hange E hange E

XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
New Republic
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a

Letthestarssing!Lettheplanetsshout!LettheRepublicbegin! Search

Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0

Searchthistopic 18postsPage1of1

Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0

byNatalisOroThuApr27,20177:24am
P
How do you envision GA 2.0?
Model
Member Factions
Level of collaboration NatalisOro
MinisterofState
Collaboration topics

Autviaminveniamautfaciam
Posts:1552
Joined:FriJan08,201611:30pm
Contact:
C
T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byDraithShaduxThuApr27,201710:24pm
P
I echo many of the same sentiments as Natalis has in her introduction post. I, as well as Invid desire more than just a
military relationship. The feeling of kinship, family and of a united community with the common goal of peace and
prosperity across the galaxy.
DraithShadux
We as a united community I feel could accomplish many great things on a multitude of platforms. From construction,
Posts:56
military ops, Intel ops. To community events and gatherings. Yes, it will have difficult times though greatness isn't Joined:SatMar05,20165:06am
achieved through laziness or half hearted attempts. I feel the more we contribute and work together, the sweeter Contact:
C
the victory and fulfillment.

I know it sounds cheesy me saying this though I'm truly honored to be here and to participate in these discussions.

T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byTengriLethasSatApr29,20173:57pm
P
As for the model I think the current one isn't too bad. There are some issues, but I'm not sure if there's a better
model.

Member Factions is a very difficult topic because it depends heavily on what we want. TengriLethas
Of course we only want to allow active factions into the group who actually contribute to our cause. Fact is at MinisterofTrade&Industry
some point in time every party of the current group has pledged this at some time and most, if not all, have failed at
one point or another. There's simply no guarantee other than having trust into each other.
Posts:1458
One issue the NR (and I assume RS too) has to take into account is tech. Including factions simply for the reason to Joined:FriDec18,201510:05am
Contact:
not loose the tech we gave them over years is definitely a nogo, because then we would be better off staying in the C
current GA but it's also true that by forming a new group we'll abandon a lot of tech. Krath is already story on their
own, in every aspect. Another group which stuck out is TIEFE. Over the past year they asked for more restricted tech
almost without paused. When I raised the issue if we'll ever set a limit to that I was told they are a tight knit group,
and are on our side. That's good and fine, and I want to believe, but simply put there has never been a return in any
way (at least not that I'm aware of).
I don't want to denigrate them or anyone, not should it be read as a threat or accusation, it's merely an example
what we have to accept (we more than you, but also as a collective).

I don't think there's a reason not to collaborate in as many areas as possible.

TengriLethas
NewRepublic
MinisterofTradeandIndustry

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 1/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Markforumsread
Y

Y
U

U
T
B

B
to

to
o
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
Re:r e Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
w

w
tr tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a
byCrueyaVandronSatApr29,201710:50pm
P
I strongly believe that a Galactic Alliance 2.0 needs to be New Republic centric. The New Republic is by far the
largest factionin terms of territory, members, and militarycurrently in GA 1.0. It is also the one of the two major
central factions in the galactic civil war, around which the combine is designed. I think we need to be realistic about
this, and acknowledge that. The New Republic is also unique in the way it is governed, with multiple layers of CrueyaVandron
government (Advisory Council and Senate, with an independent judiciary) compared to most other factions in the
Posts:407
combine which are autocratic or oligarchical in nature. Joined:TueDec22,20157:54pm
Contact:
C
I also strongly believe that the "equality" among all member states in the Galactic Alliance was more of a problem
than we care to admit. The equality of all member states in the concept of one vote each seems ideal, as it
represents the republican virtues of equality, liberty, justice, etc. However, it also mean it was nearly impossible to
get anyone done unless everyone agreed. It also meant that if there were more then two 'bad apples' in the bunch, it
would be impossible to vote them out. There are currentlyin my opinionseveral members in the Galactic Alliance
who reap the benefits without contributing, and that this block of member states realizes that they benefit from the
arrangement and would not be willing to vote each other out and it would put themselves at risk of being removed
from the alliance.

Instead what we should strive for is equity. Give members of GA2.0 every opportunity to collaborate and work
together in common goals, but do not try to regulate what members should or should not do (see: GA trade ban). If
the NR sees a need for an operation or venture, post the opportunity in a common area. Those GA2.0 members who
can/want to participate can indicate their desire to do so, and NR can then make an operational subform for those
participants (see: Unknown Signals Collaboration between NR/TR/Invid). If a GA2.0 member does not or can not
participate, they don't participate and do not have access to that operational subform (see: operational security).

I do think all GA2.0 members should be able to voice opinions and provide input on decisions that impact all
members. Furthermore, there are many areas where we can collaborate together and share our knowledge and
expertise. We can all collaborate on city designs, planetary stat management, intelligence; as those are topics which
involve limited darkness movement. But members should want to collaborate on those areas.

There needs to be greater flexibility for members to contribute in the ways that make sense for them, so long as
they are actually contributing to the common good. There needs to be greater communication and trust between
members, and thats a two way exchange. If a member state is not contributing, there needs to be a clearly
understood system to give that member a heads up that they are underperforming and not participating. If nothing
changes, there needs to be a clearly understood system for removing those members.

I also do not think that there should be any codification in the GA2.0 charter/constitution. The sharing of and/all
technology should be at the discretion of the holders of that technology. If the NR wants to share its technology with
any GA2.0 members, or anyone else for that matter, it is their right to decide how that process should look and to
whom they do so. I was very put off by the attempts to regulate technology exchange in the GA.

Edited 4/29/2017 at 16:51 GMT5 for clarification of wording.

Image
T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byOrionChranTueMay02,201712:03am
P
Parts of the current model seem to function well while other areas come up short.

This is one of the questions I mentioned to the NR Advisory Council. What is going to be the basis for acceptance to
the alliance? OrionChran
To expand on the question what do we want to achieve? ChiefofState

If sticking with our basics per GA 1.0, defeat of the IU was the overall goal that would be a start. As I also
mentioned, the GE has been working out plans and to some degree putting these plans into action to call for a Posts:3367
Joined:FriDec18,20154:00am
victory before heavy combat or at least have a strong impact during combat.
Contact:
C
This is one reason that I do not see a strictly military alliance as being the most beneficial. We need to improve our
capabilities where the various economic factors come into play. We also need to have some sort of backing from
other factions. Even if a neutral does not wish to pick a side, we should at least work towards getting them to lean
our direction.

Tech was a big issue overall. Yes, in the past I did fight to have everyone on a more even field. Using and training on
similar or the same tech throughout will be beneficial in combat as well as other areas. We simply can't expect for
example TR to fight long range if they do not have the X45 and the training. Some ships, vehicles, and weapons do
have similar stats to which the need is less but still does remain. I still support some form of unified tech and
training. With that said, I believe some in the GA misunderstood the overall thinking behind this. To counter some of
the tech issues, I believe supplies should in part be based on the need and as well capabilities. In other words, a
group that is not really functioning in a combative role other than maybe defending their region, does not need the
same amount or maybe same type as a faction who is out on the offense and defense. As well a very small group
(maybe 6 people) does not need the same amounts as a group with 30 people.

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 2/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Part of the question concerning tech, is do we handle it strictly through agreements with any group we wish or do we
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
have some sort of basic standard.
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a
Also to what degree and how do we factor in R&D.

Crueya Vandron wrote:

Instead what we should strive for is equity. Give members of GA2.0 every opportunity to collaborate and work
together in common goals, but do not try to regulate what members should or should not do (see: GA trade ban).
If the NR sees a need for an operation or venture, post the opportunity in a common area. Those GA2.0 members
who can/want to participate can indicate their desire to do so, and NR can then make an operational subform for
those participants (see: Unknown Signals Collaboration between NR/TR/Invid). If a GA2.0 member does not or can
not participate, they don't participate and do not have access to that operational subform (see: operational
security)

I do like this approach.

T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byAdamHughesTueMay02,20176:00am
P
I would personally go with each group nominating their desired roll within the new GA.

For example:
NR Bulk Military Strength AdamHughes
TR Rapid Strike Force NRIDirector
RSA Rapid Strike Force
etc.
Posts:2312
We all know that the NR contains probably the largest military with equipment ready to role. The NR would however Joined:FriDec18,20153:48am
Location:Classified
require time to bring those forces to bear on the enemy. Where as I am sure TR and RSA though have a capable Contact:
military just don't have the brute strength but can conduct quick raids to defensive maneuvers until the bulk force C

arrives.

If a group does not want a military role they could take on support roles whether it being there to repair vessels or
heal troops.

I also do not want it to be as it appeared in the current GA where it was assumed members automatically obtained
the Restricted Tech of the members and that it was in unrestricted amounts. Krath currently blame TR for a heap of
their ATR6's being on the market and nerfing the price. Doesn't help I caught his own people along with Talak
selling them on Centrepoint market. I also know for a fact Krath have also stopped all sales of the MTC DC even to
allied factions as they want to control the price of them.

If a charter is created I would want it kept pretty basic setting out basic laws (slavery, penalties etc) however in
regards to everything else I would prefer to see Policies which are easier to update then charter. I would break the
Policies up into the following (no particular order):

1. Military
2. Intelligence
3. Economy
4. Trade
5. Operations

I agree with both Crueya and Orion in regards to Security of Operations.

Though reading through some of what is being said I am against the NR taking control I actually want it known that
the NR does not own or control the GA.

If we are looking at a UN model. I would go with each faction group selecting three people for a General Assembly
and from their an election held to nominate three to five individuals to act as a Security Council (not members of the
General Assembly).

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 3/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a

T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byNatalisOroTueMay02,20176:06am
P
Don't forget Diplomacy, Adam! ~Jake, 'Lis and Gand tearup~

Autviaminveniamautfaciam NatalisOro
MinisterofState

Posts:1552
Joined:FriJan08,201611:30pm
Contact:
C
T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byVa`LiOwaTueMay02,20176:52am
P

I strongly believe that a Galactic Alliance 2.0 needs to be New Republic centric. The New Republic is by far the
largest factionin terms of territory, members, and militarycurrently in GA 1.0. It is also the one of the two
Va`LiOwa
major central factions in the galactic civil war, around which the combine is designed. I think we need to be
Posts:31
realistic about this, and acknowledge that. The New Republic is also unique in the way it is governed, with Joined:TueDec22,20152:48am
multiple layers of government (Advisory Council and Senate, with an independent judiciary) compared to most Contact:
C
other factions in the combine which are autocratic or oligarchical in nature.
Crueya Vandron

I'm honestly a bit taken aback by this. While I respect the New Republic and love it's ideals, very few Arkanian
Engineers would stand for any treaty that recognizes the New Republic, or any faction, as centric/leader/superior or
such. ARK was a member of the NR for years as a PSA. After some tough negotiations, and a lot of help from a few
in NR leadership, we left to forge our own way. Although we still miss the fun times with ARGH, the many friends
we had, the direct communications with all factions, and even the build wars, we've never looked back(No offense to
the NR here). The freedom and responsibility of answering to no one but ourselves still vastly outweighs all the great
things we left behind.

I also do not want it to be as it appeared in the current GA where it was assumed members automatically
obtained the Restricted Tech of the members and that it was in unrestricted amounts.
Adam Hughes

I still do not understand where this comes from. It's directly mentioned in the GA treaty that sharing of tech is at the
members discretion.

On the direction of the GA 2.0. Why do we need directives and policies so much? Isn't that what got us in trouble last
time? I've always said I like personal agreements and connections far better than the GA, and personal agreements
and connections are exactly why everyone seems to be here. What if we consider a much looser approach to an
alliance based on many of the ideas everyone already seems to like.

Instead what we should strive for is equity. Give members of GA2.0 every opportunity to collaborate and work
together in common goals, but do not try to regulate what members should or should not do (see: GA trade ban).
If the NR sees a need for an operation or venture, post the opportunity in a common area. Those GA2.0 members
who can/want to participate can indicate their desire to do so, and NR can then make an operational subform for
those participants (see: Unknown Signals Collaboration between NR/TR/Invid). If a GA2.0 member does not or can
not participate, they don't participate and do not have access to that operational subform (see: operational
security)

This exactly.

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 4/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
I'll admit we need a few basic rules, like how do factions join, and who gets access to what after how long. But
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
other than that, why does it matter?
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr e tr re
ar
.

.
ac ac
k e r - s o fLasteditedbyVa`LiOwaonTueMay02,201711:32am,edited1timeintotal.
tw k e r- s o ft w a

Image
T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byDraithShaduxTueMay02,20177:34am
P
I like Crueya's idea on collaboration, especially as it would also serve as a means to gauge commitment to the
alliance and also as stated, operations security.

As with tech, specifically amounts, I can't see a reason to allow unrestricted amounts being shared if it is to be DraithShadux
shared. IE; Invid is nowhere near the size of most governments and having copious amounts of tech just doesn't make
Posts:56
sense. Yes, spare tech is good and will be needed but an unrestricted flow of access to tech seems wasteful. Roles Joined:SatMar05,20165:06am
should also factor in to an extent with tech as not everyone will be operating in all forms of collaboration. Contact:
C

T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byCrueyaVandronTueMay02,201712:53pm
P

Adam Hughes wrote:

Krath currently blame TR for a heap of their ATR6's being on the market and nerfing the price. Doesn't help I
caught his own people along with Talak selling them on Centrepoint market. I also know for a fact Krath have also
CrueyaVandron
stopped all sales of the MTC DC even to allied factions as they want to control the price of them.
Posts:407
Joined:TueDec22,20157:54pm
Contact:
C

So despite my several attempts to clear this up with Krath, they've lowered themselves to the point of just not
respond to my DMs. Spiri Solon was a member of The Resistance at the time, and bought a bunch of ATR6s from
someone inside Krath. He accidentally listed them on The Resistance's CPM account instead of his own. Once it was
brought to my attention, I made him remove the listings from the faction account. While Spiri shouldn't have been
selling it on the faction account, I can't really dictate what he does with his own assets, and more importantly Krath
had an internal issue of their own they failed to address. Again, I tried to contact Krath about this but they never
responded.

To be precise, Krath didn't just stop all MTC DC sales just to control the price, they did it to specifically punish
people, regardless of who got caught up in it. They were made because some of their own members were selling
ATRs to the public. Yet Krath is suspected of selling NR tech in the past.

[13:22] Talak_Kasra> With everyone seemingly trying to drop prices on ATRs, that shouldn't be sold anyway, we
decided that the best course of action was to, essentially, punish everyone and boost prices on MTCs.

Pot, kettle, black.

Image
T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byGandXitwaTueMay02,20176:22pm
P

Va`Li Owa wrote:

I'm honestly a bit taken aback by this. While I respect the New Republic and love it's ideals, very few Arkanian
Engineers would stand for any treaty that recognizes the New Republic, or any faction, as
GandXitwa
centric/leader/superior or such. ARK was a member of the NR for years as a PSA. After some tough negotiations, RDCHighAmbassador
and a lot of help from a few in NR leadership, we left to forge our own way. Although we still miss the fun times
with ARGH, the many friends we had, the direct communications with all factions, and even the build wars,
we've never looked back(No offense to the NR here). The freedom and responsibility of answering to no one but
Posts:973
ourselves still vastly outweighs all the great things we left behind. Joined:ThuMar10,20165:41am
Contact:
C

Va`Li, please do not be offended by this. You have to understand to some, like the Resistance, being NRcentric is a

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 5/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
conduit to which they hope to combat the Imperial Union. All things fair and honest, the New Republic is the biggest
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
member of the Galactic Alliance. It has the biggest military, the biggest economy, deepest coffers, and widest
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
spectrum of players...BUT...I can assure you that means NOTHING without our allies and friends. Furthermore, these
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a
facts are by NO stretch of the imagination the litmus test or the standard in which we at the New Republic view our
allies. We asked for you to be here not as pawns or subject, we look upon everyone here as equals with your own
inherit strengths and qualities that rival our very own.

We nor the Resistance/Vandron, if I may be so bold, do not aim to make this new alliance a top down/"New
Republic's will be done" style agreement. Just because we currently have the biggest and best of this and that, does
not mean that we do not want the rest of our allies and friends to be elevated to the same fortune that we share.
And until such time that this happens, we, the NR have a responsibility to be center stage to ensure that our allies
reach their fullest desired potential all the while acknowledging and respecting our peers for their strengths and
contributions to our mutual goals of peace and prosperity. We want a galaxy of independent factions seeking their
own destinies and prosperity to form an interdependent alliance working to mutually benefit one another all the
while ensuring that the tyranny of the Imperial Union and like minded forces be eradicated.

T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byJakeAzzameenTueMay02,201710:18pm
P
Model

Ever since I have started my career in this galaxy far far away, I have seen my contribution towards the Rebellion as
an integrated venture, which I tried to live thoroughly and indeed, almost always wearing more than one hat. Of JakeAzzameen
course, there was an underlying reason for this: saving time and resources by using the best available tools to tackle
Posts:172
an issue, rather than resorting to a limited from a technical, not morale point of view. Subsequently, my cast will Joined:WedDec30,20154:49pm
always fall with the bigger scope and in this case this means not an alliance limited to a sole militaristic approach. Contact:
C
Of course, there are downsides, certain issues, primarily in terms of implementation. Examples can be found in the
previous replies (charter vs policy, trade ban controversy et cetera) as well as on the GA forums. Yet, I think it is
worth it strategically, since you are not limited to military approaches only. To take up one argument from above
how do you make neutrals lean positively to your side through an Armada. Fear? Since that is certainly not the
answer I am looking for, imagine something else and apply the same arguments on trade as a tool which includes
with whom not to trade to euphemize here the ugly ban word.
What I would expect would be an integrated, complementary and synergistic approach from all included factions,
balanced against their individual culture. Of course, we should avoid the mistake to dictate anyone up to a certain
level. This level is reached, in my humble opinion, when we are leaving technical matters and coming to include
ethical considerations, primarily along values such as liberty or freedom (or whatever we decide to set as mutual
common ground to build upon).

Member Factions

Anyone who can agree to stand by whatever we decide in the end. Why do I not think that tech is an immediate issue
here? Because I assume Research and Development will be released one day. Once that happens, tech we have
currently is irrelevant except for the amount of tech we have already produced. (For why I am very liberal on tech
distribution in general with respect to production among current friends, see last sentence of this paragraph. For
tech to become a threat, the individual must become bigger than the collective might of the current alliance.) The
day RnD is released, we switch from a production race to a development race and the tech level we have now is
actually quite irrelevant. Our aim must then not be to preserve what we have, because others inevitably will sooner
or later reach our level, but to preserve our advancement beyond competitors. In analogy to current game
mechanisms, this is again a n < n+1 game.

Level of collaboration

I do like very much the role idea presented above, as long as it allows us to maintain a level of flexibility. It could
[sic!] serve as a metric of contribution.

Collaboration topics

Depends heavily on the model decided upon, and as such I keep this very short: essentially a professional exchange
distributed/separated through all implemented game areas/aspects.

GrandAdmiralLordJakeAzzameenofDarian,RogueSquadron
youshallknowthetruth,andthetruthshallsetyoufree

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 6/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a

T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byVa`LiOwaWedMay03,20176:44am
P
No offense received my Gand friend. As this is an incredibly important and potentially galaxy changing event we are
speaking of, I feel it is only right that we are all completely honest with each other.

I'm not offended by Vandron's statements, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. I'm merely Va`LiOwa
expressing my own.
Posts:31
Joined:TueDec22,20152:48am
Contact:
Image C
T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byCrueyaVandronFriMay05,20171:31am
P

Jake Azzameen wrote:

What I would expect would be an integrated, complementary and synergistic approach from all included factions,
balanced against their individual culture. Of course, we should avoid the mistake to dictate anyone up to a
CrueyaVandron
certain level. This level is reached, in my humble opinion, when we are leaving technical matters and coming to
include ethical considerations, primarily along values such as liberty or freedom (or whatever we decide to Posts:407
Joined:TueDec22,20157:54pm
set as mutual common ground to build upon). Contact:
C

I more or less agree with Jake here, although I would lower the threshold of what is dictated. There are some
technical matters that might be good for us to come to agreeable terms on, however there are some technical
matters that we should leave to the individual discretion of members. While I also agree that we should not dictate
ethical considerations, we should have a basic ethical foundation that we share.

Jake Azzameen wrote:

Why do I not think that tech is an immediate issue here? Because I assume Research and Development will be
released one day. Once that happens, tech we have currently is irrelevant except for the amount of tech we have
already produced. (For why I am very liberal on tech distribution in general with respect to production among
current friends, see last sentence of this paragraph. For tech to become a threat, the individual must become
bigger than the collective might of the current alliance.) The day RnD is released, we switch from a production
race to a development race and the tech level we have now is actually quite irrelevant. Our aim must then not
be to preserve what we have, because others inevitably will sooner or later reach our level, but to preserve our
advancement beyond competitors. In analogy to current game mechanisms, this is again a n < n+1 game.

I disagree here. For one, actually know very little about how R&D will work.

The only thing we know about research and development can be found here: http://www.swcombine.com/rules/?
Research (and it is not much).

Anything not specifically listed there is based entirely on assumptions and predictions. Furthermore, we all know
that rules have changed in the past, and will likely change again. Just last year the admins were suggesting that R&D
would come out before ground/space combat, but recently they have said R&D will not be released until after
combat. The point here is that how R&D will work is very much unclear. I do not think it is a good idea to craft
policy based on speculation.

Image
T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byGandXitwaFriMay05,20171:28pm
P
There has been a lot talked about thus far and there are a lot of good points made; however, if the GA 2.0 is going
to be any different from GA 1.0 there has to be some items addressed.

1. Advisories vs. Mandates GandXitwa

Every time someone gets mad at another one its because they are being told to something they may not want RDCHighAmbassador

to to do. Whether that be trade bans, intel sharing, or technology sharing, you shouldn't walk into a friends
house and demand they do anything. Nobody owns this collective alliance, and as such none of us could or
should force actions of others. I am a big fan of advisories and requests over mandates and demands. Posts:973
Joined:ThuMar10,20165:41am
Contact:
There will come a time when an call for action arrises. How will we handle it and maintain our sovereignty? I C

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 7/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
believe any call to action has to be committed to on a voluntary bases. Lets take two scenarios for example:
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
Example 1: The New Republic has elected to Trade Ban Acme Inc. for laddering restricted technology.
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a
The NR presents that information to the GA 2.0 places them on an advisory. Each faction can then elect
to follow the NR in tradebanning Acme Inc. or not.

Example 2: The Invid Order declares War on Acme Inc. and comes to the GA 2.0 with said information.
The rest of the GA 2.0 follows suit and declares war in support of Invid, but Rouge Squadron elects not
to declare war but provide funding, warships, or raw materials to assist their allies.

2. Cooperation between ALL factions

You'll have to forgive me, I am a diplomat, words are my weapons and relations are my craft. I believe that a
wise diplomat observes much and speaks softly, yet now is a time that we must speak in such a way that
integrity and clarity are valued over elegance.

Alliances of any shape can only survive, grow, and stand the rigors of pressure if there is cooperation and
respect. If you are here and want to remain her, NR included, you have to cooperate with all factions. You
don't have to like each other like brothers...but damnit, its about time we put the transgressions of the past
behind us and find enough common ground, even if only a sliver of common ground, in which we can construct
a forward moving foundation.

Hopefully that sounds logical in theory, but without action it is nothing more than words on a screen. Each one
of you are here today; invited to our forums because you all share a working relationship with us here in the
New Republic, but do you cooperate with one another on your own? When was the last time you talked to each
other, understanding where each of you come from, what challenges you both have and share, ways to work
together, what your faction can and will do for each other?!?

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have to...have to...work together. This cannot be a collection of oneway relations
centered on one or few parties; we have to proceed as a web of relations...strengthened by our many and
individual bonds of camaraderie. If you have any reservations...rise above them, bury the hatchet if there is
blood that has gone bad, and grow in cooperation and diplomacy and start talking with each other. Ask how
and what you can do for others and we will find what it is that we all desire....a true Alliance!

3. Flexibility
Study the past, prepare for the future, but live in the day. The truth is, we have no idea what tomorrows
challenges are and quite frankly any attempt to come up with a foolproof strategy is practically impossible.
What is vital to the success of any challenge is the practice of flexibily in finding solutions. We have not idea
what combat will look like, what Research & Development will look like, or what economic change the game
has to throw at us. Our best chance is that we are willing to ebb and flow with these challenges and not place
an over abundance on rigid policy.

To that end, we have multiple challenges that we all will face: economical, logistical, militaristic,
intelligence, diplomatic, and much more. Our new alliance has to give each area the ability to meet these
challenges as they arise. Furthermore, we as factions have to acknowledge our strengths, weaknesses, and
what we can contribute, and know that it may change from day to day and week to week. For this reason, we
should adopt a more operation based direction tackling these challenges...or opportunities...as they come.

4. Accountability
What good is a treaty without teeth. Though the new alliance should and must be based around volunteerism
and cooperation, it is not a free meal ticket. If we are all to stay in this alliance we need to work at it and
for it. It is my belief that we should be accountable for our actions: both good and bad. With that said, I
would like to see a routine review of what each faction has done for the alliance and its members. This
doesn't have to be every week or month, but at least twice a year we should all spend a little time reviewing
how we are all currently working and what each of us have done for the alliance.

This is not for chest thumping or bragging, rather it should be used to see if something is working and if we
all can work on something. Furthermore, doing these reviews will allow us to see if someone is not
contributing to our shared goals. If a situation comes where someone is not contributing, the whole of the GA
2.0 can review the said factions status in the alliance, any punitive measures should be taken, and or what
level of involvement they should have moving forward.

These are some ideas that I have been thinking about over the last few weeks. I don't expect all to agree with them,
but I really think that if we are to make this new GA 2.0 work, we have to at the very least start to communicate
more with each other and find new ways to ensure this is a diplomatic web of strong bonds versus a collection of one
way relationships.

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 8/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
T
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
o
B

B
to

to
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr e tr re
ar
.

.
ac ac
k e r - s o f t wbyOrionChranFriMay05,201711:22pm k e r- s o ft w a
P

Gand Xitwa wrote:

1. Advisories vs. Mandates
Every time someone gets mad at another one its because they are being told to something they may not
OrionChran
want to to do. Whether that be trade bans, intel sharing, or technology sharing, you shouldn't walk into a ChiefofState
friends house and demand they do anything. Nobody owns this collective alliance, and as such none of us
could or should force actions of others. I am a big fan of advisories and requests over mandates and
demands.
Posts:3367
Joined:FriDec18,20154:00am
There will come a time when an call for action arrises. How will we handle it and maintain our Contact:
C
sovereignty? I believe any call to action has to be committed to on a voluntary bases. Lets take two
scenarios for example:

Example 1: The New Republic has elected to Trade Ban Acme Inc. for laddering restricted
technology. The NR presents that information to the GA 2.0 places them on an advisory. Each faction
can then elect to follow the NR in tradebanning Acme Inc. or not.

Example 2: The Invid Order declares War on Acme Inc. and comes to the GA 2.0 with said
information. The rest of the GA 2.0 follows suit and declares war in support of Invid, but Rouge
Squadron elects not to declare war but provide funding, warships, or raw materials to assist their
allies.

Gand I think you bring up a good point which basically falls in line of how I view the initial process. Certain cases
don't necessarily require action from some or all other members whether a trade ban, iff status, or actual war.

Sometimes indirect action may work out better for such issues. Expanding on Gand's examples,

Say the NR trade bans Acme Inc., presented to the GA 2.0 and maybe only one or none of the other members follow
with a ban. RS might have some sort of relationship with Acme to which they may be able to aid with clearing up the
issue. Similar to a mediation, yet without it actually being a mediation.

Same could apply to hostile aggression toward one of us. Invid declares war on Acme and some members support
Invid, yet RS may have some sort of relation with Acme and get them to back off with out actually participating in
the war efforts.

As well with Gand's mention of cooperation between ALL factions, the group needs to have cooperation individually
as well as together. This is one of the reasons I feel the decisions should be a unified effort and simply not by what
the NR wants or what fits the NR.

Gand Xitwa wrote:

To that end, we have multiple challenges that we all will face: economical, logistical, militaristic, intelligence,
diplomatic, and much more. Our new alliance has to give each area the ability to meet these challenges as they
arise. Furthermore, we as factions have to acknowledge our strengths, weaknesses, and what we can contribute,
and know that it may change from day to day and week to week. For this reason, we should adopt a more
operation based direction tackling these challenges...or opportunities...as they come.

Operation based direction would be beneficial as we develop the strategies or areas of focus. It may be a bit more
challenging for some aspects like intel and diplomatic efforts as to a degree those would encompass a wider area of
focus.

I agree with the reviews and I would say newly acquired members should have a few additional reviews the first
year. If we follow some sort of model similar to the operations method we should also have some sort of progress
review of the actual task to see how we are doing and so forth.

As well to a point I agree with Jake when it comes to R&D. While we do not know the specifics or timeline, we can
at least be prepared that there is a 50/50 chance it will come about. If the time comes, it would be advised to pool
together to work out the R&D as to not waste time and effort. I don't think it would devalue our current tech beyond
reliable usage.
Another reason I say this is we have been adjusting for the past few years as they changed stats, functions, and with
the release of the beta combats and bandit/creature combat. Through lots of research and testing we update as
needed. Same will hold true if R&D is released. The tech would need to go through R&D, to the production, then to
the field for testing and usage. Just about every major group / alliance is going to go through the same process to
update their fleets which will take time.

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 9/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a

T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byCrueyaVandronTueMay09,20173:23am
P

Orion Chran wrote:

As well to a point I agree with Jake when it comes to R&D. While we do not know the specifics or timeline, we
can at least be prepared that there is a 50/50 chance it will come about. If the time comes, it would be advised
CrueyaVandron
to pool together to work out the R&D as to not waste time and effort. I don't think it would devalue our current
tech beyond reliable usage. Posts:407
Joined:TueDec22,20157:54pm
Another reason I say this is we have been adjusting for the past few years as they changed stats, functions, and Contact:
with the release of the beta combats and bandit/creature combat. Through lots of research and testing we C

update as needed. Same will hold true if R&D is released. The tech would need to go through R&D, to the
production, then to the field for testing and usage. Just about every major group / alliance is going to go
through the same process to update their fleets which will take time.

I also agree in part that it makes the most sense that we pool our resources for R&D so as not to waste time and
effort. However, I significantly disagree that we should be liberal with tech sharing now because R&D will come in
the future. The two things are not mutually connected in my mind.

The Resistance is already working with Invid Order to develop and expand our R&D assets and capabilities.

Image
T
o
Re: Summit 1. Galactic Alliance 2.0
byTengriLethasTueMay09,20175:17pm
P
I can identify myself with a lot of things said by you guys already.

In regards to the model of the GA2.0 I said earlier that I like the current one. At the same time I like Va`Li's
suggestion very much. TengriLethas
A kind of loose private agreement, with only the most elementary rules, could very well work for what we would MinisterofTrade&Industry

like to have: not an alliance of factions who made it through our application process, or talked what we wanted to
hear, but an alliance of factions actually caring and collaborating about and with each other.
The level of collaboration should be totally up to the individual faction, because if a faction is just idling, not Posts:1458
providing a thing, it will become apparent early enough anyway. Then the other factions, those who do contribute, Joined:FriDec18,201510:05am
Contact:
will exclude them from their operations naturally. C
If a member faction hopes to get something "out" of the alliance then it should be in their best interest to also
provide something, whatever it is and to the best of their capacities.

This comes down to what Jake said, even though it was about a different aspect: this is a n < n+1 game. If the
advantages the alliance offers to a faction outweighs the cost to stay in the alliance and reap the fruits of the
collective effort, only then will the faction happily participate and keep up with the others.

Btw I'm opposing the "role model". Some factions are good in some aspects, and worse in others. Some have
members, others tech, others intel. There's no need to define roles from the beginning. Those "roles" too will
become apparent as time goes by, simply by whatever the faction is contributing. No need to specify this beforehand.
Factions change too.

Concerning R&D, or future changes in general, I think all of you are right.
Regardless how R&D will look like, whoever has prepared best until this point has an advantage. Be it preparation by
mass producing ships, because they won't be worthless over night, or by preparing capacities for actual research.
Ideally we do both, and given our factions we are very well capable to just do this. Of course, in respect to what I
just said about making the alliance attractive, this preparation should be driven forward and shared by all of us. Of
course the NR and RS may focus more on production of currently available tech, while others may put more energy
into preparation for R&D. Fact is, only if the combined result of these efforts is worth more than the sum of the
individual parts, will it be worthwhile for each single faction to stick around later.

TengriLethas
NewRepublic
MinisterofTradeandIndustry
Markforumsread
T
o
Displaypostsfromprevious: Allposts Sortby Posttime Ascending Go

18postsPage1of1

ReturntoGalacticAlliance

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 10/11
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit1.GalacticAlliance2.0NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U
Jump to

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr t
Boardindex
re Theteam Members Deleteallboardcookies AlltimesareUTC+02:00
ra
ar
e
.

.
ac
k e r- s o ft w a ck e r- s o ft w

PoweredbyphpBBForumSoftwarephpBBLimited

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7353 11/11