Why I still believe in the GAP

[Drecq]

The actual activity isnt something the Senate can regulate. What our purview is is the legislation. The law will still allow for it. Your beef is with the executive not with us. So yes, it still seems like you didnt read the proposed legislation. Either that or you dont know the difference in purpose between the different branches of government. Further, this doesnt de-institutionalize the GAP it simply redistributes the relevant passages in order to assign them to relevant legislation with a larger overreaching purpose. What you are arguing is akin to saying the legislative would work better if you would take the legislative section of the Constitution and make it its own separate act.

You are gutting the GAP and distributing it every which way. This will only cause it to lose more focus and purpose than it already has with the dissolution of the Ministry of Foreign Cultivation. Furthermore, the Council represented the "endgame" or "success stage" of the GAP, and the sweeping away of this provision essentially says that any grand vision that was associated with the GAP is gone, replaced with some piecemeal organization that will be on a lesser level than the ambassador corp.

Yes, my primary beef is with the executive. But what the Senate is doing has no practical purpose aside from taking the GAP backwards. There is no benefit of your approach, as Senator Anumia has pointed out, aside from our region's seemingly obsessive desire to have as few pieces of legislation as possible

You are assuming that the GAP is identical with the Foreign Cultivation Act. It isnt. The Foreign Cultivation Act makes the GAP possible but they arent identical. We arent gutting the GAP. If you want it to have its own Ministry again go talk with the President. Even after the change that would remain possible. You want more Partnership Agreements go find some regions and sing them. Even after the change that will remain possible. You want a grand unifying vision talk to the executive. You want focus and purpose talk to the candidates for President and push for a reinstated MoFC with you as Minister. Then do something. Dont expect the Senate to keep pointless legislation simply because it makes you feel better. Or if you want pointless feel good legislation let us repeal this and get something more effective in there like the "Puppies and Kittens Act (2014)". As to the Council, it was an endgame that was never likely to happen and with the downgrading of the GAP from a central column of our foreign policy to just another tool on our belt it has become far less likely. If ever it does become a possibility we can reinstate it then. But I wouldnt hold my breath. Not to mention that the legislation for the Council is pointless even then as the executive doesnt need authorizing legislation for internal restructuring, which is what the Council would be.

 

[HEM]

The actual activity isnt something the Senate can regulate. What our purview is is the legislation. The law will still allow for it. Your beef is with the executive not with us. So yes, it still seems like you didnt read the proposed legislation. Either that or you dont know the difference in purpose between the different branches of government. Further, this doesnt de-institutionalize the GAP it simply redistributes the relevant passages in order to assign them to relevant legislation with a larger overreaching purpose. What you are arguing is akin to saying the legislative would work better if you would take the legislative section of the Constitution and make it its own separate act.

You are gutting the GAP and distributing it every which way. This will only cause it to lose more focus and purpose than it already has with the dissolution of the Ministry of Foreign Cultivation. Furthermore, the Council represented the "endgame" or "success stage" of the GAP, and the sweeping away of this provision essentially says that any grand vision that was associated with the GAP is gone, replaced with some piecemeal organization that will be on a lesser level than the ambassador corp.

Yes, my primary beef is with the executive. But what the Senate is doing has no practical purpose aside from taking the GAP backwards. There is no benefit of your approach, as Senator Anumia has pointed out, aside from our region's seemingly obsessive desire to have as few pieces of legislation as possible

You are assuming that the GAP is identical with the Foreign Cultivation Act. It isnt. The Foreign Cultivation Act makes the GAP possible but they arent identical. We arent gutting the GAP. If you want it to have its own Ministry again go talk with the President. Even after the change that would remain possible. You want more Partnership Agreements go find some regions and sing them. Even after the change that will remain possible. You want a grand unifying vision talk to the executive. You want focus and purpose talk to the candidates for President and push for a reinstated MoFC with you as Minister. Then do something. Dont expect the Senate to keep pointless legislation simply because it makes you feel better. Or if you want pointless feel good legislation let us repeal this and get something more effective in there like the "Puppies and Kittens Act (2014)". As to the Council, it was an endgame that was never likely to happen and with the downgrading of the GAP from a central column of our foreign policy to just another tool on our belt it has become far less likely. If ever it does become a possibility we can reinstate it then. But I wouldnt hold my breath. Not to mention that the legislation for the Council is pointless even then as the executive doesnt need authorizing legislation for internal restructuring, which is what the Council would be.

What is incredibly frustrating about your response is that you are pretending that you are making a "legislative" decision, for the sake of "legislative efficiency" with no political considerations attached. In reality, your support of this legislative measure is influenced -- at least in part -- by your clear disdain for the GAP. Furthermore, you try to pretend that this legislation action makes no substantive changes to the GAP, and then clearly acknowledge that it reflects a "downgrading" of the GAP. A downgrading that the Senate is now apart of. The Senate is helping set policy on the importance of the GAP, and any insistence to the contrary is just...contrary to evidence.

I have no problem with you opposing a focus on the GAP. But I do have a little problem with you pretending this action is independent from policy and basically anybody who believes the contrary is some big dummy who hasn't "read the bill". This move is a policy action reflecting what the Senate believes the future role of the GAP in the region. The Senate is not acting on any public instructions from the Executive, the Senate is -- and I simply cannot emphasize this enough -- helping set policy.

I disagree with the policy, and so I am saying so.`

I understand that the Senate is not -- in law -- fully shuttering the GAP. But this action removes it from prominence, and actually closes doors in terms of the tools and options open to political policymakers in the region.

 

[Drecq]

The actual activity isnt something the Senate can regulate. What our purview is is the legislation. The law will still allow for it. Your beef is with the executive not with us. So yes, it still seems like you didnt read the proposed legislation. Either that or you dont know the difference in purpose between the different branches of government. Further, this doesnt de-institutionalize the GAP it simply redistributes the relevant passages in order to assign them to relevant legislation with a larger overreaching purpose. What you are arguing is akin to saying the legislative would work better if you would take the legislative section of the Constitution and make it its own separate act.

You are gutting the GAP and distributing it every which way. This will only cause it to lose more focus and purpose than it already has with the dissolution of the Ministry of Foreign Cultivation. Furthermore, the Council represented the "endgame" or "success stage" of the GAP, and the sweeping away of this provision essentially says that any grand vision that was associated with the GAP is gone, replaced with some piecemeal organization that will be on a lesser level than the ambassador corp.

Yes, my primary beef is with the executive. But what the Senate is doing has no practical purpose aside from taking the GAP backwards. There is no benefit of your approach, as Senator Anumia has pointed out, aside from our region's seemingly obsessive desire to have as few pieces of legislation as possible

You are assuming that the GAP is identical with the Foreign Cultivation Act. It isnt. The Foreign Cultivation Act makes the GAP possible but they arent identical. We arent gutting the GAP. If you want it to have its own Ministry again go talk with the President. Even after the change that would remain possible. You want more Partnership Agreements go find some regions and sing them. Even after the change that will remain possible. You want a grand unifying vision talk to the executive. You want focus and purpose talk to the candidates for President and push for a reinstated MoFC with you as Minister. Then do something. Dont expect the Senate to keep pointless legislation simply because it makes you feel better. Or if you want pointless feel good legislation let us repeal this and get something more effective in there like the "Puppies and Kittens Act (2014)". As to the Council, it was an endgame that was never likely to happen and with the downgrading of the GAP from a central column of our foreign policy to just another tool on our belt it has become far less likely. If ever it does become a possibility we can reinstate it then. But I wouldnt hold my breath. Not to mention that the legislation for the Council is pointless even then as the executive doesnt need authorizing legislation for internal restructuring, which is what the Council would be.

What is incredibly frustrating about your response is that you are pretending that you are making a "legislative" decision, for the sake of "legislative efficiency" with no political considerations attached. In reality, your support of this legislative measure is influenced -- at least in part -- by your clear disdain for the GAP. Furthermore, you try to pretend that this legislation action makes no substantive changes to the GAP, and then clearly acknowledge that it reflects a "downgrading" of the GAP. A downgrading that the Senate is now apart of. The Senate is helping set policy on the importance of the GAP, and any insistence to the contrary is just...contrary to evidence.

I have no problem with you opposing a focus on the GAP. But I do have a little problem with you pretending this action is independent from policy and basically anybody who believes the contrary is some big dummy who hasn't "read the bill". This move is a policy action reflecting what the Senate believes the future role of the GAP in the region. The Senate is not acting on any public instructions from the Executive, the Senate is -- and I simply cannot emphasize this enough -- helping set policy.

I disagree with the policy, and so I am saying so.`

I understand that the Senate is not -- in law -- fully shuttering the GAP. But this action removes it from prominence, and actually closes doors in terms of the tools and options open to political policymakers in the region.

I have been one of the most consistently pro-gap people in Europeia. I even was the first Architect and its Deputy Minister. For the entire time the MoFC existed I repeatedly told people to manage their expectations and that it will take time. This entire change really is for the sake of legislative efficiency. The only one turning this political is you. As to the Senate downgrading the GAP, it was already downgraded and the Senate had nothing at all to do with it. All I was doing was stating a regrettable fact, but a fact none the less.

 

[HEM]

A fact that the Senate is now contributing to.

I am not questioning your work ethic or past contributions, I am questioning this supposed separation of policymaking and legislative efficacy.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

I'm curious where the hell I was when that original article was written. Anyway, looking over it, it made me realise how quickly it took for me to (generally) get up to speed with what has occurred in Europeia since I was previously active. This was nearly a year ago. Personally I don't see that as a good sign, but that is for another discussion. Not related to this article.

There's quite a few good points in that original article about why Foreign Affairs, and therefore a long-term project like the GAP, struggles term-by-term. Our FA agenda has been reasonably status quo for a long time. When it comes to moving things forward, such as various treaties etc, these take several terms and months to be hashed out, the Foreign Affairs Minister who proposes, Senate who ratifies and the President who signs might not have been the same ones that we did start with.

Perhaps this is a sign that our Presidents, should they be able to survive it, need longer in a term to allow this grand projects to form and bloom during their Presidency. That may allow something like the GAP to progress

 

[Sopo]

It was Anumia's idea and he had 3 terms to make it work.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

It was Anumia's idea and he had 3 terms to make it work.

Does it therefore follow that it is unworkable? I would say certainly not.

 

[Sopo]

It was Anumia's idea and he had 3 terms to make it work.

Does it therefore follow that it is unworkable? I would say certainly not.

No, I'm just pointing out to Vinage (maybe that was unclear) that Anumia had a relatively long time to work on his grand project, and that wasn't enough.

 

[Rach]

Wouldn't projects like COPs II and the attempt to build a NS Library be in a similar vein as the GAP?

 

[HEM]

Wouldn't projects like COPs II and the attempt to build a NS Library be in a similar vein as the GAP?

Sure, and my conclusion casts hope that we as a region will pursue such things

 

[North East Somerset]

What is the purpose of the GAP?

In the unlikely but not impossible event a region that has signed a 3 month pact with us goes on to become the next Albion or whatever, what do we gain?

An ally? A rival? Will the pact even make a difference compared to our direct interactions with their leadership? No. I mean honestly what a waste of time.

The only thing GAP is good for is recruiting the members of the regions that sign up for it, to here.

But having tried it out for however long we have, I can't think of many quality new members to have come from GAP regions, so I'd have to proffer its a very inefficient recruitment tool.

It's just a massive gimmick of a scheme, a total red herring. We don't even know what purpose it serves.... It has all the hallmarks of colonialism - that is what it is - barely concealed colonialism - in all it's pretentious, pointless and profitless glory.

 

[Sopo]

What is the purpose of the GAP?

In the unlikely but not impossible event a region that has signed a 3 month pact with us goes on to become the next Albion or whatever, what do we gain?

An ally? A rival? I mean what difference does it even make?

The only thing GAP is good for is recruiting the members of the regions that sign up for it, to here.

But having tried it out for however long we have, I can't think of many quality new members to have come from GAP regions, so I'd have to proffer its a very inefficient recruitment tool.

Only one forum member currently has the "provisional citizen" mask.

 

[HEM]

What is the purpose of the GAP?

In the unlikely but not impossible event a region that has signed a 3 month pact with us goes on to become the next Albion or whatever, what do we gain?

An ally? A rival? Will the pact even make a difference compared to our direct interactions with their leadership? No. I mean honestly what a waste of time.

The only thing GAP is good for is recruiting the members of the regions that sign up for it, to here.

But having tried it out for however long we have, I can't think of many quality new members to have come from GAP regions, so I'd have to proffer its a very inefficient recruitment tool.

It's just a massive gimmick of a scheme, a total red herring. We don't even know what purpose it serves.... Colonialism at its most pretentious.

What is the purpose of having ambassadors? What is the purpose of wasting our energy on a foreign update? What do those things do for us? On face value, absolutely nothing.

They help create a Europeian brand, communicate our message to the world and, therefore, expand our influence.

The GAP has the exact same mission, with just a higher threshold of risk and reward.

 

[North East Somerset]

What is the purpose of the GAP?

In the unlikely but not impossible event a region that has signed a 3 month pact with us goes on to become the next Albion or whatever, what do we gain?

An ally? A rival? Will the pact even make a difference compared to our direct interactions with their leadership? No. I mean honestly what a waste of time.

The only thing GAP is good for is recruiting the members of the regions that sign up for it, to here.

But having tried it out for however long we have, I can't think of many quality new members to have come from GAP regions, so I'd have to proffer its a very inefficient recruitment tool.

It's just a massive gimmick of a scheme, a total red herring. We don't even know what purpose it serves.... Colonialism at its most pretentious.

What is the purpose of having ambassadors? What is the purpose of wasting our energy on a foreign update? What do those things do for us? On face value, absolutely nothing.

They help create a Europeian brand, communicate our message to the world and, therefore, expand our influence.

The GAP has the exact same mission, with just a higher threshold of risk and reward.

If we could actually make new regions into colonies then great. But we're not even binding these regions into anything. We have no power over them, nothing. And any notion that we do would backfire.

In the unlikely event they do succeed, what would they owe us? Pretty much nothing. And I'm sure they could figure that out for themselves if they did indeed become successful.

You should know that just because we were supportive, that does not translate into gratefulness from a rising power. Indeed, if Europeia were to take such a position that they somehow owed us a debt for their success, it would inevitably lead to resentment. They will look forwards to the day when they can piss down on us.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principle difference between a man and a dog" - Mark Twain

I just don't see what the reward is for us. I can see the goal is to make Europeia a sort of fatherly figure amongst regions, and therein to raise our profile above all other regions.

I just think the whole notion of this program is so pretentious that it can't possibly work. The whole program stinks of grandiosity - from concept to name.

We're an impressive region with a storied history and an unequaled record in many areas, but we're not perfect - and there is simply no reason why any other successful region will ever give us this cultural patriarchy you desire. It is an unobtainable, and quite frankly, undesirable, goal.

 

[Cordova I]

Some of us forget this, but Europeia is more than just a game.

It is a community and some people do take it quite seriously.

 

[North East Somerset]

Some of us forget this, but Europeia is more than just a game.

It is a community and some people do take it quite seriously.

Whats that supposed to mean, and how is it relevant to GAP?

 

[Cordova I]

Some of us forget this, but Europeia is more than just a game.

It is a community and some people do take it quite seriously.

Whats that supposed to mean, and how is it relevant to GAP?

It's not relevant to GAP. It's a side note because the opinion that this is just a game was mentioned before. I disagree with that.

 

[Mousebumples]

Whats that supposed to mean, and how is it relevant to GAP?

It's not relevant to GAP. It's a side note because the opinion that this is just a game was mentioned before. I disagree with that.

Yes and no. Yes, this is "more than just a game," in the sense that we have a sense of community here.

However, if you (or anyone) mean that "it's more than just a game" and that people should be skipping sleep, classes, work, etc., to do XYZ Project That Has Been Assigned to them ... that's insane.

RL comes first - and should come first. I don't think any of us want to hear of our regionmate who lost their job, flunked out of college, was hospitalized for exhaustion, etc., because they spent too much time on NS.

That's my take at least. I miss everyone that I make friends with through this game that goes on to RL business with something else, somewhere else. But I'm sure they know that they'll always be welcome to come back when RL affords them the time to do so in the future. (*waves at Vinage* )

 

[Cordova I]

Of course, RL should come first. Everything in moderation.

 

[Rotovian Regional Affairs]

Does the GAP have any gameplay value, in the experience of people who have been here for long enough to see it play out? I mean there is no purpose in me writing up the hansard of Rotovian senate committees that ratify treaties, on the face of it, but I enjoy it (because I'm weird like that).