[CP Announcement 6] Foreign Policy - Part 2 of 2
Day 1,810, 23:27
•
Published in Australia 
•
by
•
by Ranger Bob
So, here is part 2 of 2 regarding foreign affairs.
ALLIANCES:
One thing we do in eAustralia very well. Is argue.
Perhaps for now, I will leave my first statement at that
And nothing seems to set off the waambulance or sook-copter more than discussions around alliances.
At the moment, there are plenty of stances to choose from.
We have the CoT, CTRL, Eden, neutral supporters (#dontjoinitsatrap!) and of course a range of local alliances, either new, or in the case of some of our neighbours, ramping up.
I want to kick off that debate. But do it in a bit of a different way this term.
AND I WANT YOU INVOLVED.
SO WHAT IS THE IDEA?
On 6 November, if I am elected and immediately following the vote, the FIRST thing the new MoFA team has been asked to do is set up a new, novel way of having a rational debate on our position regarding alliances.
To do this, we are going to set up this debate.
BUT, not your normal kind of one.
The MoFAs are going to call for a number of "Advocates".
These people, regardless of their personal views, are going to be asked to take on a "Case". For example:
1. Pro-CoT - why should we join?
2. Pro-CTRL - why should we join?
3. Pro-Eden - why should we join?
4. Pro-Local Alliance - why should we join?
and
5. Pro-Neutrality - why should we stay NEUTRAL.
Each Advocate's job is to use any and all means to make a case and sending the MoFA an article answering why we should take their position.
WHAT? HOW? HUH?
They will be appointed following a call for interested people prepared to take on a case, and will start no later than 10 November. Their identities, and the case they are assigned will be announced publicly.
THEY THEN, have 5 days through whatever means (eg, submissions from the public who support their "case", talking to alliance nations) to provide to the MoFAs their brief or manifesto as to why that position is the BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD (NO NOT LITERALLY).
In other words, it is their job to sell the argument. The better the argument, the more kudos to them in showing they can actually pull together a good argument. Basically they will lead their case entirely and run it how they see fit to achieve their goal.
Following this, all 5 papers will be released publicly and people (including the other advocates) can then use comments to add a final rebuttal section, taking in account any arguments from the other cases put forward to deliver a final picture to YOU, the people.
This will inform public opinion, and potentially, any subsequent public votes on these.
It also means, the arguments can be about the point, not the personal bias of the person who wrote each case (as it actually was their JOB to be biased).
There will be a number of ground rules, and, yes, advocates will be rewarded for their time (BY ME. NOT A BUDGET MEASURE OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING).
The work they do will involve some specific points to cover, so they cannot just write something without thought, and their selection will be based on their ability to put something reasonable together.
New players and old can apply to be one. It will be a great way to get known, is low risk because you are taking a side (similar to a debate team) regardless of your personal view, and the better your case the more likely in the end you will be to gain some respect and public regard.
That's the idea. MoFA is putting more thought into the mechanics of it, and this will be released in due course.
I also think this will be something of use to TJ and his group, as not only will it help measure public opinion, but it will pull together some fresh views and perspectives outside of this which would be good.
It's also a fun way to get the wider community involved.
There will ALSO be a reward/reimbursement for people who meet SET standards in what they write (minimum content, words, format etc). As this is an experiment as part of my term under the MoFA, I will personally be putting this forward outside our budget. And, it will be GOOD.
That's all.
Ranger.
(PS: James Rellori).
ALLIANCES:
One thing we do in eAustralia very well. Is argue.
Perhaps for now, I will leave my first statement at that
😛
And nothing seems to set off the waambulance or sook-copter more than discussions around alliances.
At the moment, there are plenty of stances to choose from.
We have the CoT, CTRL, Eden, neutral supporters (#dontjoinitsatrap!) and of course a range of local alliances, either new, or in the case of some of our neighbours, ramping up.
I want to kick off that debate. But do it in a bit of a different way this term.
AND I WANT YOU INVOLVED.
SO WHAT IS THE IDEA?
On 6 November, if I am elected and immediately following the vote, the FIRST thing the new MoFA team has been asked to do is set up a new, novel way of having a rational debate on our position regarding alliances.
To do this, we are going to set up this debate.
BUT, not your normal kind of one.
The MoFAs are going to call for a number of "Advocates".
These people, regardless of their personal views, are going to be asked to take on a "Case". For example:
1. Pro-CoT - why should we join?
2. Pro-CTRL - why should we join?
3. Pro-Eden - why should we join?
4. Pro-Local Alliance - why should we join?
and
5. Pro-Neutrality - why should we stay NEUTRAL.
Each Advocate's job is to use any and all means to make a case and sending the MoFA an article answering why we should take their position.
WHAT? HOW? HUH?
They will be appointed following a call for interested people prepared to take on a case, and will start no later than 10 November. Their identities, and the case they are assigned will be announced publicly.
THEY THEN, have 5 days through whatever means (eg, submissions from the public who support their "case", talking to alliance nations) to provide to the MoFAs their brief or manifesto as to why that position is the BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD (NO NOT LITERALLY).
In other words, it is their job to sell the argument. The better the argument, the more kudos to them in showing they can actually pull together a good argument. Basically they will lead their case entirely and run it how they see fit to achieve their goal.
Following this, all 5 papers will be released publicly and people (including the other advocates) can then use comments to add a final rebuttal section, taking in account any arguments from the other cases put forward to deliver a final picture to YOU, the people.
This will inform public opinion, and potentially, any subsequent public votes on these.
It also means, the arguments can be about the point, not the personal bias of the person who wrote each case (as it actually was their JOB to be biased).
There will be a number of ground rules, and, yes, advocates will be rewarded for their time (BY ME. NOT A BUDGET MEASURE OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING).
The work they do will involve some specific points to cover, so they cannot just write something without thought, and their selection will be based on their ability to put something reasonable together.
New players and old can apply to be one. It will be a great way to get known, is low risk because you are taking a side (similar to a debate team) regardless of your personal view, and the better your case the more likely in the end you will be to gain some respect and public regard.
That's the idea. MoFA is putting more thought into the mechanics of it, and this will be released in due course.
I also think this will be something of use to TJ and his group, as not only will it help measure public opinion, but it will pull together some fresh views and perspectives outside of this which would be good.
It's also a fun way to get the wider community involved.
There will ALSO be a reward/reimbursement for people who meet SET standards in what they write (minimum content, words, format etc). As this is an experiment as part of my term under the MoFA, I will personally be putting this forward outside our budget. And, it will be GOOD.
That's all.
Ranger.
(PS: James Rellori).
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
\o/
Sounds good.
But maybe an article on what CoT, CTRL, Eden is and a brief history on each? I have no idea what they are :/
I know some people are secret supporters of a particular alliance, one that I have started to believe we should join.
But my decision has been swayed due to months of service in FA, mostly as an advisor. Information for the public in regards to some alliances have been very limited and with there not being any huge movements for an alliance push since the Pro- Phoenix days this is a very good idea to get eAussies informed.
I support this idea 100%
Part of the requisite will be to explain roboz WHAT IT IS.
I want more mention of me and my extremely important role in the 24th century.
Also about my Assassins creed 3 progression.
o7
Great proposal mate gives everyone a chance to show case their talents.
Will be good for everyone to know and be keep updated where we stand with our allies and the rest of the world.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-faca-update-board-agenda-future-2150071/1/20
I disagree Ranger. For starters, you're a part of that group. Secondly, if government takes charge of the public opinion it's going to politically expedient. This is precisely why FACA is outside of the government sphere so people can put forward their views objectively. The issue I have with this is as with most governments is transparency. Releasing papers after mins. go on an edit spree is dubious.
TJ reread it. This is not about government taking control of opinion, as I've set it up in such a way it would be impossible to. People pubicly nominate and then pursue their own cases.
I am offering a means by which people can express what THEY want. And, this is something your group can use to it's will.
I don't think this is a bad thing for eAustralia.
The first read wasn't the problem. It was upon further dissection of the methodology that's concerning.
"The MoFAs are going to call for a number of "Advocates"."
1. What selection criteria will the MoFAs use: Is it an open process or a 'pick a buddy' system?
2. As a pre-existing advocacy body by the time of the election, will FACA be welcome to assist the MoFAs with the process or is it eyes only until the white papers are released?
If you can clarify it will help.
The concern is that without transparency from the outside, the process is subject to fixing. It will then cause gridlock with the military community if they aren't consulted. This is another area where FACA can assist because the MoFAs will find as part of the job description that without strong and communicable alliances, the MoD is in the unfortunate position of damage control with the MU commanders. That is easily solved. What isn't is the Cabinet tension between FA and Defence.
It will be completely open, TJ. Via an article in game.
And yes I would hope FACA would be heavily involved. But in the aftermath of it.
Like me, we will watch this unfold naturally.
Admit it, we all just want to see 4 people attacking each other with hysterical consequences while we all sit around eating popcorn.
Let's keep it simple.
I think we should start the Europe and Others alliance,
really wanna see who will write this: Pro-CoT - why should we join?
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-cot-chile-we-stand-with-you--2131122/1/20