Jump to content
Ayanka

AT VOTE: Embassies with The Revolutionary Communist Alliance

Should The Internationale construct embassies with The Revolutionary Communist Alliance?  

15 votes

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Should The Internationale construct embassies with The Revolutionary Communist Alliance?


  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 12/03/2018 at 05:00 AM

Recommended Posts

I've been talking with the user responsible of diplomatic affairs of The Revolutionary Communist Alliance about the idea of   building an embassy between our regions. After a few days I got a telegram explaining that they subjected the matter to vote and they have decided to approve the construction of embassies with The Internationale. As you all know, though, we have to first do the same and vote ourselves before that happens.
Thus, I propose now building embassies with The Revolutionary Communist Alliance.

Some info about the region before you decide your vote, so you don't have to do the research yourselves:


You have 7 days to cast your vote.

Share this post


Link to post

My take on the "problematic embassies"

about

The communist cartel: they reorganized about two month ago then were raided by fashes one month ago. I think they could clera up their tags a bit with time.
(see below attached file from their RMB)

[Still have Lardyland as embassy tho... like too many regions...]

USSR: seems random RP with a bit more of libs than anything else. Embassy seems to have been lately fed back (is that even English?) by TRCA's founder/WA. USSR founder seems legit.

Glorious Swampland: has given themselves a new constitution in October... but doesn't seem to retain much weight on its RMB, for proof an "edgy" antisemitic "poem" found there... three days ago, so it could be a simple mod pb.

 

To resume, to be coherent with the last votes, I vote for this embassy, with the temptation to tell them to look a bit closer to their company.

 

 

 

188785481_Capturedu2018-11-26003417.thumb.png.ba4737c80f2e153e8bb46f5e459d159d.png1143191454_Capturedu2018-11-26005508.thumb.png.cc2061c275ebb0deb8d3e41d5b7263f2.png

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/25/2018 at 8:43 PM, Ayanka said:

All of these have tags that contradict eachother and most of them can be considered non-serious regions dedicated to memes, which at first doesn't indicate serious advocacy for either fascism, capitalism or anti-communism. However this is up to you to decide if it is a reason to reject the proposal or not.

I like that this is up to us to decide, even if it is against the letter of the law. However, I can't help but notice how interesting that is, since you were the one that made these kind of votes fail just because they were against the Charter and even declined to discuss each case further, as seen in votes such as:

 

Edited by Freien

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Freien said:

I like that this is up to us to decide, even if it is against the letter of the law. However, I can't help but notice how interesting that is, since you were the one that made these kind of votes fail just because they were against the Charter and even declined to discuss each case further, as seen in votes such as:

 

Well, I guess you got me there.

Both of those votes were made back in april, when I was starting to get into the whole voting system and administrative and democratic procedures of the region. Yes, I vetoed both of those proposals, not as an act of malice but as of ignorance. Back then I guessed the charter wasn't something you could just do exceptions of and thus I just thought that "Hey, if vetoing is for when the voting for an embassy is against the rules and in here there's something that contradicts them I guess it's the only option here". With time I've been changing my way of looking at the charter, especially at the article V.2.5., as not as an indisputable rule but also as a bit of a guideline that we could made exceptions of if we saw that some contradictions with it weren't important enough (tag-collecting or non-serious regions, as an example) to avoid building an embassy wit a region that was truly worth it.

I think the turning point for me was with the proposal to build embassies with The Communist Bloc (which, in fact, we were able to build an embassy with them thanks to this attitude), where I tried to do my small part to first search and then later sort out regions that contradicted the arcticle V.2.5. according if we had any reason to worry or not about them. I'll refrain from posting the link here to not make with the preview a bigger wall of thext than I'm already making.

I can't deny it surprises me a bit that you came of this hostile to me for saying this in the OP, when in fact, the first one who pushed me to change my view was you, with this quote of yours in one of these links you just posted:

On 4/22/2018 at 5:06 PM, Freien said:

I believe that this that the above part of the Charter was not written in order to be followed that strictly and that embassy-collecting regions and regions like the NewsStand ought to be excluded, as it is usually done in this cases, even if it is not explicitly stated so in our regional law. I mean, I think I was the one that proposed the amendment that added the Capitalist tag to this part and this is what I had in mind when writing it. I don't believe we should lose the opportunity to build ties with an actually leftist region because of such a typicality. 

Also, I beg to disagree with this next statement:

1 hour ago, Freien said:

even declined to discuss each case further

I never explicitly declined to discuss anything. I just never bothered to answer or post back, thinking my veto would be ignored if it was seen as not a reason to stop the voing. I just voted, posted my reasons and then left the forums for a few weeks as I used to do (didn't check them very often back them). I didn't care about being or not in the right, I thought I did my "service" to the region by pointing out the contradictions and that's pretty much it.

 

Anyway, I have noticed you voted to abstain in this same vote. I'm not accusing you of anything with this, I just want to make sure, but please, if you will be setting your vote against the construction of this embassy, I beg you be doing it because you actually thing our regions should not have diplomatic relations and not because you have a disagreement with me and I happened to be the one proposing the embassy. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

The motion passes with 12 votes in favour and 3 absentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×