The United Sovereign Nations


You are not connected. Please login or register

Proposal: Treaty of Unification with the AIN

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Proposal: Treaty of Unification with the AIN on Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:02 pm



Esteemed members of the USNW, thank you for agreeing to consider my proposed merger.

For too long, there has been bad blood between our two unions. Regardless of the causes or validity of our disagreements, it is my firm belief that they should not stop us from considering a possible solution. If the USNW is coming to an end soon, I don't want our mutual distrust to be the lasting legacy of our shared history. Instead, why not use a possible merger to heal our old wounds and keep alive all the hard work that you have all put into Adonia? That is why I'm proposing this merger today.

In drafting this treaty, I've tried to consider what all of you would want out of it. This approach has already led me to make certain compromises, which I'd be happy to discuss with you if you ask. Compromise is an essential part of diplomacy and politics, and I hope that by acknowledging the compromises I've already made, you'll see that I'm entering into these negotiations in good faith. I hope you'll recognize that my willingness to compromise shows the respect I have for you and your union, and that you'll show me the courtesy of returning that respect.

The draft above doesn't have to be the final version of this treaty. You're welcome to propose changes that you think would make it better and fairer to both sides, and I'll be sure to pass your suggestions on to my fellow AIN members for their consideration. It is my hope that this process will produce a treaty that both our unions will find satisfactory.

View user profile
Pardon the double-post, but here's a suggestion from one of the AIN's members:

Logan wrote:I agree to the treaty as it stands.

However, I would like to see archival of the USNW forums for nostalgic purposes, whether that be within the AIN forums or as an independent entity. Just my two cents Razz

Since Chip is your webmaster, I don't know whether or not he would have to agree with this archive idea. It might not be an easy process, given that our forums run on different software, but at least it would be another way to preserve your history. (Transferring all the pages in your wiki to ours would be considerably easier and would serve the same purpose, but archiving your forums might be a nice extra step.)

View user profile

Jon

avatar
First Minister (Kaskaskia & Insulo)
First Minister (Kaskaskia & Insulo)
I do not support this.

As for the archival thing, I'd have to do a bit of research on that. We do have ways to contact Chip I believe if that is necessary.

View user profile

Scotch Moen

avatar
Member (Folland)
Member (Folland)
Concerning Article 1, Section 2: ...Really?

Intellectual property such as the term United Sovereign Nations being owned by the AIN site? Seriously? If you want to go that technical then Chip "owns" the USN and you'd need to go by him for that to be accomplished.

It's rather amazing how "legal" you've made this.

I'm still undecided.

View user profile http://www.dehyan.deviantart.com

Agunter999


Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Yeh I do support the idea of merging however there are a few issues and reasons that this will never pass here.

Article 1 very much implies that we basically give you all the control and the USN will just become part of the AIN. The USN is very proud of itself and was set up as an anti-AIN union. While the extreme hatred has gone it would be improper to effectively remove all trace of the USN and to be dominated by AIN. There should be a proper merger and we should both come together possibly with a new name and leadership altogether.

Article 2 I generally agree with, except I think it would be odd to have earth nations and Adonian ones both competing in uSong/AINvision at the same time.

Article 3, this is a very difficult thing, while it would be natural for everyone to become members if they whish forcing us to surrender one of our nations on Adonia is I am afraid a no go. Having one nation limits us drastically and we have created new nations that we love, If I had to pick I would keep Berg however due to the internal strife the nation can do little in the international community while Kallvarde can opening up new opportunities for me. Also I think that restraining us blacklisters is a bit against the idea of a clean sweep, if we become a union we are neither AIN or USNW so lets try to look past our previous incidents. Also banning someone from taking an important position indefinitely is a tad unfair, maybe a set period would be better as compramise.

Article 4 Is a difficult one, I suggest that we possibly scrap both law systems and create an entirely new one, an Out of Character (OOC) Government to deal with all out of character issues and a Character (IC) Government for each planet. This way a earthman does not suddenly appear on TV talking about a new rule for earth, every Adonian will go mad thinking it is an alien invasion. But the separation of OOC and IC means that roleplay is not affected by people's personal affairs. The fact that characters will also hold office in the IC governments means that there are twice as many roleplay situations that could occur.
I would also like to see the abolition of committees with far to much power but I expect that that is for another day. However it would be nice to see if there are alternatives to the flawed system.

Article 5&6 is good, however don't expect USNWers to accept this if at minimum the first article is not changed, I do support the idea of merger however speaking to many they do not so Zach you have got a lot of work on your hands.


View user profile

Scotch Moen

avatar
Member (Folland)
Member (Folland)
There should be a proper merger and we should both come together possibly with a new name and leadership altogether. 

They wouldn't allow that. They will always be AIN and we'll always be USN. I do agree though that they can't just absorb the idea of this union like it's something to own. 

Having one nation limits us drastically and we have created new nations that we love,

I actually agree with the one nation thing. It's easier. Gives us more time to focus our effort on bettering the one instead of sidestepping between multiple.

Why can't this be simple?

"Those of you who want to, come on over. Those of you who don't, that's okay."

View user profile http://www.dehyan.deviantart.com

Kurt

avatar
Admin (Shayden)
Admin (Shayden)
I do not support this.

Also I don't think an Archive is possible, since forummotion owns this forum and they don't have a way to extract content from it.

View user profile

jmsepe

avatar
Member (Teiko)
NO. #enoughsaid

View user profile http://teiko-about.blogspot.com

Agunter999


Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Wel a better idea may just be that USNWer are welcome to join but the USNW will stay USNW

View user profile
A lot of discussion has happened at both unions since I last checked, so please excuse me for not responding to all the points that have been raised. However, I would like to respond to a couple of points that Agunter and Mike brought up:

Scotch Moen wrote:
Agunter999 wrote:There should be a proper merger and we should both come together possibly with a new name and leadership altogether. 

They wouldn't allow that. They will always be AIN and we'll always be USN. I do agree though that they can't just absorb the idea of this union like it's something to own. 

Given that nobody in either union seems to support section 2 as it stands, I'm okay with removing it. It was inspired by the controversy surrounding the use of the COFR name and logo when this union was first founded in 2010; some folks who had been in the original COFR were rather upset that the founders of what became the USNW used their old union's name without their consent, and I wanted to prevent something similar from happening to your union's name in the future. Nevertheless, that part of the draft has generated far more controversy than I had hoped, so I'll gladly remove it.

Scotch Moen wrote:
Agunter999 wrote:Having one nation limits us drastically and we have created new nations that we love,

I actually agree with the one nation thing. It's easier. Gives us more time to focus our effort on bettering the one instead of sidestepping between multiple.

That's essentially why the AIN has its one-nation rule, and it's why I included it in this draft. It's much harder to make one nation really good when you're dividing your attention between several nations at once.

Scotch Moen wrote:Why can't this be simple?

"Those of you who want to, come on over. Those of you who don't, that's okay."

That's more or less what I intended: those of your members who want to participate in a merger are welcome to do so, and those who don't will be free to do as they please. Nobody's going to be forced into a merger, no matter how we all decide to implement it.

Anyway, given the difficulty that we've already had in trying to negotiate the fine details of this proposed merger, I think it would be best if all of you took a vote on the general principle of a merger, without worrying about its exact details just yet. If you decide that you'd rather merge with the AIN than disband or keep going as an independent union, then members of both unions can meet in one place and negotiate the details together. It would be a whole lot easier than what we're doing now, and we could put together an agreement that satisfies as many people as possible.

Given that I'm not one of your members, I obviously won't participate in such a vote, and you can decide exactly how to conduct that vote. However, from what I've seen here, it seems to me that the three general options you'd be voting on are:

1) Keep the USNW going as is.
2) Merge with the AIN (details to be decided later).
3) Disband the USNW.

Once you figure out what you want the future of the USNW to be, we can work on the details some more. For now, though, it seems pointless to keep working on the current proposal when there's no guarantee that a merger will even happen.

View user profile

Agunter999


Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Yes I do very much agree with that last statement because as things stand I will be voting for a merger just not this proposal as I do not support the current proposal that Zach proposed.

Zach wrote:That's essentially why the AIN has its one-nation rule, and it's why I included it in this draft. It's much harder to make one nation really good when you're dividing your attention between several nations at once.

Though my point is that someone who wants to have multiple nations well shouldn't that be their choice and not anyone else's?

View user profile

Scotch Moen

avatar
Member (Folland)
Member (Folland)
Though my point is that someone who wants to have multiple nations well shouldn't that be their choice and not anyone else's?

You're right it is their choice but if that is their choice then they can't effectively operate that choice with the others.

View user profile http://www.dehyan.deviantart.com

Agunter999


Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Why not 2 nations has always worked very well here

View user profile

Scotch Moen

avatar
Member (Folland)
Member (Folland)
Why not 2 nations has always worked very well here

I beg to differ.

The lack of roleplayable and detailed content from multi-nation users is evidence enough. I'll use number values to explain.

1 Person = 1 Effort = 2 Nations = 0.5 Content per.
1 Person = 1 Effort = 1 Nation = 1.0 Content per.

View user profile http://www.dehyan.deviantart.com

Agunter999


Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
No mike no, two nations means more effort. The fact that some of the two nation members may not roleplay as much is because they are more experienced and have put on much greater effort in. For example most members on the committees are two nation members, mike just because you want to focus on your little baby should not limit others. Two nations brings more to the planet, if I had it my way people would have more than two but that may be pushing it.

View user profile

Scotch Moen

avatar
Member (Folland)
Member (Folland)
Excuse you? Seriously? Well, I can start to see why you've been blacklisted.

How the hell does lack of content correlate with more experience and more effort? They're complete opposites! We've seen numerous people start second nations only to abandon them because they don't have the necessary effort to keep up with them both. Your case is just a simple exception since Bergenstein's a ruined entity with no ability to participate internationally whatsoever cause everyone there just wants to kill each other.

View user profile http://www.dehyan.deviantart.com
Please excuse my recent lack of attention to this proposal. I was on vacation last week and didn't really have any good way to access these forums.

That being said, it would appear that developments that happened during my absence have rendered this proposal unlikely to succeed, since few (if any) of you seem terribly interested in disbanding the USNW at all, let alone to merge with the AIN. I will therefore abandon this proposal and wish you success in revitalizing your union. Smile

View user profile

18 Re: Proposal: Treaty of Unification with the AIN on Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:41 pm

Chris

avatar
Member (Mitron)
Member (Mitron)
And the best of luck to you, Woodmaster! I have no prior experience with AIN, but you, as a representative of AIN, seem very kind, intelligent, and overall like a good person. In my eyes, you're welcome back here anytime you want!!! Feel free to stop by Mitron, we'd love to have you!! Smile

View user profile

19 Re: Proposal: Treaty of Unification with the AIN on Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:08 am

I would have agreed but then it said no interaction with Earth and Adonia! I would have loved to send a nuke From Marqualis to a nation on Earth Razz

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum