Talk:Martian Free Trade Agreement

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

I for one am not recognising Mars-B members as signatories and I sincerely doubt others will. Tarasovka for one has expressed that it is not recognising them. Just adding them to the wiki would be highly inappropriate in my opinion. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 20:57, 30 September 2005 (GMT)

Was there real need to remove me from the list of signatories just because four of the members - Pilon, Knootoss, Sentient People and Der Angst - have an I.G.N.O.R.E. on me? Allanea 21:32, 30 September 2005 (GMT)

Question: Placing an NPOV tag means the neutrality of the article is in dispute. So tell me - what aspect of the article is deemed as a violation of neutrality? Sunset 09:11, 1 October 2005 (GMT)

At the usual and disturbingly frequent risk of making this one of those awful " all about you " affairs, Allanea, you have been banned from the more " legitimate " (subjective) R.P. Mars board, and this being the Martian Free Trade Agreement, well ... Meanwhile, I'm glad to join. Ties in with my VERITAS membership and general IC disposition nicely enough, I think. This United State 09:21, 1 October 2005 (GMT)

From NSwiki's perspective, every nation extant on NationStates exists. Wiki articles should not take positions that claim that other nations do not exist when in fact they do from an NPOV. The way I see it, the only way to objectively deal with this is to list all signatories to the treaty duly recognized under the terms of the treaty. If somebody doesn't recognize that the signatories in question are not qualified due to an IGNORE, then the IGNORE simply extends to that part of the article. It's just like, for instance, Allanea - if you IGNORE Allanea, than obviously you don't think the information in that article is valid. That doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. --Goobergunch|? 09:58, 1 October 2005 (GMT)

That may be your take on this, and I see that you already added your point of view to the general disclaimer without discussing it. Fact remains that the presence of these non-roleplayers is contested because they are not Martian at all, and therefore the wiki should not just blindly assume that it is all 'okay' because it leeds credence to their claims that their Mars is really interacting with all of The Planet Mars. I do not want people to think I trade or roleplay with these people. Either the situation is resolved (talking to Sunset right no) or you get a seperate 'B-list' list of Mars-B nations explaining that they are not recognised by all MFTA members because their planet does not exist. This is only fair. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 11:17, 1 October 2005 (GMT)

This being the Free Trade Agreement for Martian and OTHER nations, I don't think that anybody at all is prohibited from joininig. Allanea 12:58, 1 October 2005 (GMT)

Though I think that I see your point, Goober, my personal opinion is that in the case of Allanea, for example, it is not the article which should be deleted, but rather ... the specific set of invalid data ( Allanea ) ...

Perhaps, since it seems "Mars-A" ( The Planet Mars ) is not in any form of total agreement at all on the issue of recognising "Mars-B", either in part or in total, perhaps a mutual disengagement policy regarding both parties and this Martian Free Trade Agreement would be advisable. R.P. wise, as I recall, a " Various Series of Cross-Dimensional Events " by Mars-A players, or some-such, forged the events of contact with Mars-B on their ( Mars-B ) forums, after some of their number came to Mars-A forums OOCly. Perhaps, drawing on these IC events, we should recognise that while "Mars-A" has this M.F.T.A. "Mars-B" could create a similar document for itself, of a different name, ( And perhaps of more tailored conditions there-in to them ) to be signed by "Mars-B" nations and only those Mars-A nations whom both recognise Mars-B and are recognised by Mars-B and wish to Role Play with them. This way the M.F.T.A. here remains intact for the Mars-A " dimension ", and Mars-B gets its own for all Mars-B participants, including those few from Mars-A involved there.

Another effect, I admit, would be that Allanea ( and anyone else in a similar conspiracy of circumstance, shall we call it ), in this scenario could be listed upon the Mars-B document, considering that is where he actualy is, IC-dimensionally and OOCly circumstantially speaking.

Basically, I'm proposing two documents.

  • The Mars-A M.F.T.A. which being this present document, would remain exclusively for Mars-A and that community alone.


  • Mars-B M.F.T.A. a " new " document, based closely on the present " Mars-A " M.F.T.A. but tailored to best suit Mars-B and that community alone. If Mars-A folks wish to sign it, I expect there would need to be a general consensus amoungst the Mars-B community members on that, naturally this is a concept, I'm not claiming to dictate terms to what would need to be done to them or anyone else.


Speaking of Allanea, I think you're wrong, Allanea. This is the Martian Free Trade Agreement, and considering the title, one would have to expect it is for Martian nations and not every other Tom, Dick ( - head ) and Harry who wanders along and edits the article, despite their residing off in Alpha Wank-tari. Consequently, unless you're " on " Mars ( And while I personally would theorise, considering the history of this document and the bulk of the signatories, this would mean Mars-A, and only Mars-A, ) you ( by which I mean anyone not " on " Mars, not just you exclusively ) are excluded from signing. This United State 04:56, 3 October 2005 (GMT)

"The Martian Free Trade Agreement (MFTA) is a free trade agreement of Martian and other nations. "

This is very clear to me. I do not understand why we should screw about with the MFTA based only on your and Knoot's disagreement with it.

Which still doesn't explain the main point:

Why in the seven hells is this an NPOV dispute?Allanea 06:52, 3 October 2005 (GMT)

NSWIKI IS A SECONDARY SOURCE. I don't care what in the name of Zarquon you call the treaty, or what Martian politics are going on. However, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO BE WORKING ON THIS. Please see NSwiki:What NSwiki is not, points 3 and 5. I don't need to express my undying gratitude at those who wish to dump a giant Martian dispute on my lap. --Goobergunch|? 15:06, 3 October 2005 (GMT)

1. The MFTA is open to /any/ signatories. You can sign it, no matter what. You don't even have to /be/ on Mars, as Knoot has proven in the past (Before he built his city). Thus, Allanea will have to be included if he wants to be included. Continuing petty conflicts in the wiki is not appropriate.

2. This does also mean that Mars B /can/ sign as soon as one of 'em recognises another Mars A nation and trades.

3. Thus stop your bitching, and Knoot, try not to be an angry little boy. How about thinking rationally?

PS: And yes... From where I am, the NPOV dispute was started over a non-issue, EXCLUSIVELY because Knoot had a PMS equivalent. Frankly, if he can't keep personal issues OUT of his function in the wiki, perhaps it's time he ceases to co-administrate it? Rezo 15:16, 3 October 2005 (GMT)

I actually think the solution proposed above (by Sunset, I take it, I do not see a tag.) is quite acceptable. It should have been worked out on the Mars board though, I agree on that with Goober. However it is evidently clear that this is not a matter that there is agreement on in any way, so I added the dispute tag. I'm not disputing the right of Mars-B folks to put content on the wiki, in fact I welcome it. However, the MFTA page should venture to state both sides of the story if there are different realities. Sunset and myself had quite an amicable talk on this, so meh. Rezo... whatever, rant if you will. This has nothing to do with personal issues. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 16:21, 3 October 2005 (GMT)

Mhm... 'Clarification'... Talk about issues. Of course, this 'Clarification' is implicitly included in any and all treaties to begin with, but that doesn't stop us from singling out this particular case, does it?

Now, are we going to add such a clarification to every single treaty, or what? Rezo 20:05, 3 October 2005 (GMT)

The neutrality of this article is no longer in dispute, and I m editing out the NPOV tag.Allanea 05:42, 4 October 2005 (GMT)


1) Goobergunch, I hope I wasn't being included in your comment regarding dumping of any sort. Recall my comments on IRC where I agreed that I was trying to avoid making work for you, :p - The only reason I've floated my proposal such as it is here in this discussion was to forge a route that can take us else-where and cut the ( potential ) bitching from any and all sides, I hope. Also considering that the people all-ready involved in this little discussion are all " here " and can read it.
2) Rezo ( I think ) in regards to your first point, I'd disagree with the exception' ( I had to sit for five minutes trying to recall that word, O_o ) being made the rule, myself. Therefore I'd disagree with point two, of course. Especially in light of my disagreement with point one, and that Wiki is as Goober said, a secondary source. The actual page hosting the treaty doesn't make the same claim as the wiki, that I've seen yet at least. Point 3, I'm not touching with a barge-pole, considering you sound just as guilty now, heh. Also in light of your " P.S. " ... Naturally, I'll be doing all such elsewhere in respect of Goobers comments, might I add. I have tried to reason out my arguments in regards to the M.F.T.A. and the dispute, I'm sorry if I've mistaken the purpose of discussion was to resolve it ...
3) Knootoss, if you mean the thing with the two dot points, that was me. I'm not sure if I tagged it, myself. Too rushed to read code now. I'm going to try to talk to Sunset later today when I've more time and organise a NS thread in Gameplay (?) for this ... business to be sorted out in a better forum ( no pun ) for such talk ( no pun ). Less wiki-filling, and all Mars-A/B's can participate without bans / not being a member of both boards, getting in the way. Plus there is the established Moderation to keep an eye on it all.
4) Rezo, perhaps that should be left up to individual treaty bodies and another time ...
5) Allanea, while I personally disagree and don't feel the matter has been resolved, it doesn't really matter. If any one else still disagrees, it can be added again. Provided they make the requisite arguments I note, of course. This United State 05:59, 4 October 2005 (GMT)

Cite sources

From the MFTA page linked in the article:

Signatories: Sunset, Wazzu, New ArAreBee, Mangala, Menelmacar, Pilon, Sentient Peoples, Knootoss, Santa Barbara, Svarog

Seems straightforward enough to me, why can't we just list those as the signatories in the article? Unless there are other signatories not yet listed on that page, in which case links would be appreciated. --Goobergunch|? 07:12, 4 October 2005 (GMT)

But then I would have to actual, gasp, update the web page for the MFTA. Sometime I'll see about moving it over to the regional forums where it won't be so much of a pain to edit. As far as resolving the problems go I don't see a problem with a thread on the NS boards. Sunset 08:58, 4 October 2005 (GMT)

I am not a member of the Mars-B region. I am a member of Haven. Corrected appropriately. 00:26, 13 October 2005 (GMT)