|
|
Post by Kanoria on Nov 18, 2013 9:04:40 GMT
Ask your minister of foreign affairs anything you like. And receive an answer in public, within 24 hours of you posting the question! This will be a weekly event, every single Monday during my term in office. So go on, ask away!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 13:43:12 GMT
Do you have any overall goal in diplomacy with other regions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kanoria on Nov 18, 2013 18:05:42 GMT
Do you have any overall goal in diplomacy with other regions? Overall goal? Well, the overall goal, I would say, would be to make friends, get allies, and get as close as possible. Well. Actually, that is kind of the method, not the goal. It would be more accurate to say the goal was a network of welcoming leftist regions, where anyone can come, and get what they want from Nationstates, preferably including fun, camaraderie, viewpoints, debate and opinion in all of the regions mentioned above. |
|
|
|
Post by United Democracy of Scientists on Nov 18, 2013 18:33:48 GMT
You have expressed interest in creating symbols for positions in Ministries besides your own. What are you planning on making them look like?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kanoria on Nov 18, 2013 18:58:46 GMT
Extremely similar to the ones I posted in the Foreign Affairs improvement thread for my own department, but with different grounders and toppers, in a different colour. It does however occur to me (middle of the day, while I was trying to sleep), that I should make them for more ministries really, given that the constitution has nine potential, and we are each fulfilling more than one. However, for now I will just do as I stated for now, and make the symbols for the three extant departments. I will write into the law however that all ministries are allowed to display these rank markings and flairs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 21:23:00 GMT
And should there be a quad-regional alliance? If so, should it be expanded if another candidate appears?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kanoria on Nov 18, 2013 21:49:29 GMT
There definitely should be an alliance. Though I would go for differing levels of involvement personally. A three-strata model. The core alliance, with a joint webpage/forum, that links to the forum of all allied regions, and a partially unified doctrine and government, this would have control over inter-regional activities, and the unified foreign policy. Regional government however retains the right to create it's own activities and to appose the inter-regional foreign policy and elements of the doctrine.
The second layer is not a part of the joint webpage/forum, and is bound only to the unified foreign policy and defense agreement. They may stand representatives for foreign policy issues only. Individual nations may partake in the inter-regional activities, but have no say in their governance.
The final strata is affiliates, and are bound purely to the defense agreement. They have no voice in the governance of other regions, or the inter-regional alliance.
Any region may apply to join said alliance, and if they win an overall majority vote of member states of stratas 1 and 2, they can then join at either strata 2 or 3. After a cooling off period (I haven't worked out how long), they can then apply to join strata 1. The vote would require, again, an overall majority amongst stratas 1 and 2.
Just a model I whipped up on the metaphorical back of a handkerchief (In my head). And I would certainly accept other models.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kanoria on Nov 25, 2013 9:41:43 GMT
Bump: Week 2 now open: AMA!
|
|
