Committee Hearing for the Investigation of Possible Relations

[Gabu]

Let's be frank, people, were the United States, not a forum.

It would seem to me that, like it or not, we're both, and that ignoring either aspect of Atlasia would hinder the enjoyability that people can derive from it.

[Peter]

Having been in contact with the leaders of Cyberia can you say that they are a peaceful, active, nation?

I've been observing Cyberia for a while now, and I am quite confident in my analysis that they are peaceful and active. It should be noted at this point that there is a somewhat disruptive political conflict ongoing in their Senate, though its no worse than what we've had in the past.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Simply put, yes. Not only is there the possiblity of possibly receiving some of their citizens longer term, but also I believe they can effectively open a window to the wider micronational community.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would describe the nation as a constitutional Republic - There are clear checks and balances across the board and the Presidency and legislative posts are elected by the People. Due to the small size of their nation (I believe they now have either 14 or 15 citizens), there is an amount of "doubling up" of positions, this is unfortunate, but practically unavoidable.

[Colin]

A follow up question for Vice President Bell:

What is this disruptive political conflict in there Senate? Can you give us the particulars of these events in Cyberia?

[Peter]

What is this disruptive political conflict in there Senate? Can you give us the particulars of these events in Cyberia?

Its very difficult to determine the cause of the conflict - so I won't even begin to speculate. The effect of the conflict has caused an amount of obstructionism in their legislature from what I can tell with one of the members holding up some of the more routine matters such as confirmations.

This would not nominally affect us in the first instance since its a solely executive power to negoitiate treaties, etc.

[jokerman]

I think this idea is only going to confuse stuff and has no purpose in our politics.

Let's be frank, people, were the United States, not a forum.  If we weren't the United States then we would have a lot less tax revenue.  The entire history of "atlasia" and the world it is in runs entirely parallel to the United States and the World up until the creation of the Government.  The idea then, that nations, suddenly "pop-up" after that point is obsurd.

Well, I can see certain benefits to this.  Mostly, attracting new people to Atlasia.

I do agree with that, but I disagree with it having an impact on the game engine.

[Siege40]

I, Secretary of State Siege40, do solemnly affirm that the testimony that I will provide is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me Dave.

I stand ready and willing to answer any and all questions.

Siege40

[KEmperor]

The second question is for the Hon. Chief Justice Kemperor

Your Honor,

Do you see any potential constitutional challenges to this idea if it is passed and pursuited by the President.  I understand that we have the power to make treaties etc., but until now, that power was always understood to be with different "real world" nations and in the realm of the game.  Do you see this idea as being a transendent one, or will we have to be prepared for possible ammendments to our constituion?

Well Senator, I have considered it, and I don't think that's a problem.  The power to make treaties, conduct diplomacy, etc. has always been understood to mean "real world" nations simply because there was nothing else to do.  The Constitution never explicitly says that we have to operate in that manner.  We could simply alter the way we play the game.  The one issue I have is that I think we will have to do one or the other eventually, otherwise it might get a bit confusing.

[DanielX]

I have a question: if relations with micronations become formalized, will Atlasia 'break away' from the 'real world' United States, or will it deal with both micronations and real-world nations?

[Siege40]

I have a question: if relations with micronations become formalized, will Atlasia 'break away' from the 'real world' United States, or will it deal with both micronations and real-world nations?

My guess is that in the end we'd have to move away from Global Real World diplomacy. Especially since one of the nations from what I understand does not occupy physical space that we are aware of, and two, ourselves and another occupy the United States. It would mean separating foreign policies of Atlasia and the World from the others. What if the other communities try and form a colition of the willing against North Korea, Iran or Syria, but we just negotiated a treaty, do we recognize their invasion? Do you back track and ignore our own work?

If we move forward to the inclusion of other forums we must consider such things.

Siege

[MAS117]

If I can chime in here fellows, this question is for Secretary Siege...

Mr. Secretary, you have stated in the past that you do not support developing relations with foreign micronations, why is that? Or was it just the bill I withdrew that you did not support?

[Siege40]

If I can chime in here fellows, this question is for Secretary Siege...

Mr. Secretary, you have stated in the past that you do not support developing relations with foreign micronations, why is that? Or was it just the bill I withdrew that you did not support?

I do not support any legislation to expand foreign relations to other boards.

It over complicates political connections, as stated in my last post. It removes an element of realism in our government if we deal with nations that can't be pinpointed on a map, or if we in theory occupy the same geographical piece of land.

While I don't know the workings of the other forums it is possible people could hold more than one position on other boards. While people are free to sign up all they want where ever they want, the Prime Minister of Britain commonly isn't a United States Senator.

Also, integrity. If passed I have a strong feeling that after initial interest these relations will too crumble. While I don't like to brag too much I am the first active Secretary of State after several presidencies. I am the first to create diplomatic relations with ANY nation even in the real world let along fictional ones.

In all of the 'real world' politician match ups we've done no one has says, 'Siege reminds me a lot of Henry Kissinger,' so it is unlikely I'll be Sec of State forever. Meaning that after I move on, perhaps after this June, it'll likely return to the same stagnation as before. That's technically fine here, the 'real-world' won't feel scorned, but if we ignore 'Not-realia' for a few months that could lead to war. Who would 'moderate' the war. Calculate battle outcomes and how do we move troops if there is no country as evident on contemporary Earth.

These are just a few of my concerns.

Siege

[jokerman]

If I can chime in here fellows, this question is for Secretary Siege...

Mr. Secretary, you have stated in the past that you do not support developing relations with foreign micronations, why is that? Or was it just the bill I withdrew that you did not support?

I do not support any legislation to expand foreign relations to other boards.

It over complicates political connections, as stated in my last post. It removes an element of realism in our government if we deal with nations that can't be pinpointed on a map, or if we in theory occupy the same geographical piece of land.

While I don't know the workings of the other forums it is possible people could hold more than one position on other boards. While people are free to sign up all they want where ever they want, the Prime Minister of Britain commonly isn't a United States Senator.

Also, integrity. If passed I have a strong feeling that after initial interest these relations will too crumble. While I don't like to brag too much I am the first active Secretary of State after several presidencies. I am the first to create diplomatic relations with ANY nation even in the real world let along fictional ones.

In all of the 'real world' politician match ups we've done no one has says, 'Siege reminds me a lot of Henry Kissinger,' so it is unlikely I'll be Sec of State forever. Meaning that after I move on, perhaps after this June, it'll likely return to the same stagnation as before. That's technically fine here, the 'real-world' won't feel scorned, but if we ignore 'Not-realia' for a few months that could lead to war. Who would 'moderate' the war. Calculate battle outcomes and how do we move troops if there is no country as evident on contemporary Earth.

These are just a few of my concerns.

Siege

I agree with all of these concerns.  Nice to know we have a figure of sanity in the State Department.

[The Duke]

I think we have a conflict of language.  We keep saying diplomacy, but we don't mean diplomacy like we'd have with the United Kingdom, and not one person has proposed treating micronations as actors on the international stage.  All the pro-diplomacy people are talking about is sending out feelers to recruit folks.

So why do the anti-diplomacy people keep acting like this would pose a problem when not one person has proposed that?

We have a problem of language when we call this diplomacy.

[MAS117]

Since the debate has slowed down, I'll give another 2 days for questioning to the panel. I'll end the hearing on Wednesday.

[Gabu]

Since the debate has slowed down, I'll give another 2 days for questioning to the panel. I'll end the hearing on Wednesday.

Will you have some sort of final conclusion to present?

[12th Doctor]

Since the debate has slowed down, I'll give another 2 days for questioning to the panel. I'll end the hearing on Wednesday.

Will you have some sort of final conclusion to present?

Yes, MAS and I will each present our recommendations seperatly, once the hearing is concluded.

[Colin]

This is a question to everyone on the panel:

How do you think we should incorporate these new micronations into Atlasian foreign policy? Do you believe that we should treat them as real world nations or should they have a special status? Do you believe that they should be incorporated in with Atlasia's real world diplomatic ties or left as seperate entities?

[jokerman]

This is a question to everyone on the panel:

How do you think we should incorporate these new micronations into Atlasian foreign policy? Do you believe that we should treat them as real world nations or should they have a special status? Do you believe that they should be incorporated in with Atlasia's real world diplomatic ties or left as seperate entities?

I must say that I would hope not.  Since they have no geographic place in our simulation I don't think they should affect our real world diplomatic ties.  Any diplomatic ties should have to do with forum affairs, not political or economic affairs.

[Peter]

How do you think we should incorporate these new micronations into Atlasian foreign policy? Do you believe that we should treat them as real world nations or should they have a special status? Do you believe that they should be incorporated in with Atlasia's real world diplomatic ties or left as seperate entities?

Since we don't really interact with real world nations except through the GM, they would obviously have to be considered in a totally different way. They shouldn't appear on the State departments list of  nations with some description because they aren't military or economic entities in any sense that that list considers it.

Any links that are established will almost solely be political - it will be a simple case of probably having a treaty recognising each other as "micronations" and the establishment of an embassy, which from what I can see only functions to send congratulations to newly elected Heads of State in the various countries. That is the limit of the "diplomacy" that I envisage - we aren't going to be negotiating over the CAP with the EU or fighting world poverty in Africa with these micronations - we're simply going to be saying hello and here we are, join us if you feel like it.

[Siege40]

This is a question to everyone on the panel:

How do you think we should incorporate these new micronations into Atlasian foreign policy? Do you believe that we should treat them as real world nations or should they have a special status? Do you believe that they should be incorporated in with Atlasia's real world diplomatic ties or left as seperate entities?

By having a real world and a forum world in my opinion would lessen the realistic nature of Fantasy Politics. Therefore they should be one in the same, which raises problems of geographical location, and inter-relations, which I've mentioned before.

In the end for me the problems outweigh any small benefits.

Siege

[The Duke]

This is a question to everyone on the panel:

How do you think we should incorporate these new micronations into Atlasian foreign policy? Do you believe that we should treat them as real world nations or should they have a special status? Do you believe that they should be incorporated in with Atlasia's real world diplomatic ties or left as seperate entities?

I don't think they should be incorporated into the foreign policy at all, and that this activity be limited to recruitment of new members and bolstering our reputtion around the internet.

[jokerman]

I'm all for opening up forum-to-forum type connections to bring in new members and such.  But -wow, it would be a disaster to open up formal political or economic relations with them.  I mean, where the hell are they?  Are they supposed to be on the moon?  The very idea is a nightmare.  Portraying them as realistic nations would just wreck the realism and fun of the game.

[Peter]

Who has made the suggestion that they in any way be factored into the economic or military simulations inherent in the GMs role?

[MAS117]

I hereby declare this hearing to be in recess. We will return on Monday, May 23rd and give our reports and recommendations to the committee.

[Siege40]

I hereby declare this hearing to be in recess. We will return on Monday, May 23rd and give our reports and recommendations to the committee.

Still waiting...