Find and be included in our regional map here!
| Welcome to Democratic Socialist Assembly. We hope that you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means that you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features that you can't use. If you join our community (register) in the Democratic Socialist Assembly, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Cabinet Meeting 4.1 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 3 Feb 2013, 19:27 (953 Views) | |
| Suceavija | 3 Feb 2013, 19:27 Post #1 |
![]()
"House Chairman"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Greetings to you, my fellow comrades of the Fourth Cabinet of the DSA! I congratulate you all for being elected/reelected to your Cabinet positions and I eagerly look forward to working with all of you this term. Below are my recommendations and wishes for what I would like this Cabinet to approve and commit to as its shared agenda. I invite each of you to provide any feedback and to also provide any additional ideas or initiatives that you would like us to pursue over the term. For those who are new, I aim to conduct closed Cabinet meetings each week that generally begin and end each Sunday; and so I ask that each of you check in to these meetings at least once per week to update everyone on the status of your respective Ministries. Your input need not be more than a sentence or two as there are always times where not a lot is going on; though I ask that each of you at least provide that much for the rest of your fellow Cabinet members. I will typically have a small list of Items for each ministry to address each meeting; so you will know what I am looking for in terms of your input. Without further ado, here is my agenda for this term: 1)Regional Tags: Each term, I like to get the cabinet’s opinion about the tags we assign to our region. Currently, we have the tags: Map Democratic, Enormous Socialist Offsite Forums NSwiki Regional Government I would like to get each Minister’s opinion as to whether you would like to add, remove or keep the same tags for this term. Here is the link to the NS tag cloud: http://www.nationstates.net/page=list_regions Tags that have been proposed recently: “Liberal” “Eco-Friendly” ”Artistic” & “Creative” 2) Formal documents and prepared statements: A: Ministry of Foreign Affairs -Chain of command: MFA & President shall determine an official position, the MFA shall then work with the Ambassadors to communicate clear, uniformed and formal message to our interregional partners. Post prepared statements and do not personally comment or respond to reactions to statements unless they are made by officials from that region. Otherwise, get permission from or at least coordinate a response with the MFA to -When/when not to issue statements from the Min of Foreign Affairs - stay on message -No personal statements from Ambassadors while working on behalf of the MFA or the DSA during interregional conflicts B: Secretary General -Create telegram format for various functions such as establishing elections, notifications, calendar notices -Congressional roster C: Ministry of Domestic Affairs -Prepare formal greetings for new nations for the RMB and a personal welcoming messages to be sent by the MFA to each new nation as well. -Birthday greetings when birthdays are listed on the calendar -Contest declarations, congratulatory messages, etc. 3) Review of Charter -Each minister shall review their job descriptions in the Charter and determine if it is clear to them what is expected of them or if clarification or footnotes to other sections would be more helpful or clear -Determine if there are any amendments you would like to make to the Charter at this time. 4) Other concerns, suggestions or ideas from you 5) UCR Conference: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=223199 What do we all think of this? Edited by Suceavija, 3 Feb 2013, 19:32.
|
|
The United Socialist States of Suceavija Founding Nation of the Suceavijan Commonwealth of Socialist Nations Resume - & - Factbook Regional Cartographer Eternal Defender and Advocate of the Democratic Socialist Assembly | |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Herrebrugh | 8 Feb 2013, 22:15 Post #21 |
|
"Faction Leader"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And I don't think we should support defenders, just like we don't support raiders. The neutral position seems like the best position. Especially since it doesn't have the potential of harming our future in the socialist community, which is also a possibility. I'm talking about influence. The more WA-members in the region, the more endorsements, the more influence these nations have, the harder it is to eject and/or ban them in case of an invasion. And you can't, because that's impractical. You need a puppet that has the ability to be under cover (at least in my case), as well as being quick to respond. Switching around WA-membership doesn't work. |
|
Getekend, Herrebrugh - Signed, Herrebrugh Eenheid, Vrijheid, Solidariteit | |
![]() |
|
| The United Low Countries | 9 Feb 2013, 00:45 Post #22 |
![]()
"Party Member"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
About the RMB and oersonal telegrams, I'm sure I can do the RMB messages just fine, but I may need a bit of time to figure out the new telegram system. I'll get on it now! Also, about the tags, I think two other options could be Anti-Fascist and Pacifist. I wouldn't mind any of the already proposed ones. Edited by The United Low Countries, 9 Feb 2013, 00:52.
|
|
The Kingdom of The United Low Countries Iunctus Fortes Sumus Form the office of the Monarch | |
![]() |
|
| Terlibe | 9 Feb 2013, 03:15 Post #23 |
|
"House Chairman"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Herrebrugh, I say we just agree to disagree.
|
![]() |
|
| Terlibe | 9 Feb 2013, 04:18 Post #24 |
|
"House Chairman"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also, Herrebrugh, I have contacted Unibot to gain more knowledge on their proposal, and expressing some of our concerns. I think you should do the same. Maybe he can change your point of view, and explain his intentions. |
![]() |
|
| Suceavija | 9 Feb 2013, 20:56 Post #25 |
![]()
"House Chairman"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just a friendly reminder that we have a specific discussion thread to debate the merits of the UDL proposal so that Cabinet meetings my focus on domestic issues/concerns: Link to that discussion. Regardless, here are my thoughts to the concerns raised about this in the meeting thus far: I wasn't sure it was explicitly stated earlier, but with WA membership, it's a zero-sum game. Since each NS player is limited to one WA position, that WA position must be assigned to the defending nation in order to effectively defend; thus that removes the position from the Delegate here at home. While losing one or two is not a serious problem, the potential exists for many nations to be recruited into the UDL, reducing the strength of the Delegate's position here at home. The more WA endorsements that go away from our Delegate means that we are that much more susceptible to raiding. It is precisely for this reason that I will only accept the above-ground presence of the UDL here in any capacity with the condition that they make defense of the DSA their primary concern in the future. To compound this risk, as word spreads that the UDL is comprised of a significant number of DSA nations, we will be putting ourselves in harm's way in terms of drawing attention to our region from raiders who are eager to settle scores with the UDL or who just have a bone to pick with defending ideology. Our region's neutral stance since our beginning has always protected us from this negative spotlight on the world stage; endorsing or partnering with the UDL will end this neutrality and then the game changes significantly for our region. This risk is also why I am opposed to adding the "anti-fascist " tag to our region since raiders use those tags to easily target new regions to conquer - while we are an anti-fascist region, the tag will only serve to put us in harm's way. Another thing to consider is that not all comrades here agree with the fundamental mission of the UDL relative to defense of ALL founderless regions. The UDL -by its very mission- will defend socialist and fascist founderless regions alike. There may be some nations here in the DSA who tolerate our neutrality on such matters; but would leave the DSA if we became involved in the UDL given our new defacto support for defending certain fascist regions by aligning ourselves with the UDL. This would play directly into the hands of regions like The Internationale - who I feel are always just a hair's breadth away from targeting our region for invasion as it is; aligning with the UDL would spark a tremendous frenzy there and could cause membership of the DSA to drop that much further; thus further reducing the number of WA nations to bolster the Delegate's position here, leaving us even more vulnerable to raiding. I in no way endorse aligning ourselves with the UDL as I think neutrality has served our region well in the past and there is no reason to think that ending neutrality won't make protecting the safety of the DSA more and needlessly difficult in the future. I only support helping the UDL insofar as allowing them to have a thread in our forum in the 'Just for Fun' section, and buried deep within that. In much the same way as I'm publicly endorsing the IWW by posting a link to a documentary about the Wobblies in the 'documentaries' thread so that curious Comrades who go searching may find it, I want our support of the UDL to be equally as tacit - let discovery of the UDL be Comrade-driven rather than DSA-driven. Ours is just to provide a small spot in our forum to show people that such an organization and ideology exists; much like having a book about the UDL on our library shelf - we just offer information to be found by those who are interested, not actual endorsement of any particular cause. Since joining the UDL requires wearing their flag (so to speak) rather than that of the DSA, I would appreciate if in the future that all Cabinet members who partake in UDL causes use puppets for their missions rather than the nations who were actually elected to publicly serve the DSA. This is a conflict of interest for the DSA - Cabinet members were elected to fulfill their respective ministry's Charter duties, not those duties + UDL missions. It is fair to assume that none of us were elected because we support the cause of the UDL, only because we were believed by a majority of voters that we could effectively do the jobs we were elected to do. Edited by Suceavija, 9 Feb 2013, 21:03.
|
|
The United Socialist States of Suceavija Founding Nation of the Suceavijan Commonwealth of Socialist Nations Resume - & - Factbook Regional Cartographer Eternal Defender and Advocate of the Democratic Socialist Assembly | |
![]() |
|
| Terlibe | 9 Feb 2013, 22:00 Post #26 |
|
"House Chairman"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To clarify, Suceavija, I was observing how the UDL does business, and playing along, so to speak. It is not something I plan on doing again, especially not with my main nation (now that you have advised against it). It was a one time thing, they suggested they would teach me how they do things, and I did not realize I was actually going to get as involved as I did. It will not happen again. Also, I would like to thank you for thoroughly explaining the disadvantages. I now understand that maybe an embassy with the UDL isn't such a great idea. But I do think we should maintain contact with them, and be their friend. There are some great people over there, and I know they feel the same exact way about us. |
![]() |
|
| Northland | 11 Feb 2013, 03:16 Post #27 |
![]()
"Spokesperson"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Doing this with the UDL doesnt mean that we will be actively recruiting or anything. I see it as a non-issue that should be moved to a vote at the end of the meeting. I also believe that we should terminate our "relationship" with the UPFS |
|
Former Secretary General of the Democratic Socialist Assembly. The pissed off Ambassador to the Democratic Socialist Alliance... (Now known as the Autocratic Socialist Alliance) | |
![]() |
|
| Suceavija | 11 Feb 2013, 17:24 Post #28 |
![]()
"House Chairman"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To the MFA: What are your recommendations for the embassy requests from: [region]The Dominion of Ujjanistanian lords[/region] [region]Islamic Republic of Iran[/region] [region]United Northwest Liberation Federation[/region] [region]Rejected Communists[/region] Regarding the UPFS: I would like the MFA or our Ambassador to that region to get a clear indication from theirs leadership as to their formal position with us and their position with CMK. My perception is that there was a lot of ambiguity in the UPFS among the leadership as to what was going on during the whole recent spat with CMK and us. Basically, I just want to make sure that they really want to tell us to screw off in a loud, unified voice or if they just didn't know how to respond to CMK's embassy request when all that was going on, or some other thing I'm not considering. I haven't found any evidence in their RMB or elsewhere that they actually hold our region in low regard or anything else that would indicate that we need to end relations besides voting to maintain embassies with CMK (which could have been for other reasons besides supporting CMK personally - let's find out why instead of speculating.) The UPFS was supportive of our condemnation of CMK, and while our relationship has been pretty dead lately, I've never been a fan of burning bridges unless there is an explicit need to do so. Let's get confirmation that closing our embassy with the UPFS is diplomatically justified before we proceed with doing that. I am requesting that the MFA privately telegram their leadership to let them know that there is support in the Congress for considering closing our embassy, and see if they then wish to improve relations in order to prevent that from happening - I say let's give them the chance to make things right between us before we just irrationally ditch them out of the blue, as would be the world's perception of our decision to close embassies with them at this point. Edited by Suceavija, 11 Feb 2013, 17:33.
|
|
The United Socialist States of Suceavija Founding Nation of the Suceavijan Commonwealth of Socialist Nations Resume - & - Factbook Regional Cartographer Eternal Defender and Advocate of the Democratic Socialist Assembly | |
![]() |
|
| Northland | 11 Feb 2013, 20:24 Post #29 |
![]()
"Spokesperson"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was the ambassador to the UPFS, Terlibe took it over thereafter. They didnt really seem to care either way and were trapped up in their own little world. Their head of government would be banned in our region, and most of the nations there are either inactive or never post. I dont see the point in continuing a relationship when neither side gets anything out of it. |
|
Former Secretary General of the Democratic Socialist Assembly. The pissed off Ambassador to the Democratic Socialist Alliance... (Now known as the Autocratic Socialist Alliance) | |
![]() |
|
| Terlibe | 12 Feb 2013, 02:41 Post #30 |
|
"House Chairman"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Suceavija, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the UFPS requested an embassy with the DSAlliance, not the other way around. I also believe that they requested an embassy with CMK because they thought the DSAlliance was a region who's ideas were aligned with theirs, and I think they more so ignored our confrontation with CMK. In fact, she rejected their request because they supported the condemnation. Personally, I agree with Northland, or Der Nordland (I never know what to call you on here :P). Our embassy with them just seems to be a waste of time. They don't participate in interregional politics, and barely participate in regional politics. As the Ambassador, I would be happy to contact their leader if need be, but I am unsure of what I should ask/tell them. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Declassified Records · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





2:52 PM Jul 11