Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Regional Summary




Founded - 30 April 2005
Population - 165 Nations
World Ranking - 61
Regional Power - High

Government of the Global Right Alliance


Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate
Pidgeon Island

Members of the Committee
TBA

World Assembly Delegate
Angusp (aka Bodegraven)

High General of the GRADF
Joe Bobs
Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums!

Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register.

Join our Community


Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system.

I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way.

Getting Started


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
Questions
Topic Started: May 30 2010, 02:20 AM (626 Views)
Lower Bowmania
Member Avatar
Simply ravishing...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Question -

You want to keep Intel protected from being forced to make threads public.
You want to separate the GRADF from the government.

You haven't proposed to separate Intel from government (executive) oversight...is that implied, or does this Bloc intend for Intel to remain a government entity?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
GRADF High General | FRA Arch Chancellor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think that Intel should stay where it is really.

I suppose it could make sense for external intel to fall within the purview of the GRADF. That'd be something to discuss. Internal Intel should stay within the government though, IMO. Not sure what others think yet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Stale
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think thats subject to further discussion. However, my views are that the Intel Department should remain under the supervision of the government, especially given its key role with citizenship applications, and its ability to advise on foreign relations.

The separation of the GRADF from the government is not certain yet (much like its current status, where the GRADF General is not considered a Minister of Government). The system that 10000 Islands has - where their military (TITO) operates separately from the government (ie chooses its own leaders), but still serves the region, is the one that I'd like to consider.

In effect, the GRADF would choose its own leadership, rather than the President, but would still be considered part of the region, so the PA could legislate for it as necessary. This could involve some government oversight (ie giving the President access), limiting it to certain duties (defending/liberating regions etc.) so that it can't overstep its boundaries, and putting in place a mechanism for removing the leadership in extreme circumstances.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Stale
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
In response to this LB:
Quote:
 
Not sure how I feel about allowing the GRADF to function completely on its own...I think there still ought to be executive oversight there, primarily the ability to appoint the General.

We're looking at this at the moment. Since we've only just been set up, we can't come up with a definite answer until we've had input from all current members (and I'd like the input of anyone else who signs up too).

The intention isn't to make it completely independent. A suggestion has been to have a 'steering committee' which oversees the GRADF, and puts forward candidates for Generalship, who are then elected by GRADF members. The President could sit on this committee. Additionally, as mentioned above, there could be a mechanism for removing either committee members or generals by the PA or government in extreme circumstances.

However, don't treat any of this as final policy - the independent military (and as JB suggested, external intel dept) is under discussion now. When we reach a consensus, it'll be presented in this public forum.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
G-Tech Corp
Member Avatar
Planetfall
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I agree with JB that external intel being under governmental control is neither here nor there. However, if external intel would be of use to the government, like say a plot to infiltrate the region with puppets was discovered, would then the duty of informing the gov be that of the General? Or would that go through some form of liason?

On a side note, good work with the sig. Loving the scaremongering, classic stuff really :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Stale
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
G-Tech Corp
May 31 2010, 03:33 PM
I agree with JB that external intel being under governmental control is neither here nor there. However, if external intel would be of use to the government, like say a plot to infiltrate the region with puppets was discovered, would then the duty of informing the gov be that of the General? Or would that go through some form of liason?
I think that, for now, we're not looking to split off external intel, because we'd prefer to see how the GRADF works being independent of the government first.

If it were to be split off, then there would probably be a statutory requirement to inform the government of any threats to the GRA/allied or friendly regions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
why do you want to separate the GRADF from government?

The GRADF carries the name of the GRA on the international state. We are viewed by its actions, as such, we should have some control over it without having to become members of it. They will be representing us on the international stage and therefore we need to oversee what they are doing.

This whole concept of the 'vanguard bloc' is completely absurd.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sovereign Liberties
Spammer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pidgeon Island
May 31 2010, 04:22 PM
why do you want to separate the GRADF from government?
Practically, the GRADF is already separated from the government, we just want to make it official to prevent any changes to that practice.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Stale
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pidgeon Island
May 31 2010, 04:22 PM
why do you want to separate the GRADF from government?

The GRADF carries the name of the GRA on the international state. We are viewed by its actions, as such, we should have some control over it without having to become members of it. They will be representing us on the international stage and therefore we need to oversee what they are doing.
The GRADF would still be accountable to the Peoples' Assembly, in that the laws establishing it would be created by the Peoples' Assembly.
Edited by sedge, May 31 2010, 04:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Uropa
Member Avatar
Render unto Caesar
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pidgeon Island
May 31 2010, 04:22 PM
This whole concept of the 'vanguard bloc' is completely absurd.
It's not absurd. It makes complete sense. The fallout from Sedge's case against me has been people are really starting to question having people like Sedge hacking into accounts and the general surveillance culture that has sprung up.

This is Sedge's response. He wants to pre-empt any move to 'declassify' (scary, scary) intel threads that show what a sneaky, privacy-invading shit he has been by establishing a voting bloc - composed mainly of those very people who have participated in the surveillance culture.

The best bit is the hysterical language used to justify it. Keep the GRA safe from raiders. Pffff. Total fantasy. How many raiders have they caught trying to infiltrate the region? Not many, if any at all.

Hopefully people will see through this charade for what it is.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Stale
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Uropa
Jun 1 2010, 12:35 PM
The best bit is the hysterical language used to justify it. Keep the GRA safe from raiders. Pffff. Total fantasy. How many raiders have they caught trying to infiltrate the region? Not many, if any at all.

You want a big announcement by the intel department each time one is caught?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Uropa
Member Avatar
Render unto Caesar
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
sedge
Jun 1 2010, 12:52 PM
Uropa
Jun 1 2010, 12:35 PM
The best bit is the hysterical language used to justify it. Keep the GRA safe from raiders. Pffff. Total fantasy. How many raiders have they caught trying to infiltrate the region? Not many, if any at all.

You want a big announcement by the intel department each time one is caught?
yes. and i would like to see them prosecuted in a public court as is befitting a region governed by the rule of law.

i have yet to see such a courtcase in five months.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Stale
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
For breaking what law, Uropa?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Uropa
Member Avatar
Render unto Caesar
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
sedge
Jun 1 2010, 01:16 PM
For breaking what law, Uropa?
quite. and you conveniently work in a legal vacuum to get up to your surveillance/account-hacking/extra-judicial banning shit in the background.

perhaps you should go to the pa and start a law against being a proven member of a raider organisation. then you could have nice public trials and we would all applaud you.

in the meantime, maybe you can disclose this prolific list of raiders you’re keeping the region safe from, i.e. the boast in your hysterical little sig graphic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Stale
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think we should prevent people being involved here just because they're raiders. We just need to make sure that we're actually aware that they are, so we know not to give them military/intel access.

Similar situation applies with double accounts. There's been a few people with them, and the decision (you asides, because you would never admit) has always been to message them about it, and suggest they drop the second account. This avoids a confrontation (which could cause the individual to leave the region entirely), and solves the problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Uropa
Member Avatar
Render unto Caesar
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
sedge
Jun 1 2010, 01:32 PM
I don't think we should prevent people being involved here just because they're raiders. We just need to make sure that we're actually aware that they are, so we know not to give them military/intel access.

Similar situation applies with double accounts. There's been a few people with them, and the decision (you asides, because you would never admit) has always been to message them about it, and suggest they drop the second account. This avoids a confrontation (which could cause the individual to leave the region entirely), and solves the problem.
ha!

what did oscar wilde say, "one must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing"?

lol.

so in fact, this defending the region from raiders is rhetoric and the only tangible thing you achieve is avoiding embarrasing people with two accounts.

wow - maybe you should put that in your sig graphic - really 'vanguard'.

otherwise - sedgebot, i have never had a multiple account on this forum. ever. the chief justice dismissed the case. however much you plot in a secret forum, invade people's privacy and try and smear people, it doesn't alter the truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Stale
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Uropa
Jun 1 2010, 01:40 PM
so in fact, this defending the region from raiders is rhetoric and the only tangible thing you achieve is avoiding embarrasing people with two accounts.
Er, no - you misunderstand. There are raiders who join the forum and try and spy on us. We find them out, and let them know that. We don't prosecute, as there's no law they've broken. We don't publicise it, because they often say that they wish to get involved in the region - and if thats the case, we've got no problem with it.

You seem to be suggesting that we should tar & feather them, before driving them out of the region.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Uropa
Member Avatar
Render unto Caesar
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
sedge
Jun 1 2010, 01:44 PM
Uropa
Jun 1 2010, 01:40 PM
so in fact, this defending the region from raiders is rhetoric and the only tangible thing you achieve is avoiding embarrasing people with two accounts.
Er, no - you misunderstand. There are raiders who join the forum and try and spy on us. We find them out, and let them know that. We don't prosecute, as there's no law they've broken. We don't publicise it, because they often say that they wish to get involved in the region - and if thats the case, we've got no problem with it.

You seem to be suggesting that we should tar & feather them, before driving them out of the region.
Sorry Sedge - you call raiders in your 'sig' our "enemies". You're saying we shouldn't prosecute them? Or is this all just rhetoric.

So raiders have tried to infiltrate the region to spy on us, but you don't do anything? You alert them? You don't start court cases or push for laws to prosecute? Do they get citizenship?

Are there raiders in the region, at the moment, who you know to be raiders? Can you please name them?

Perhaps you could also tell us also how many of these raider infiltrators you've apprehended? Because this all sounds like empty fluff, much like most of the 'intel' you've made public, but that is otherwise used to justify any number of intrusions into our privacy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joshua
Member Avatar
A Friendly Asshole
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
sedge
Jun 1 2010, 01:44 PM
Uropa
Jun 1 2010, 01:40 PM
so in fact, this defending the region from raiders is rhetoric and the only tangible thing you achieve is avoiding embarrasing people with two accounts.
Er, no - you misunderstand. There are raiders who join the forum and try and spy on us. We find them out, and let them know that. We don't prosecute, as there's no law they've broken. We don't publicise it, because they often say that they wish to get involved in the region - and if thats the case, we've got no problem with it.

You seem to be suggesting that we should tar & feather them, before driving them out of the region.
I fully agree here. No need to prosecute unless they break regional laws. And the current method of handling invader spies works. Once, a spy is alerted to the fact that folks know they are a spy they go away.

Are you pissed because you do not have access to your file?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Uropa
Member Avatar
Render unto Caesar
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Joshua
Jun 1 2010, 05:29 PM
sedge
Jun 1 2010, 01:44 PM
Uropa
Jun 1 2010, 01:40 PM
so in fact, this defending the region from raiders is rhetoric and the only tangible thing you achieve is avoiding embarrasing people with two accounts.
Er, no - you misunderstand. There are raiders who join the forum and try and spy on us. We find them out, and let them know that. We don't prosecute, as there's no law they've broken. We don't publicise it, because they often say that they wish to get involved in the region - and if thats the case, we've got no problem with it.

You seem to be suggesting that we should tar & feather them, before driving them out of the region.
I fully agree here. No need to prosecute unless they break regional laws. And the current method of handling invader spies works. Once, a spy is alerted to the fact that folks know they are a spy they go away.

Are you pissed because you do not have access to your file?
i'm unsure how you infer my desire to have raiders prosecuted to my desire to see my 'file'.

please explain.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Vanguard Bloc · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5