NationStates

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:30 pm**

I JUST read the thing, and i'm shocked that it would be small to condemn them.
They are helping Nationstates!
If anything, they should choose someone to condemn!
I'm out.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:34 pm**

Captin Cookies America wrote:I JUST read the thing, and i'm shocked that it would be small to condemn them.
They are helping Nationstates!
If anything, they should choose someone to condemn!
I'm out.

What

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:35 pm**

Captin Cookies America wrote:I JUST read the thing, and i'm shocked that it would be small to condemn them.
They are helping Nationstates!
If anything, they should choose someone to condemn!
I'm out.

Who's being condemned again? :blink:

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:47 pm**

Captin Cookies America wrote:I JUST read the thing, and i'm shocked that it would be small to condemn them.
They are helping Nationstates!
If anything, they should choose someone to condemn!
I'm out.

I'm really not sure if you actually read anything.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:12 pm**

Against. Novaya Leviathan has not discovered any merit in the acts described.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:29 am**

Despite being a member of a Defender region, and pro-Defending, I don't think that it is right to put Raiders on the same list as fascists, homophobes, etc. Raider/defender is a gameplay alignment thing.

On the other hand, its clear from reading this thread that the anti-resolution vote block comprises of:

1) People who object to the technical detail of the wording
2) Raiders who don't like the anti-Raider bias of that nation
3) Homophobes.

Even if I were a member of groups 1 or 2 above (which I'm not), I'd be very hesitant to lend my vote to a cause supported by group 3. A defeat of this resolution will be held up as a victory for homophobes everywhere.

That's why I'm urging anyone who ISN'T a homphobe to avoid voting against this resolution. Abstain if you must, but please don't give the homophobes a victory by default.

Seriously, a Raider supporting the homophobic camp on this vote would be like someone who likes nice uniforms using that as a reason to be pro-Nazi. You have to look at the bigger picture of what you are supporting.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:13 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Even if I were a member of groups 1 or 2 above (which I'm not), I'd be very hesitant to lend my vote to a cause supported by group 3. A defeat of this resolution will be held up as a victory for homophobes everywhere.

That's why I'm urging anyone who ISN'T a homphobe to avoid voting against this resolution. Abstain if you must, but please don't give the homophobes a victory by default.

Seriously, a Raider supporting the homophobic camp on this vote would be like someone who likes nice uniforms using that as a reason to be pro-Nazi. You have to look at the bigger picture of what you are supporting.

No I refuse to let you call me a homophobe for believing that considering raiders equal to fascists makes a lie of this part of the commendation:

BearNation's promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) equal rights throughout Nationstates,

And for believing that no commendation with inaccuracies or lies should pass.

I am our region's ambassador to Gay, I like the place and I like BearNation, but he must do better before I can agree that he is commendable.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:24 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:3) Homophobes.

I've actually been surprised by the lack of outright homophobia in this thread. I've only seen one post that was just homophobic.

Seriously, a Raider supporting the homophobic camp on this vote would be like someone who likes nice uniforms using that as a reason to be pro-Nazi. You have to look at the bigger picture of what you are supporting.

How is voting against this supporting homophobes? The raiders who have expressed disapproval have provided a reason for voting against, that has nothing to do with sexuality. It's like saying "if you don't support Ben Carson, you're supporting the racist camp."

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:24 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Despite being a member of a Defender region, and pro-Defending, I don't think that it is right to put Raiders on the same list as fascists, homophobes, etc. Raider/defender is a gameplay alignment thing.

On the other hand, its clear from reading this thread that the anti-resolution vote block comprises of:

1) People who object to the technical detail of the wording
2) Raiders who don't like the anti-Raider bias of that nation
3) Homophobes.

Even if I were a member of groups 1 or 2 above (which I'm not), I'd be very hesitant to lend my vote to a cause supported by group 3. A defeat of this resolution will be held up as a victory for homophobes everywhere.

That's why I'm urging anyone who ISN'T a homphobe to avoid voting against this resolution. Abstain if you must, but please don't give the homophobes a victory by default.

Seriously, a Raider supporting the homophobic camp on this vote would be like someone who likes nice uniforms using that as a reason to be pro-Nazi. You have to look at the bigger picture of what you are supporting.

I knew someone would try this defense. You have plenty of text in the pages of this thread that show clearly why most people are against this resolution, and their backgrounds are varied. To them, it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the nation, and has everything to do with the laws and wordage outlined in the regions the nation has founded and the policies the nation has adopted. Please stop.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:34 am**

I've read the thread, and I agree that the majority of people posting here that are voting against this commendation are doing so for good, non-homophobic reasons. However, it also seems likely that there's a large and silent homophobic voting block that is propping up the vote against this commendation, who likely don't even visit these fora, and who likely will see the rejection of this commendation as a sign that they are part of the moral majority.

I'd rather inadvertently commend a nation who has an anti-raider bias and who may not be wholly deserving of commendation, rather than give the homophobics a feeling of unearned victory in their bigotry.

To draw another analogy, I'm a euro-sceptic in the UK. I didn't vote for UKIP, the euro-sceptic party, as their membership has an extremely high proportion of racist bigots in it, and I didn't want to be in the same faction as the racist bigots. It doesn't matter to me that I actually agree with a lot of their policy positions (ok, with SOME of their policy positions). What mattered to me was that they're the party that racist bigots vote for. Voting for them wouldn't have made me a racist bigot, and in fact I'm sure that most of their voters aren't racist bigots. However, the presence of that bloc within their party is enough to contaminate the whole possibility of supporting them.

To be clear, I'm NOT saying that you are a homophobe if you vote to reject this commendation. What I am saying is that if you vote to reject this commendation, you will be voting in the same direction as the homophobes, and creating their sense of victory.

To me, this is a question of relative distastefulness. If you find the nation's silly and prejudiced stance on Raiders to be distasteful, then yes, I agree. But what I can't agree on is that the distaste this causes outweighs the real world internet-wide pervasive culture of homophobia that needs to be opposed at every turn.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:39 am**

However, just to add here...

I respect the right of all to vote as their consciences dictate.

And I apologise for any offence caused to anyone who felt I was accusing them of homophobia. That was not my intention. To be clear again, I am not saying that voting against this resolution makes you a homophobe.

I'm just trying to explain my own voting position, and the reasons why I feel voting for the commendation has more benefit than harm.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:26 am**

By the claims of this resolution and my own investigation, I can safely conclude that BearNation has been a force for good within the Multiverse. This nation's commitment to progressive, egalitarian policy is admirable, and I can certainly applaud BearNation's lengthy history as a major figure within regions such as Gay and Philosophy 115. However, none of this nation's achievements strike me as particularly important or commendable, or exemplary in any way on the international stage. Certainly, BearNation is a model nation within the regions it has so greatly influenced, but the contributions outlined in this resolution show little to no impact on the Multiverse in general. Furthermore, the references to international news organizations and blogs is, in a word, underwhelming, as these news outlets--none of which most nations even know about--demonstrate no lasting, major impact on the Multiverse. Lastly, the format and structure of this resolution are uncomfortably informal.

While I recognize the good done by the nominated nation, I argue that these contributions to the international community are simply insufficient to merit a commendation by the World Assembly.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:45 am**

Wallenburg wrote:
By the claims of this resolution and my own investigation, I can safely conclude that BearNation has been a force for good within the Multiverse. This nation's commitment to progressive, egalitarian policy is admirable, and I can certainly applaud BearNation's lengthy history as a major figure within regions such as Gay and Philosophy 115. However, none of this nation's achievements strike me as particularly important or commendable, or exemplary in any way on the international stage. Certainly, BearNation is a model nation within the regions it has so greatly influenced, but the contributions outlined in this resolution show little to no impact on the Multiverse in general. Furthermore, the references to international news organizations and blogs is, in a word, underwhelming, as these news outlets--none of which most nations even know about--demonstrate no lasting, major impact on the Multiverse. Lastly, the format and structure of this resolution are uncomfortably informal.

While I recognize the good done by the nominated nation, I argue that these contributions to the international community are simply insufficient to merit a commendation by the World Assembly.

Would you have still voted that way if this was passing?

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:47 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I've read the thread, and I agree that the majority of people posting here that are voting against this commendation are doing so for good, non-homophobic reasons. However, it also seems likely that there's a large and silent homophobic voting block that is propping up the vote against this commendation, who likely don't even visit these fora, and who likely will see the rejection of this commendation as a sign that they are part of the moral majority.

There's a long history of "follow the herd" voting in the WA. I doubt that there is a "loud, unspoken homophobic voting block" but instead people going, "Wow, this is getting voted down. There's probably a reason for that. I don't know what it is, but reading/investigating is hard. *votes against*"

I hope that BearNation does make changes to Gay's constitution in the future, as I feel that would be an action more worthy of commendation than what's listed in the present text.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:39 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I've read the thread, and I agree that the majority of people posting here that are voting against this commendation are doing so for good, non-homophobic reasons. However, it also seems likely that there's a large and silent homophobic voting block that is propping up the vote against this commendation, who likely don't even visit these fora, and who likely will see the rejection of this commendation as a sign that they are part of the moral majority.

There's a long history of "follow the herd" voting in the WA. I doubt that there is a "loud, unspoken homophobic voting block" but instead people going, "Wow, this is getting voted down. There's probably a reason for that. I don't know what it is, but reading/investigating is hard. *votes against*"

I hope that BearNation does make changes to Gay's constitution in the future, as I feel that would be an action more worthy of commendation than what's listed in the present text.

I wish more people would read the forum topic for a SC/WA Resolution.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:41 pm**

I measure votes in terms of "if SillyString vote flopped, how far off would the vote be?"

This is one SillyString flop and some change

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:21 pm**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I've read the thread, and I agree that the majority of people posting here that are voting against this commendation are doing so for good, non-homophobic reasons. However, it also seems likely that there's a large and silent homophobic voting block that is propping up the vote against this commendation, who likely don't even visit these fora, and who likely will see the rejection of this commendation as a sign that they are part of the moral majority.

What data do you have to support these claims?

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:44 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I hope that BearNation does make changes to Gay's constitution in the future, as I feel that would be an action more worthy of commendation than what's listed in the present text.

Actually, the constitution is approved by the membership, so that decision isn't up to BearNation. As it is the regional membership has indicated they are happy with the present structure. To be honest I find it disconcerting that you would vote to commend a nation just for changing a regional constitution to your liking.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:06 pm**

Now that the commendation is clearly headed for defeat, I feel I can finally speak on my own behalf. I would like to thank everyone who has voted for me and advocated for me here, especially my friend The Stalker, as this commendation was his idea and largely his wording.

I don't stereotype anyone who has voted against the commendation as a member of any particular group unless they self-identify or make it obvious in their posting(s). I respect the opinions of those who believe that commendations should be exclusively reserved for nations that have authored WA resolutions or otherwise been major players in the international arena, for those are not my major strengths. I think it is fair to say that I excel at leading democratic regions over long periods of time and that I am a prolific author of quality writings of interest to the gaming community, free thinkers and formal philosophers, and regarding LGBTQ issues, especially safer sex (the area of my doctorate), not to mention over these past 12 years helping hundreds of individual players with gaming issues as well as challenging hundreds of genuine homophobes in their ignorance (and being gratified that a few have seen the light and no longer carry around that particular prejudice).

I have been a bit disappointed in those who have treated this commendation as if it were a commendation of the region of Gay instead of me, its democratically elected leader. Even if it were, have not other defender regions been commended? As for those who claim Gay is a hotbed of anti-raider sentiment, I would point out that for most of 2014, the democratically elected President of Regional Council, our major legislative body, was an open raider. I agree that as a defender region AND a safe haven, both the Constitution and the WFE should make explicitly clear that our LGBTQ and straight ally siblings who are raiders are welcome at the table. These changes will be made in the near future. Thank you for raising my consciousness on this topic. Know that I myself am not raider-phobic and in the region that I founded and largely have my way, within the confines of democracy--Philosophy 115--does not participate in the R/D aspect of NS.

It's been an honour and a privilege to be nominated for a commendation and be supported by thousands of votes. While it would have been terrific had it passed, I am pleased with the many expressions of support I have received. It's good to have friends. Now that this commendation is about to be put to bed, I will return to what I do best. With a little luck, tomorrow Gay will pass the 300-member threshold for the first time, less than a year after passing the 200-mark for the first time, and all of you are invited to share in the celebration!

Respectfully,

--BearNation/Dr George/many others

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:01 am**

I'm sorry to see this headed for defeat.

I feel like this proposal was sidetracked into R&D for no good reason from the start. Perhaps one of us will give it a try again after a few months and start from a clean slate.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:48 pm**

Bears are cute. And so are you.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:53 pm**

The Silver Sentinel wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:
By the claims of this resolution and my own investigation, I can safely conclude that BearNation has been a force for good within the Multiverse. This nation's commitment to progressive, egalitarian policy is admirable, and I can certainly applaud BearNation's lengthy history as a major figure within regions such as Gay and Philosophy 115. However, none of this nation's achievements strike me as particularly important or commendable, or exemplary in any way on the international stage. Certainly, BearNation is a model nation within the regions it has so greatly influenced, but the contributions outlined in this resolution show little to no impact on the Multiverse in general. Furthermore, the references to international news organizations and blogs is, in a word, underwhelming, as these news outlets--none of which most nations even know about--demonstrate no lasting, major impact on the Multiverse. Lastly, the format and structure of this resolution are uncomfortably informal.

While I recognize the good done by the nominated nation, I argue that these contributions to the international community are simply insufficient to merit a commendation by the World Assembly.

Would you have still voted that way if this was passing?

Yes.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:54 pm**

"Commend BearNation" was defeated 7,996 votes to 6,439.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:30 pm**

While I am disappointed to see this fail, i'm glad it was still fairly close. I'd like to thank everyone who supported it.

It is my intention to revisit this down the line, once I feel the issues expressed in this thread have been properly resolved. If anyone is interested in helping, please feel free to contact me.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Commend BearNation

Really?