instead of a stumble.

Kylia Quilor:

Cat's plans are a lot more technically minded on FA too.

Festavo:

Her plans are very detailed

Kylia Quilor:

What with her plans for revamping the foreign service, training, etc, etc with EO2 and all that jazz? Which I like in theory, but am not sure she can pull off as well as she thinks. Cat's got a very ambitious platform...

Festavo:

I may have some minor nuances where I disagree with her approach on some things, but Cat has a very solid and detailed FA platform. However, I dislike her decision to exclude the WAD from the cabinet.

Kylia Quilor:

Brun's is more down to earth. Well, given who the WAD is, I'm thrilled about it. But then, we all know how I feel about Aex's election

Festavo:

I personally feel that the WAD should be the MOWA.

Kylia Quilor:

If the WAD is MoWA, then the WAD shouldn't be elected.

HEM:

I feel like Cat's EO2 plan is basically what we've done with ambassadors for ten years, but we are finally embracing it for what it is, and distributing Standard articles instead of foreign updates? (standard / EBC since they are merged)

Festavo:

You can argue over how the WAD should be decided, but at the end of the day it just does not make sense for the WAD and the MOWA to be separate individuals.

Kylia Quilor:

Well it doesn't really make sense to have a MoWA.

Festavo:

That is definitely a valid argument.

Kylia Quilor:

Ish. Her intent sounds like she wants to try and make the EO2 people far more on that front of the, "Be active in your assigned regions."

Festavo:

I am open to how to go about it, but the end goal should be one person to handle the WA. This is something I believe Brunhilde gets right and Cat gets wrong.

Kylia Quilor:

Yeah, well, I can't see Aex effectively doing the job of MoWA

Festavo:

We'll just have to see if Brunhilde wins.

Kylia Quilor:

His Presidency was incredibly hands off and he barely did anything to direct me or... you know, even imply that he existed, most of the time. His actual record when he holds office isn't the same as his record when he gets it. But now we're off topic.

Festavo:

I'd say Brunhilde's is solid and more approachable and flexible while Cat's is more detailed and thought out.

Both have good FA platforms in my honest opinion. No real major disagreements that I have with them.

Kylia Quilor:

I like that Both of them have strong notions of Gameplay Outreach, because Europeia has been very silent in GP, and we really shouldn't have that be a thing.

Festavo:

Gameplay Outreach is a big deal and something that should not (and will not it seems) go neglected.

HEM:

I think it's interesting that Brunhilde's emphasis is GCR when some of our biggest successes in FA the last term were with UCRs

Maybe she intends that as a course correction, but it stuck out to me.

Festavo:

I don't find it surprising to be honest. She is going for the big dogs in Gameplay. The entrenched regions that are not going anywhere.

Kylia Quilor:

I think she does see it as that.

Festavo:

I think it should be a more balanced approach, but I can understand where she is coming from.

Kylia Quilor:

Cat's notions on Gameplay Outreach seem a little bit more useful too, on this read through.

Festavo:

I just hope she does not intend to neglect the UCR element of foreign affairs though.

Kylia Quilor:

I think that mucking around in the GCRs has been a problem we've kept doing. We've gotten our dicks burned in the GCRs as often as we've had serious gains out of it, it feels like at some point, maybe we stop doing that so much?

HEM:

Right. How much time did we spend building relationships with NPO and TSP? Over the last four years?

Festavo:

In my opinion, Europeia is like a light heavyweight trying to box in the heavyweight (GCR) division. It can definitely work because we are pretty damn close to being a heavyweight, but we just aren't the real deal. It depends who you fight (or work with in this case).

HEM:

I resist that characterization because I feel like 50% of the time at least two of the feeders are inactive shells. Maybe I'm not fully looped in on the times now, though.

Kylia Quilor:

The GCRs are heavyweights, but a lot of them have glass jaws or punches.

Festavo:

That is why I said it depends who you fight, HEM

Kylia Quilor:

When you actually go onto their forums, nowhere near as active as their size should imply; and of course, they're a lot more politically dysfunctional — the NPO and TRR notwithstanding

Festavo:

We are smaller in size than a region like Osiris, but we have more endorsements on our delegate for instance. We also kill them in activity iirc, So they weigh more, but we can punch harder and faster.

HEM:

Right. They will be here until the game dies though. So I get your heavyweight comment.

Festavo:

Yes exactly. They are entrenched.

Kylia Quilor:

Europeia will probably be here until the game dies too, though. I feel like I'm the only major semi-major gameplayer that doesn't dream of retiring to the GCRs

Festavo:

They are like Manny Pacquaio if he were a Heavyweight. He has slipped a lot in recent times, but people still love him and he will still get big name fights as long as he wants.

Kylia Quilor:

I think Europeia needs to rebuild our sphere in the UCRs before we go back to the GCRs though. With UIAF and TNI dead, and Albion... barely a thing in FA or Military, we don't have as deep a bench to draw on for help when we need it as we used to.

Festavo:

I think it can be a balanced effort.

HEM:

Yeah the more I think about it, I really don't like Brun's GCR emphasis

Kylia Quilor:

The treaties with the UK and KGB and so one are a step in the right track to rebuilding that deep bench. So that next time we really need to get into a GCR, we can ask them for support, call in favors, etc

Festavo:

I think Europeia would be served well to build relations with more UCRs, but I also don't think we should give up on GCRs right now. I don't understand why it can't be a balanced or multi faceted approach.

HEM:

Pivoting us to a slightly different topic: all three candidates seem to recognize that CAIN is in trouble.

Kylia Quilor:

True.

@Festavo Its a matter of resources

Festavo:

I think every gameplayer not under a rock recognized that CAIN is in trouble.

Kylia Quilor:

The problem is that two of them think we can fix it. And... I mean, how?

Festavo:

It makes sense to leave CAIN. There is nothing more to be gained from staying and even Brunhilde recognizes that.

HEM:

I was wondering when it was going to be mentioned in Europeia. I got the sense that people were hoping it would just quietly vanish.

Festavo:

It essentially has. It exists, but it isn't something that you can see, feel, or touch at the moment.

Kylia Quilor:

Europeia doesn't want to admit that CAIN failed. But I also do think that people were afraid of the blowback.

Festavo:

CAIN has failed and it isn't the fault of any one person.

Kylia Quilor:

Its the fault of the regions chose to create it, and I think they made some poor managerial decisions up front in terms of how to handle Nazi Collaborator regions too heavy-handed up front, created a scenario where they dug in rather than reconsider.

Festavo:

The most notable thing that caused CAIN's decline is Brunhilde's temporary retirement (which was out of her control of course).

Kylia Quilor:

And then there was Femdom Empire. TGW got CAIN into a mess it didn't need to be in

Festavo:

I don't see a need for CAIN anymore. Ruining Nazi Sandcastles is doing a fine job of taking care of the anti-fascist operations.

HEM:

Is it a good look to cede that to them though?

Festavo:

I understand how important perception is, but sometimes you just have to admit when something has failed or is no longer useful. It's time to admit that and move on.

Kylia Quilor:

Is it a good look to be clinging to a failed project? I don't think there's any good way out of CAIN at this point, but better to get out now instead of later.

HEM:

I'm just saying, not sure saying, "this other org is doing just fine!" is a great PR move

Kylia Quilor:

We don't need to say that.

Festavo:

It's the truth.

HEM:

It's the truth we deserve, but not the truth we need.

Kylia Quilor:

The truth we need is that these directed crusades never work as well as intended

Festavo:

RNS is doing exactly what CAIN was made for. If you truly care about fighting the Nazis then you have to consent to that and should accept it.

Kylia Quilor:

I mean, look how Liberate Nazi Europe played out? It kicked up a hornets nest that still hasn't died down.

If we'd left them well enough alone to begin with, they'd never have started raiding again, and that started a whole chain of things

Festavo:

That's going down a rabbit hole that I don't think we have time for here now. We've spent a lot of time on FA so let's not go too far off topic lol.

Kylia Quilor:

Fair enough

HEM:

Right. Okay, we've touched on all the big topics in FA I think.

Kylia Quilor:

I don't think there's much to say about the Navy portions, since they're so similar for Brun and Cat.

Festavo:

They are very similar.

I think Cat has a better Navy plan, but with Brun announcing Cat as her Grand Admiral pick I consider them one and the same.

Kylia Quilor:

Not exactly. The President will still direct the GA, but Brun's plans are more general than Cat's. And Brun by her own admission, doesn't know as much about the Navy as other things so... close enough

Festavo:

Brunhilde is not experienced in this area and she seems to admit that. She will likely defer to the Grand Admiral in most cases.

Kylia Quilor:

I'm ready to grade them out of FA

Festavo:

Same

HEM:

Cool, let's grade 1-10 (10 being best) with a brief explanation.

Kylia Quilor:

Brun - solid 7.5, Cat solid 7.5

Brun wants to leave CAIN, but wants to emphasize GCRs and put UCRs on the backburner or lower priority. Cat wants to swing to the UCRs a bit more but wants to stay in CAIN and I'm not 100% sold on EO2's specifics (also, the name, god, the name painful). Plus, I can't help but have some probably unreasoable misgivings about Brun's FA instincts.

Nothing I can point to, but...

Festavo:

I rate Brunhilde's as 7 out of 10. Her FA platform is solid and mostly on point, but it is more general and seems to allow more flexibility (whether that is good or bad I leave up to you). She leans heavily towards GCR outreach vs. UCR outreach so that's a manner of preference. It could be the change we need at this time. I just hope she does not neglect UCRs. She is the kind of person who isn't afraid to break from orthodoxy so I respect that and would be willing to take that risk.

I rate Cat's as an 8 out of 10. It is a very detailed and thought out plan that covers a lot of bases and shows a lot of dedication and knowledge to FA. There are some issues I have with it (such as the WAD most notably), but at the end of the day I know her platform is still progress overall. She favors the UCR leaning outreach policy we have now so I do admit I prefer that to Brun's.

HEM:

Brun: 6/10
Cat: 8/10
Snowball: 2/10

I would rate both Brun and Cat evenly, but I really don't like Brun's focus on Game-Created Regions and that's a huge part of her platform.

I think Cat's EO2 program is really over-rated — it's literally what we've always done, rebranded! But it is a coherent path forward, and hopefully the added focus / rebranding will give some more momentum.

All candidates rightly point out that things are bad news bears over at CAIN HQ, and I think both stances are both reasonable, "Let's wait and see what happens this next term..."



Check back into ENN Tomorrow, August 21st, for the Domestic Policy portion of the chat!​
 
I enjoyed this chat, but thought it was weird everyone was basically gifting Cat's military plan to Brun just because Cat would serve as Brun's GA if elected. That's not really fair to Cat, who took the time and put in the effort to make the better plan (as this panel has judged), and it's giving Brun too much credit in that department. If Brun wanted Cat's military plan, she'd change her platform, but she hasn't, so let's not say they are the same thing.
 
Calvin Coolidge said:
I enjoyed this chat, but thought it was weird everyone was basically gifting Cat's military plan to Brun just because Cat would serve as Brun's GA if elected. That's not really fair to Cat, who took the time and put in the effort to make the better plan (as this panel has judged), and it's giving Brun too much credit in that department. If Brun wanted Cat's military plan, she'd change her platform, but she hasn't, so let's not say they are the same thing.
To be fair, I didn't do that. :ph43r:

*throws everyone else under the bus*
 
I didn't either. I said the details were likely to be pretty similar, but the president will set the course for Cat's policies as GA.

EDIT: Inbefore Aex complains about what I said about his Presidency - I say what I perceived.
 
I always really enjoy these conversations, HEM. Glad to see you doing these for this election and I'm excited to see tomorrow's. I'm also glad to see members like Grav and Fest given a slot.

I agree with what Calvin said to some extent, too. It's somewhat surprising.

Otherwise, I think we've got some strong contenders in this election and it'll be an exciting one!
 
Calvin Coolidge said:
I enjoyed this chat, but thought it was weird everyone was basically gifting Cat's military plan to Brun just because Cat would serve as Brun's GA if elected. That's not really fair to Cat, who took the time and put in the effort to make the better plan (as this panel has judged), and it's giving Brun too much credit in that department. If Brun wanted Cat's military plan, she'd change her platform, but she hasn't, so let's not say they are the same thing.
If you look at it from a practical standpoint then everything I said on that is true.
 
Kylia Quilor said:
EDIT: Inbefore Aex complains about what I said about his Presidency - I say what I perceived.
I didn't (and wasn't) even going to address it or bother to be bothered by it in my original comment, but c'mon. To specifically go back and edit in a line like this is just unnecessary, mean-spirited, and silly.
 
I feel like Cat's EO2 plan is basically what we've done with ambassadors for ten years, but we are finally embracing it for what it is, and distributing Standard articles instead of foreign updates? (standard / EBC since they are merged)
Ish. Her intent sounds like she wants to try and make the EO2 people far more on that front of the, "Be active in your assigned regions."
I wish to clarify what Europeian Outreach Operations (EO2) is since there seemed to be confusion in the panel over its general purpose.

Europeian Outreach Operations is not just a name of a coherent strategy, but it is one of symbolism. We are centralizing our foreign communications vision under one brand, and putting our full effort and energy in rebirthing its distribution. We won't have multiple rotating media strategies abroad (ie: Europeian Standard, foreign update, EBC, blah blah), but will have one brand in which we seek to promote -- the EBC. We must recognize that only three months ago did we begin publishing EBC content abroad. There are some similarities between this and our current strategy, because throwing away the successes of the past would be foolish. But EO2 is more than that. Much more.

What Cat's proposing is not the same thing. It is a broadening of our horizons, it is the next step.

You can say it is a higher emphasis on what we have been doing regarding foreign distribution. That is merely one aspect of the plan (ie: ambassadors will be pursuing the goals of EO2). Europeian Outreach Operations is the name for the overall foreign communication strategy that the Cat platform is proposing, from the scheme of EBC content to where and how it is distributed. The Ambassador System will be a critical aspect of that strategy. While the changes to the Ambassador System will not be a radical departure from what we have been doing since I was Minister of Foreign Affairs, it is a cognizant and recognizable step forth that fully embraces its role as a news distributor.

This starts with the Europeian Standard.

The Standard is written mainly by governmental members and has historically been released on an inconsistent basis. Rather than taking a major risk in the project going 'afk' for two months under a President who neglects it, we make the Standard a mere part of the EBC. There is no longer a point to keep the two separate. Instead, what would be 'Standard' articles will be published in the EBC and pushed through EO2 distribution via the Ambassador System. We have, undoubtedly, seen our skills the past two terms in journalism. News. We have the writing base to generate such content and pump it out in a speedy manner, while having the tact to use this to serve our foreign interests. Such foreign news content will no longer be published through the Standard, but through EBC.

The EBC will now pump out more news and editorials regarding content abroad. These may be interviews with global leaders, opinion pieces on gameplay events, or news pieces spices with our foreign policy ideals. It will be an expansion on what the 'EBC' brand stands for both here and abroad. Not only will this assist in spreading the EBC brand internationally, but a heavy focus on foreign content in the EBC will serve to better educate the public on our values and global happenings. The Standard will be no more, as what was 'that' will be dished out under the EBC logo (along with our other content

In light of these, we will expand our distribution strategy to include media outlets in foreign regions. Every media outlet available will be applied to. We will seek to fill in all mediums of foreign communications. Dispatches, media outlets, gameplay forums, and embassies will all be utilized. This is a very aggressive strategy. Our current and future media agreements play into this strategy as well. With distribution that only the EBC could provide, we will have a megaphone from which to shout our message. This is one lane where 'foreign authorship' will come from. Once we build our EBC brand of exceptionalism abroad, foreign authors put into the distribution which flows through our infrastructure. They get broad coverage, and we have more content.

Overall, EO2 is all of this. It is an overarching name for our overall foreign communications strategy. It is not just the Ambassador System. It is not just the EBC. It is not just our content we will distribute. It is the inner workings of how these fit together. It will provide media infrastructure for the EBC abroad to better build our brand, while taking a domestic step forward in fully utilizing our Ambassador System as a news distributor. It is an integrated and strategic approach to communications, highlighting our diplomatic, military, and political achievements for the world, and it will demonstrate Europeian exceptionalism abroad in an unimaginable way. We have individual parts that we're putting together into a strategy.

This is a strategic evolution to our foreign communications strategy. We're just giving a name to it.


My thanks to the panelists for giving their time and discussion the foreign part of each platform. Thank you to HEM for organizing this thoughtful panel. Just wanted to clear up the above so its abundantly clear what the name is trying to accomplish. Ya'll are the bomb. :wub:
 
The thing I disagree with about prioritizing UCRs over GCRs is not the principle, but the practicality of prioritizing a relationship with a less active and/or a less impactful region over their more active and more impactful cousins.

GCR's tend to have more power in the World Assembly, larger piler forces, larger updating forces, and more influence than any comparative UCR. There are only a few regions that can challenge them in those areas. Having relationships with UCRs is undoubtedly important, and we should pursue them, but we have to be honest with ourselves when we ask how much impact they have on the larger scale.

In the World Assembly, only 10KI, Europeia, and Europe can compete. Two of those, 10KI and Europe, can compete with the GCRs as they have more endorsements than TEP but less than TSP while not being close to TP, TWP, or TNP. Europeia sits somewhere between the Feeders and the Sinkers, where we're far more influential in the WA than the Sinkers but far less influential than the Feeders. The only other Nations that come close to the Sinker belong to the Commonwealth of Liberty and The Internationale. Now, unless something changes, that means that the only regions that are significantly influential in the World Assembly consist of the GCRs and regions which have never interacted with us and likely never will. If we want to further our WA goals, cooperation with GCRs is a necessity.

In piler forces, TNP and TP have far and away the largest piler forces in NS. TWP and TSP also have noticeable piler forces while TEP has never been much into the military. Meanwhile, in the Sinkers, Lazarus is in no position to have any sort of military while TRR is not and will not be our friends even if they had a piler force. This leaves Balder and Osiris, both of whom share some common outlooks with us even if their piler forces are not the largest. After these regions, the regions with the largest piler forces are either military organizations, us, or 10KI. Given that 10KI isn't an option and that many military organizations are uninterested in treaties, we're left looking towards the GCRs if we wish to use a treaty to solidify cooperation on large scale military operations. Even if we were to look towards the Military Organizations for assistance in piling, the largest ones are The Invaders, The Black Hawks, and The Grey Wardens. Two of these, TI and TGW, are not legitimate options while we already work with The Black Hawks on occasion. We've already got relationships with Independent regions partial to our cause and with noticeable militaries such as the UK and KGB. Who is left that makes as big an impact as the GCRs?

Large updating forces are a bit different. TNP, TP, TSP, and TWP can all pull significant sized updating forces. Osiris' military is growing still, though as of now they're focused on securing the position of their Delegate. While Balder is our ally, I don't believe they have much in the way of military forces. In the UCR's we find ourselves facing the same scenario that we had with piler forces. Most of the largest groups are Military Orgs while the others either already work with us or won't work with us. The remainders are worth pursuing, certainly, but they're simply not the same size. We have to rely on building "coalitions" of smaller military forces to bring the same impact as that of a large one. It's worthy to pursue relationships with these smaller regions and their smaller military forces, but we shouldn't expect them to be as impactful as their larger counterparts.

Finally, there's influence which is the hardest metric to quantify. Even with it being hard to quantify, it's hard to say that any relationship we build with a UCR will be as influential as those we build with GCRs. With GCRs, we find ourselves connected to forces that can change the course of World Assembly votes, large scale military operations, and which can more easily change Foreign Affairs landscapes. With UCRs, all of that requires a well-established region which has had the time to build up their influence and infrastructure both for their military and internal governance. They then have to pair that with uncommon activity, such as ours at a rate of 7 active citizens to 110 nations. There are an extremely small amount of regions that can claim that they meet those requirements and even when they can, very rarely will they find themselves large enough to make an impact and that's assuming that they have people capable of being influential among their much more limited population.

With all of that said, I simply don't believe that we'll find a UCR partner capable of bringing as much to the table as we do. Focusing on UCR relationships is focusing on relationships that, by their nature, rely on us to carry the brunt of the burden. If we want to find partnerships in which both partners can bring a comparative level of benefit to each other, our greatest bet is to look towards the GCRs. This isn't to say that we shouldn't look for relationships with UCRs, but rather that we should do so with the full knowledge that both parties will not always be capable of bringing the same level of benefit to the partnership. We've grown to the point where having a relationship with another UCR of the same military and WA impact, influence, and a comparative level of off-site activity is next to impossible. The larger we grow, the larger that gap will become and the more difficult it will be to find equivalent partnerships with other UCRs beyond what we already posses.

 
And by contrast, Brun, GCRs can be amazingly political schitzophrenic and nowhere near as active as their nominal size can imply. Apart from TRR and Balder, we've experienced major shifts in these GCRs in terms of where stand with them over the years, from the NPO treaty becoming a dead letter inside a year, from Osiris being a hostile power to a friendly power to a hostile one again to hopefully friendly again. The entire mess that is Lazarus. Our relationship with TSP, as you say, is in tatters.

Now, its not to say that relationships with UCRs are never prone to changing - I mean, United Kingdom was once an FRA member, unless I'm mixing up my British regions - but once a UCR gets an established government and established leadership cadre after the first days, they *tend* to not have wild swings in policy, with a few exceptions.

No, no one UCR is ever going to bring as 'much to the table' as a GCR, but the risks and costs associated with working with UCRs is smaller and we can add them to our bench of allies easier in many cases.
 
And by contrast, Brun, GCRs can be amazingly political schitzophrenic

To be fair, any region with a constantly changing political sphere can be politically schizophrenic. All it takes is one change of power, one instance of the new guard taking over from the new, to drastically change things in any region.

No, no one UCR is ever going to bring as 'much to the table' as a GCR, but the risks and costs associated with working with UCRs is smaller and we can add them to our bench of allies easier in many cases.

It's not even that. There are very few UCRs that can bring as much to the table in a relationship as we can. We're giving benefit but not always receiving benefit. Every time that we join in a treaty with another UCR, we are rolling the dice as to if the treaty will provide us with any benefit.

We're joining into relationships with the hope that they will develop themselves, internally, into regions which can be strong partners. This has been true for almost every UCR related treaty we've entered into for the past three years(Unless I've forgotten one). It began with the TCB SOFA, which was created because TCB wanted to benefit off of Europeia's Military experience while it developed(I would know, I was the MoFA there at the time), and has continued for nearly every treaty we've had with a UCR since. Even the two most developed UCRs we've entered into relationships with, KGB and UK, wanted to use us to develop themselves in some way when the relationship began. KoA as a passion project that was still coming into its own and the UK to develop their military, something that is still ongoing to this day. Merridal and the Brittanian Kingdom are both regions trying to develop themselves. In fact, the only UCR we've partnered with that I wouldn't say was developing when we entered into a relationship with them was KGB and even then we entered into a cautious relationship that doesn't really benefit either party. Every new relationship has been created not with the hope that they would be able to provide immediate benefit, or support, for our agenda but with the hope that they would develop into a region which could do both. Not all of them have even done that.

GCRs, comparatively, are able to provide immediate benefit to both our long and short term goals. Whether that benefit comes from military assistance, WA assistance, joint endeavors, or simply through taking a similar side as us to allow their influence to join with ours, it doesn't matter. Sometimes the winds change in them, that's true of any region including our own, but at the very least they're able to bring the same amount of benefit to the relationship as we can. If not more.

Even if there are risks involved in establishing treaties with GCRs, I don't think we should shy away from them when the benefit can far outweigh the risk. Or when the benefit is almost immediate, even if it isn't long-term.
 
Gcrs want something from us too. And we stand to gain from our friendship with UK, if we tap that resource.

And any region can change wildly, but Ucrs do not tend to engage in such wild shifts of policy as a Gcr can and will.

And then there's the fact Gcrs matter because we all treat them like they matter.

I'm not saying we ignore the Gcrs. Europeia couldn't get a away with that, but there's a difference between not emphasizing them to the point you want and ignoring the.

Europeia's days of greatest influence in the GCRS coincided with us having developed a deep bench of ucr friends and allies. Much of that old bench is gone or not what it used to be. Rebuilding that bench now will only help us when we swing back, as we no doubt will.

Plus, when a gcr sneezes gameplay catches a cold. Let's make sure we can withstand that cold by not plugging ourselves all but exclusively into the Gcr world , which us the logical extent of your argument.
 
We've been building a "deep bench" of UCR friends and allies for three years to little effect. At what point do we decide to actively rebuild what our influence was rather than saying "We should keep developing." Why wait for the off-chance that we'll find significant support from a UCR that we don't already have a relationship for when we can do something, and be proactive, now?
 
You're not a legitimate or serious candidate. Hate to burst the bubble here. I hope you can pull together a better campaign next time.
 
Festavo said:
You're not a legitimate or serious candidate. Hate to burst the bubble here. I hope you can pull together a better campaign next time.
Can I ask why you don't consider me a serious or legitimate candidate
 
You don't have any of the needed qualifications to be President. You don't have the experience for it, the ideas for it, and the demeanor for it. I'm sorry. it's something you can work on.
 
Festavo said:
You don't have any of the needed qualifications to be President. You don't have the experience for it, the ideas for it, and the demeanor for it. I'm sorry. it's something you can work on.
I'm just gonna say this - I ran for President in September 2015 when I had fewer posts and less experience than Snowball does now, and got more than 20% of the vote against a two-term incumbent. Experience isn't the be-all and end-all of a Presidential campaign, although it is pretty important. Their ideas can't necessarily be dismissed out of hand just because they're inexperienced.
 
Kaboom said:
Festavo said:
You don't have any of the needed qualifications to be President. You don't have the experience for it, the ideas for it, and the demeanor for it. I'm sorry. it's something you can work on.
I'm just gonna say this - I ran for President in September 2015 when I had fewer posts and less experience than Snowball does now, and got more than 20% of the vote against a two-term incumbent. Experience isn't the be-all and end-all of a Presidential campaign, although it is pretty important. Their ideas can't necessarily be dismissed out of hand just because they're inexperienced.
I ran with you Kaboom and we put far more efort and detail into our platform than snowball did. I think that is the defining factor here. He simply did not do any research into things he did not know. It's not a matter of experience, its a matter of effort.

Edit: Our Platform for anyone who would like to compare the two http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/8946881/1/
 
Back
Top