When I think of architecture, one word that doesn't immediately come into my head is "great". In fact, when I do think of architecture, I usually fall asleep soon after. Honestly, the only thing I really know about architecture is that I like big buttresses. Other than that, whenever somebody is pointing to a building, discussing its features and whatnot, I just nod my head and slowly wait for death's warm embrace.
Luckily for me, this article has pretty much nothing to do with architecture. In fact, I'm going to stop saying the word altogether, and start talking about the GAP, created by then-President Anumia, this ministry has seen its fair share of ups and downs. I'll be talking about the goals of the GAP, how success is being defined, and then discuss the current uproar.
First, let's lay out what the GAP hopes to achieve, according to the Foreign Cultivation Manifesto, from January of this year.
To simplify this, we want to form relationships with smaller regions, spread independence, ward off super-regional influences, bring Europeia good will, and improve the regions we work with. Now, a few of these seem counter-intuitive, particularly the ones that preach the negativity of super-regional organisations, while we ourselves form a super-regional organisation, but you get the idea.
Now that we know the goals, how are we to achieve them? That's where Architects come in. We will again turn to the Manifesto to help explain what their role is.
Again, it looks like I need to simplify. Basically, Architects, who are experienced Europeians, will help the regions do what we do. That includes drafting legislation, helping with executive decisions, offering military training. The idea seems to be that once we have completed our work with these regions, they will be very similar to us, and therefore a better partner for us. Because, as we all know, twins and siblings never fight.
However, this is just one way to look at this. How will we know that we have actually achieved success in these regions? Again, the Manifesto has the answer.
This is actually pretty clear. We have success if we increase population, forum activity, etc. Not a lot of grey area. As far as what a region in Good Standing is,
Essentially, a region cannot abandon our attempts to help them, they cannot be inactive, they cannot be align themselves wih a super-regional organisation (except us, I suppose), they cannot force out an Architect for no good reason, and they cannot have a coup. As long as those easy steps are taken, there should be no problem.
Hopefully, we now understand how the GAP is supposed to work. In reality, things don't always work out the way you want them to, so we now have a public debate on our hands about how successful the GAP actually is. The new Foreign Cultivation Minister Ogastein has said, "Let me be clear on this point: the program has been a complete failure. Harsh? Perhaps. Fair? Likely." Now, this does not inspire much confidence in the rest of us that this program is doing well. In fact, if you still believe this program is doing well, stop. Ogastein went on to say, "We entered into construction partnership agreements with three separate regions and I can tell you with confidence that none of those regions is in a better place as a result of our work." If we can't actually improve these regions, then there is no real point, as we know, that is what the GAP is all about.
Perhaps we can still get some good will? Ogastein says, "So are we only getting good will? At this point, yes. I'm working this term to find a region that we can approach that will end up leading to a shining example of the success that can be produced by the GAP." Well, at least that's something. Ogastein went on to tell us, "Until then, we're searching through the hay barrels looking for a needle made of gold. I'm committed to finding one but I, myself, wonder if this is the best use of our time. Especially when our foreign policy could be a lot stronger." Okay, never mind. This program is a roller coaster of emotions, and I'm going to stop trying to have an opinion.
The President's response, early in the debate was, "For me the time to evaluate the GAP will be at the end of this term when we see what it can accomplish, not before we give it a chance." Now, this was before Ogastein's statement, so it is unknown if the President's views have changed. It seems, however, that unless the GAP finds the golden needle, which is looking highly unlikely by the Minister's own admission, this may be the program's last term.
To conclude, this article has talked about the GAP Manifesto, and explained it in a way we can all, hopefully, understand. We've looked at the current state of affairs, and tried to understand it. Obviously, this is a complex issue, with room for much more discussion, that this reporter would love to see. As always, I encourage any reader that wishes to find out more to look at the topic in 34 Goldenblock Avenue, "Great Architecture Project" or the topic in the Grand Hall, "The future of the GAP". Until next time, this is Calvin Coolidge, simply nodding his head.
Luckily for me, this article has pretty much nothing to do with architecture. In fact, I'm going to stop saying the word altogether, and start talking about the GAP, created by then-President Anumia, this ministry has seen its fair share of ups and downs. I'll be talking about the goals of the GAP, how success is being defined, and then discuss the current uproar.
First, let's lay out what the GAP hopes to achieve, according to the Foreign Cultivation Manifesto, from January of this year.
To simplify this, we want to form relationships with smaller regions, spread independence, ward off super-regional influences, bring Europeia good will, and improve the regions we work with. Now, a few of these seem counter-intuitive, particularly the ones that preach the negativity of super-regional organisations, while we ourselves form a super-regional organisation, but you get the idea.
Now that we know the goals, how are we to achieve them? That's where Architects come in. We will again turn to the Manifesto to help explain what their role is.
Again, it looks like I need to simplify. Basically, Architects, who are experienced Europeians, will help the regions do what we do. That includes drafting legislation, helping with executive decisions, offering military training. The idea seems to be that once we have completed our work with these regions, they will be very similar to us, and therefore a better partner for us. Because, as we all know, twins and siblings never fight.
However, this is just one way to look at this. How will we know that we have actually achieved success in these regions? Again, the Manifesto has the answer.
This is actually pretty clear. We have success if we increase population, forum activity, etc. Not a lot of grey area. As far as what a region in Good Standing is,
Essentially, a region cannot abandon our attempts to help them, they cannot be inactive, they cannot be align themselves wih a super-regional organisation (except us, I suppose), they cannot force out an Architect for no good reason, and they cannot have a coup. As long as those easy steps are taken, there should be no problem.
Hopefully, we now understand how the GAP is supposed to work. In reality, things don't always work out the way you want them to, so we now have a public debate on our hands about how successful the GAP actually is. The new Foreign Cultivation Minister Ogastein has said, "Let me be clear on this point: the program has been a complete failure. Harsh? Perhaps. Fair? Likely." Now, this does not inspire much confidence in the rest of us that this program is doing well. In fact, if you still believe this program is doing well, stop. Ogastein went on to say, "We entered into construction partnership agreements with three separate regions and I can tell you with confidence that none of those regions is in a better place as a result of our work." If we can't actually improve these regions, then there is no real point, as we know, that is what the GAP is all about.
Perhaps we can still get some good will? Ogastein says, "So are we only getting good will? At this point, yes. I'm working this term to find a region that we can approach that will end up leading to a shining example of the success that can be produced by the GAP." Well, at least that's something. Ogastein went on to tell us, "Until then, we're searching through the hay barrels looking for a needle made of gold. I'm committed to finding one but I, myself, wonder if this is the best use of our time. Especially when our foreign policy could be a lot stronger." Okay, never mind. This program is a roller coaster of emotions, and I'm going to stop trying to have an opinion.
The President's response, early in the debate was, "For me the time to evaluate the GAP will be at the end of this term when we see what it can accomplish, not before we give it a chance." Now, this was before Ogastein's statement, so it is unknown if the President's views have changed. It seems, however, that unless the GAP finds the golden needle, which is looking highly unlikely by the Minister's own admission, this may be the program's last term.
To conclude, this article has talked about the GAP Manifesto, and explained it in a way we can all, hopefully, understand. We've looked at the current state of affairs, and tried to understand it. Obviously, this is a complex issue, with room for much more discussion, that this reporter would love to see. As always, I encourage any reader that wishes to find out more to look at the topic in 34 Goldenblock Avenue, "Great Architecture Project" or the topic in the Grand Hall, "The future of the GAP". Until next time, this is Calvin Coolidge, simply nodding his head.