NationStates

Ratateague wrote:I don't get why everyone is voting against. The region has been refounded by said raiders. They own the region now. Seeing as a founder's lockdown overrides any liberation attempt, and they can eject with impunity, all it's really doing is giving them a badge.

I think it has something to do with Unibot voting against.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:I think it has something to do with Unibot III voting against.

Why is he against?

Drewlantis wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:I think it has something to do with Unibot III voting against.

Why is he against?

That is an answer I cannot give you.

Kaboomlandia wrote:I'm *againsr* this proposition.

My reasoning is that taking away the liberation will leave the raiders free to do what they like.

Do you even understand how the liberation function works? I suspected not.

As for the vote on this one? I highly suspect some of these votes against are very political in nature, as several other people want this one to their credit. When this fails, as I expcet it will according to the current vote, there will probably be at least three more attempts up there very fast, all from people who voted against this one. Pathetic if you ask me.

Evil Wolf wrote:This is the Security Council. If you're not contradicting your own prior statements in order to advance your ideological viewpoint, you're not playing the game correctly.

Can't say it any fairer than that.

As has been noted, voting for repeal of the Liberation doesn't reclaim the region for the original natives — it's been lost to them. It's how the sharp-end of the game is played at it's most basic level.

What voting for this will this actually do: repeal something that has no bearing whatsoever on the current situation on the ground in Democratia, as the region is now under legal control of an active founding nation. They can run that region however they want to now, regardless of what the WASC thinks, and regardless whom controls it.

Liberations have a high risk/reward ratio to them — when they work, they return a region to natives and life goes on. If it's a weak region with little support on the map, and the locals don't flood back in to support, other forces will and you'll have a raider-refounded region with a WASC Liberation badge on it.

Repealing is really just an administrative action, not a moral one. The region doesn't get anything out of this beyond losing a nice decoration. Although it is only one guy camped-out there, and the region was only three years old, so it's hardly a serious black-eye for the WASC if the badge stays in place.

If you go into Democratia, you will notice that there is only one nation left. Unfortunately, it isn't worth fighting for.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Ratateague wrote:I don't get why everyone is voting against. The region has been refounded by said raiders. They own the region now. Seeing as a founder's lockdown overrides any liberation attempt, and they can eject with impunity, all it's really doing is giving them a badge.

I think it has something to do with Unibot voting against.

It's probably the same case with Repeal Liberate Republicans. What the f*ck did I just say?

Hope you like a taste of your own medicine.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
Do you even understand how the liberation function works? I suspected not.

As for the vote on this one? I highly suspect some of these votes against are very political in nature, as several other people want this one to their credit. When this fails, as I expcet it will according to the current vote, there will probably be at least three more attempts up there very fast, all from people who voted against this one. Pathetic if you ask me.

Please allow me to quote myself from TWP's RMB out of laziness. I assure you, my vote has nothing to do with wanting to draft another repeal of this or any Liberation.

[quote=darkesia;10236743]Ok. I feel I should explain the vote I am about to cast in the SC.

I, the player behind Darkesia, have never agreed with Liberation Proposals. In my opinion they are akin to using Mods as a weapon and breaking the cardinal rule of the WA : a proposal may not alter game mechanics. Yet they exist and have been so for a long time. I have accepted the unfortunate truth of their continued existence. However, I hold the opinion that a Liberation should be a rare, drastic measure undertaken with as much reluctance as petitioning the Mods to delete a founder nation. Further, I do not hold that any action this serious should be undone. For any reason.

Tldr version; I don't vote for liberation often, if ever. But I won't vote for a repeal of any liberation. Even if it's a chance to get back at that Snowman character. Ever.

Sorry to those that were counting on my cooperation in this proposal. [/quote]

Redsward wrote:
Hope you like a taste of your own medicine.

What the hell are you talking about? Own medicine?

Darkesia wrote:Ok. I feel I should explain the vote I am about to cast in the SC.

I, the player behind Darkesia, have never agreed with Liberation Proposals. In my opinion they are akin to using Mods as a weapon and breaking the cardinal rule of the WA : a proposal may not alter game mechanics. Yet they exist and have been so for a long time. I have accepted the unfortunate truth of their continued existence. However, I hold the opinion that a Liberation should be a rare, drastic measure undertaken with as much reluctance as petitioning the Mods to delete a founder nation. Further, I do not hold that any action this serious should be undone. For any reason.

Tldr version; I don't vote for liberation often, if ever. But I won't vote for a repeal of any liberation. Even if it's a chance to get back at that Snowman character. Ever.

Sorry to those that were counting on my cooperation in this proposal.

"Well, I understand where you're coming from, but if a Liberation truly isn't deserved, even if it is passed, then wouldn't you want to repeal that? I don't mean to be a bother, but if you dislike Liberations, shouldn't you be focusing on repealing them as often as you can? Especially when they aren't deserved?"

Drewlantis wrote:

Darkesia wrote:Ok. I feel I should explain the vote I am about to cast in the SC.

I, the player behind Darkesia, have never agreed with Liberation Proposals. In my opinion they are akin to using Mods as a weapon and breaking the cardinal rule of the WA : a proposal may not alter game mechanics. Yet they exist and have been so for a long time. I have accepted the unfortunate truth of their continued existence. However, I hold the opinion that a Liberation should be a rare, drastic measure undertaken with as much reluctance as petitioning the Mods to delete a founder nation. Further, I do not hold that any action this serious should be undone. For any reason.

Tldr version; I don't vote for liberation often, if ever. But I won't vote for a repeal of any liberation. Even if it's a chance to get back at that Snowman character. Ever.

Sorry to those that were counting on my cooperation in this proposal.

"Well, I understand where you're coming from, but if a Liberation truly isn't deserved, even if it is passed, then wouldn't you want to repeal that? I don't mean to be a bother, but if you dislike Liberations, shouldn't you be focusing on repealing them as often as you can? Especially when they aren't deserved?"

I think you missed the point of Darkesia's statement. I highlighted the part that clarifies it.
LITTLE ADDITION:
We don't see the point of not supporting this repeal, other than the fact that it kinda stinks in terms of all the writing, and various personal reasons (mostly petty ones regarding the author?). The region's been refound, and with a friggin' password of all things: it's doing nothing but giving its current owners undue brass (I don't care much about the r/d game, but I'd rather the raiders actually raid a nation they claim, instead of go about stealing regions like this; no finesse or whatever). Liberations are just tools (preferably ones used to actually help regional natives or whatever), and the current one has served its purpose (or, in this case, serving a very bad one, both in my point of view, and in what I suppose to be most defenders'). Hence, Mundiferrum votes FOR this repeal.

And a bit more: Unlike the last "repeal 'liberate x'" that failed the vote (ahem, to reach quorum), at least this one seems to have a bit more thought behind it...Looks fairly backed (again, note the presence of both a liberation badge and a password here: Democratia), and it doesn't seem to put a bunch of natives at stake. So no, whatever vendettas are pushing this to the abyss are probably not due to the quality of the proposal (or perhaps even the intent of the author? *smarmily smiles*).

Mundiferrum wrote:

Drewlantis wrote:"Well, I understand where you're coming from, but if a Liberation truly isn't deserved, even if it is passed, then wouldn't you want to repeal that? I don't mean to be a bother, but if you dislike Liberations, shouldn't you be focusing on repealing them as often as you can? Especially when they aren't deserved?"

I think you missed the point of Darkesia's statement. I highlighted the part that clarifies it.

"No, I understood that. I'm just confused that if Darkesia is so opposed to Liberations then why shouldn't he/she (sorry, the gender stuff is killing me when you're not sure) oppose every Liberation and then wish to repeal them? I understand he/she considers them very serious, but in the case that they are no longer serious, why keep them? If indeed it is so serious to declare an SC Liberation, and the situation must be subsequently dire, then when the situation calms down or is unresolved, shouldn't the serious action be repealed as it now no longer warrants such dire action?"

Because, it should be cause for pause before undertaking such a step. If the stripping of a password were known to be permanent, how often would it be invoked? Much less often, one would hope.

In a perfect Darkesian Universe, when one stripped a password from a region, the consequence would be that the region could no longer have a password... ever. Not just until the particular regime was ousted, but rather forever.

Darkesia wrote:Because, it should be cause for pause before undertaking such a step. If the stripping of a password were known to be permanent, how often would it be invoked? Much less often, one would hope.

In a perfect Darkesian Universe, when one stripped a password from a region, the consequence would be that the region could no longer have a password... ever. Not just until the particular regime was ousted, but rather forever.

"Fair enough, rather final in that sense, but fair enough."

Darkesia wrote:In a perfect Darkesian Universe, when one stripped a password from a region, the consequence would be that the region could no longer have a password... ever. Not just until the particular regime was ousted, but rather forever.

Although now that the region does have a password, in spite of the liberation....

Mundiferrum wrote:

Darkesia wrote:In a perfect Darkesian Universe, when one stripped a password from a region, the consequence would be that the region could no longer have a password... ever. Not just until the particular regime was ousted, but rather forever.

Although now that the region does have a password, in spite of the liberation....

A terrible state of affairs, don't you think? A region can carry the mark of liberation yet suffer none of the consequences of that liberation.

The point against repeal is an attempt to instill a sense of discipline within the WASC on how you use this tool. Liberation is a tool that directly affects gameplay, and is used to reverse/undo, etc. in-game outcomes.

That's what is meant by, "serious." Because the result from using this tool changes the in-game realities, it shouldn't be used lightly or carelessly for every raided or founderless region that has a password locking it down. Not every region deserves it, nor has the support of the natives to reclaim the region post-Lib (as happened here).

Repealing this now, simply because it didn't achieve the results desired as a way to save legislative embarrassment, just encourages more unwise use of the tool in the future. There are no current consequences to the WASC members for getting this wrong. Leaving the badge in place, however, provides a needed, and yet uncomfortable, reminder of the dual-edged sword of Liberation, and the warning to be careful about how and whom you try to help.

Sure, repealing this now from an administrative point of view looks like you're admitting the mistake and trying to fix it, but the damage to the region is done. Repealing this does nothing for them, it only helps the WASC save face and sets a precedent that if you screw-up a Liberation, you can always hit the "undo."

Standing against repealing the "serious" action of the Liberation, is twofold. The Liberation is like a nuclear bomb in what it does on the gamemap, it changes the rules and the realities, so you've got to make it a last-resort tool, not an automatic legislative reflex because of the potential damage, as well as benefit, it can cause.

Second, if you do use it, you've got to be prepared to stand by the decision to use it, and the consequences/fallout. Face-saving repeals, that do nothing for the region in question, ultimately undermine the WASCs gamemap respect and make this body just a big target for derision.

In short, if you Liberate and get it right, great. But if you Liberate a region and get it wrong, there needs to be a consequence. Keeping the badge in place is that consequence.

I can appreciate the immense thought put into those arguments, but surely our collective books don't have to be needlessly cluttered to convey such points? Some of us are more distanced in foreign affairs and would rather see them along rather than dilly-dally on them. Wouldn't it be much nicer to trim down the paperwork and improve the World Assembly's efficiency, instead of leaving the aftertaste of petty politics in aspiring member's mouths?

Ratateague wrote:I can appreciate the immense thought put into those arguments, but surely our collective books don't have to be needlessly cluttered to convey such points? Some of us are more distanced in foreign affairs and would rather see them along rather than dilly-dally on them. Wouldn't it be much nicer to trim down the paperwork and improve the World Assembly's efficiency, instead of leaving the aftertaste of petty politics in aspiring member's mouths?

"As a new member, I would have to disagree with my colleague Ratateague. I feel that this will serve as an excellent reminder for myself and for those that follow of the realities faced here: the tools at the WA's disposal cannot be used lightly. Yes, there is more paperwork I suppose, but it is necessary. If one thinks about it, however, we are actually creating more paperwork, as there will still be the old laws and records of the liberation, and if this passes, we will have to add those to the books as well. This will of course lead to costs relating to printing and disseminating of information to the various member states, when we can stop this here. I very much agree with the ambassador from Naginii.

For those worried about taking away a badge of honor, the region is inactive, populated by a single nation. My guess is that if we just leave well enough alone, Democritia itself will eventually cease to exist, and it will be a moot point anyway.

Imladris Island opposes this resolution, if only to serve as a reminder to use the tools at our disposal responsibly."

OOC: I'm actually not completely new to the WA, as I have had nations in the distant past, but still with a low level of activity. I personal like Darkesia's idea of stripping the password permanently...

It was a peacezone. Peacezones are a bad idea. Repeal the lib and let them do whatever they want.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Redsward wrote:
Hope you like a taste of your own medicine.

What the hell are you talking about? Own medicine?

Sigh... have you heard of idioms?

Redsward wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? Own medicine?

Sigh... have you heard of idioms?

Yep I have. You are implying that i have done something wrong, and now I am getting it in return. What I am failing to understand is what i have done wrong, to receive something in return.

I don't like invaders

St nevis and kitts wrote:I don't like invaders

That's great, but try commenting on the proposal. All your recent posts have been spammy, and with little relevance to the actual topics.