WesWorld

I'm going to post this here, since I'm uncertain whether Canada has been invited to the actual conference, and indeed, may oppose it on principle given some of the comments being made...

1) The Dominion of Canada will not be bound to any treaty, resolution, or other agreement reached without it's participation or consent. Likewise, The Canadian government will make it's extreme displeasure known to The Crown should any agreements be reached that have overarching ramifications or limitations (either directly, or indirectly) on other Commonwealth members without their input and consent. (Canada, per usual, takes great offense when nations assume Canada is bound to negotiations with the British, but do not include the Canadians in the actual discussions.)

2) The Dominion of Canada is not opposed, in general, to attempts at negotiating naval agreements, but any agreement that places limitations on Canada will have to account for Canada's defensive needs from areas beyond Europe. (Such agreements will either have to include various Pacific powers, or not interfere with Canada's need to match their lack of limitations)

Canada and Australia are welcome to attend. The SAE and Japan are welcome to attend, so is Atlantis, Mexico and China. The idea was for a local gathering because I felt an international agreement would be impossible but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Also, if all the world powers do attend then its to be expected that we all have to give up something, its not going to be a case of the current proposals of modest cuts or half-decade holidays. Wes says Atlantis wouldn't consider a holiday if the SAE and Japan don't participate, but Atlantis is never going to operate against those powers alone. NATO, SAER and the GA have enough power individually contained within them to wipe the seas clean of SAE and Satsuma vessels, each bloc has the kind of power the Allies had in WW2 if not greater in some areas. So I would say the European powers could afford to loose or delay a little collectively, but also that Satsuma and SAE can't outbuild the blocs whatever happens. This is the root of my scepticism, SAE, China and Japan would not want to loose comparable tonnage/ships because the status-quo would be maintained (albeit at a lower level) or target those Empire-forces we seek to maintain, and the GA, SAER and NATO powers (and other non-aligned nations) would not want to give up a decisive lead. Again everyone is thinking in terms of individual nations as if the blocs don't exist, or doesn't trust their allies to act alongside them. But I think all the naval powers need to talk to see what can be done.

Quoted from "Hood"

Also, if all the world powers do attend then its to be expected that we all have to give up something, its not going to be a case of the current proposals of modest cuts or half-decade holidays.

Frankly, given the past history of Wesworld naval treaty talks, what has already been laid on the table out of character would be a far greater accomplishment; it may be unwise to set expectations too high. Otherwise such high expectations might drive away, or keep away, participants.

What I've stated in this OOC thread is probably as far as I'm willing to offer at the present time, but if we bring in the other major world powers I'll be willing to consider further arrangements.

While I agree with Hood's thinking about alliances, my gut instinct is that the horses have left the barn and, as Bruce suggests, we will be lucky to get some very basic agreements.

At any rate, although only Australia has clamoured for it, Bharat will participate at the conference.

You know, Mexico could very well be agreeable to a ship buying holiday too... Question is if they got invited.

I think its gone beyond a pure European event now and its freely open for all to attend who wish to.

OOC: The confusion seems to come from the quick transfer from OOC comments to a new thread with IC comments, leaving little time for folks to examine their positions and present them, during the busy Christmas season at that.

Walter, is Japan going to attend?

Well folks seemed eager to get into some kind of IC roleplay so I opened the thread. I think however the real question is what we want to see OOC for the sim rather than whatever IC views we have. I think the San Francisco talks failed because there was too much IC and not enough OOC. I admit its Christmas and several key players are absent at the moment and may be for months and there is a bulk of NPCs, including some important nations, also unrepresented. Also, from PMs I get the sense many feel the talks will fail even before they've warmed up, so that's not a conducive environment for commitment or discussion.

I vote we halt the IC thread for now and get everyone's opinions and ideas here first and that we work out the IC fluff later.

Quoted from "Hood"

I think however the real question is what we want to see OOC for the sim rather than whatever IC views we have.

I am not entirely clear what you mean by this; could you elaborate?

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Quoted from "Hood"

I think however the real question is what we want to see OOC for the sim rather than whatever IC views we have.

I am not entirely clear what you mean by this; could you elaborate?

The sole reason the Cleito treaty existed was because of an OOC decision that some form of limitation treaty would form the framework for starting this sim. It's become somewhat obvious that without an OOC decision that some form of comprehensive treaty is wanted for the sim moving forward, that one will not be agreed on.

It is not clear to me that "what we want to see OOC for the sim" is necessarily limited to some sort of limitation on shipbuilding; that is the elaboration I was referring to. If it is restricted to building limitations, fine.

I believe that there was considerable OOC discussion of the limits of limitation before the introduction of the IC thread, but not all players were involved at that time, and the discussion was focused on European naval limitations, not any broader restrictions.

I was meaning that OOC views are more important than IC views. Whatever we agree should be done OOC and not IC. It's easier to colour what you said OOC in an IC voice but what you say IC is often harder to translate into an OOC viewpoint everyone can agree with.

Quoted from "Hood"

I was meaning that OOC views are more important than IC views. Whatever we agree should be done OOC and not IC. It's easier to colour what you said OOC in an IC voice but what you say IC is often harder to translate into an OOC viewpoint everyone can agree with.

Ah! Thank you for clarifying.