NationStates

As far as I'm concerned, whilst Benevolent Thomas is certainly a very competent individual (better than me to put it mildly) and I admire him for his skills as a Fenda,= I'm not honestly sure a Commendation is the way to go. Ignoring my attitudes towards Commendations (and Condemnations) which would put me against this either way, Commendations are meant to be for nations or regions that have contributed highly to the NS universe at large. 10000 Islands is commended because of contributions to NS, as an example.

Holding Positions in regions, doing a good job as a Fenda, refounding a couple of regions and engaging in some Diplomacy doesn't quite cut it, in my opinion. Of course I am putting those acts very mildly here, but I doubt I need to put them as monumental acts of great significance. And, regarding his status as a Fenda, I don't have any preference to Fendas and Raiders; I simply don't see the point in keeping myself to specifically raid or Defend in regards to NS military gameplay, in fact. Both are important parts of the game, Yin and Yang, if you will, neither should ideally be held over the other.

What is the argument against this proposal?

Funkadelia wrote:Thank you for this surprising and groundbreaking reading material.

"You are welcome, Ambassador."

E002 wrote:What is the argument against this proposal?

Just look through the last few pages.

Malphe wrote:As far as I'm concerned, whilst Benevolent Thomas is certainly a very competent individual (better than me to put it mildly) and I admire him for his skills as a Fenda,= I'm not honestly sure a Commendation is the way to go. Ignoring my attitudes towards Commendations (and Condemnations) which would put me against this either way, Commendations are meant to be for nations or regions that have contributed highly to the NS universe at large. 10000 Islands is commended because of contributions to NS, as an example.

Holding Positions in regions, doing a good job as a Fenda, refounding a couple of regions and engaging in some Diplomacy doesn't quite cut it, in my opinion. Of course I am putting those acts very mildly here, but I doubt I need to put them as monumental acts of great significance. And, regarding his status as a Fenda, I don't have any preference to Fendas and Raiders; I simply don't see the point in keeping myself to specifically raid or Defend in regards to NS military gameplay, in fact. Both are important parts of the game, Yin and Yang, if you will, neither should ideally be held over the other.

Welp, I'm going to be classed as a darkspawn on their Discord now.

That argument essentially disqualifies anyone who's been Commended by this body.

Not only did Thomas hold these offices, but, as the proposal notes, he did productive things while holding them.

Funkadelia wrote:

Malphe wrote:As far as I'm concerned, whilst Benevolent Thomas is certainly a very competent individual (better than me to put it mildly) and I admire him for his skills as a Fenda,= I'm not honestly sure a Commendation is the way to go. Ignoring my attitudes towards Commendations (and Condemnations) which would put me against this either way, Commendations are meant to be for nations or regions that have contributed highly to the NS universe at large. 10000 Islands is commended because of contributions to NS, as an example.

Holding Positions in regions, doing a good job as a Fenda, refounding a couple of regions and engaging in some Diplomacy doesn't quite cut it, in my opinion. Of course I am putting those acts very mildly here, but I doubt I need to put them as monumental acts of great significance. And, regarding his status as a Fenda, I don't have any preference to Fendas and Raiders; I simply don't see the point in keeping myself to specifically raid or Defend in regards to NS military gameplay, in fact. Both are important parts of the game, Yin and Yang, if you will, neither should ideally be held over the other.

Welp, I'm going to be classed as a darkspawn on their Discord now.

That argument essentially disqualifies anyone who's been Commended by this body.

Not only did Thomas hold these offices, but, as the proposal notes, he did productive things while holding them.

As said, I've never been a fan of the whole commendation and condemnation mechanic in this game. And I do not doubt that he did productive things given what he had, but I'm just still skeptical about whether its worthy of a commendation.

It's my opinion that a commendation or condemnation for an individual nation is warranted when a player has done specific things that have had significant global impact. For example, if you coup a feeder and make major changes that other regions react to, you've done something of global importance. If you bring down an organization or terminate a conflict in such a way that there are implications for other regions, you've done something of global importance. Being a great leader for RIA should win him praise from RIA and being a great leader for TGW here lately is laudible, as well. He seems to be a good guy and he's clearly a capable defender, but I would give him a bit more time to show us what he can do that creates waves throughout the globe.

Playing devil's advocate as one of the Delegates voting against this proposal, I think the proposal makes a case for global relevance. When you think about some of what Thomas has done, it is clearly of global relevance. At times, such as when he was building up the military forces of Fort Triumph, Renegade Islands Alliance, and 00000 A World Power, if not for his efforts there may have been very little defending happening, if any -- which would have left many regions throughout the world more vulnerable to invasion. The Grey Wardens, in particular, have brought a new surge of activity to defending that has made raiding more difficult and has resulted in more successful defenses and liberations, which clearly have global implications. His efforts in the Founderless Regions Alliance, while extremely overstated by this commendation, are clearly of global relevance, as the FRA is a multi-regional organization involving two Sinkers. Helping to keep the FRA afloat clearly has global political and military implications.

The question isn't so much whether Thomas is globally relevant, but whether his conduct is deserving of commendation or repudiation. Alongside his building up of defender military forces has been promotion of an ideology in which defenders are encouraged to almost gleefully invade and destroy other regions, shifting the emphasis in defending from protection to aggression. This is a radical change in the direction defending has taken over the years; there have always been regions, such as 10000 Islands, that have leaned more in the latter direction, but it has never been mainstreamed in the way Thomas and the Grey Wardens have mainstreamed it. Whether this behavior should be commended is not only a question for non-defenders, it's a question for defenders. Is this what you want defending to become? Do you really want the world to be seen in shades of grey, in which defending becomes mingled with "the darkspawn" and our tactics, or do you prefer the black and white worldview that has served you so well for so long?

That's a question defenders are going to have to tackle over the coming weeks and months. Your ideology is changing, and Benevolent Thomas is the one changing it. Is that worthy of commendation, or should you be fighting it? For the rest of the gameplay world, it appears by the outcome of this vote that the answer is clear: Against.

Cormactopia II wrote:Is this what you want defending to become?

Yes.

or do you prefer the black and white worldview that has served you so well for so long?

Anyone who truly only sees black and white will never see the world for what it is. Are imperialists and independent regions wrong that they choose the method that best suits their needs in a given moment? Should defenders really be forced to sit and wait, to play the game on the terms set by raiders? So long as our only option is to react, there will never be any ground to gain.

That's a question defenders are going to have to tackle over the coming weeks and months. Your ideology is changing

More than people are aware, it would seem.

For the rest of the gameplay world, it appears by the outcome of this vote that the answer is clear: Against.

So far it does seem that the non-defender parts of the gameplay world are the most against this change. Do raiders hold some kind of monopoly on offensive gameplay that the rest of us have not been made aware of?

Cormactopia II wrote:The question isn't so much whether Thomas is globally relevant, but whether his conduct is deserving of commendation or repudiation. Alongside his building up of defender military forces has been promotion of an ideology in which defenders are encouraged to almost gleefully invade and destroy other regions, shifting the emphasis in defending from protection to aggression. This is a radical change in the direction defending has taken over the years; there have always been regions, such as 10000 Islands, that have leaned more in the latter direction, but it has never been mainstreamed in the way Thomas and the Grey Wardens have mainstreamed it. Whether this behavior should be commended is not only a question for non-defenders, it's a question for defenders. Is this what you want defending to become? Do you really want the world to be seen in shades of grey, in which defending becomes mingled with "the darkspawn" and our tactics, or do you prefer the black and white worldview that has served you so well for so long?

I'm sure raiderdom and Independents/Imperialists would love to be once again free to run amok on the battlefield without resistance/ repercussions. Raiders calling on 'strict' defenders to disavow TGW and it's methods because it's somehow an affront to defending is hilarious. While they may well do that, it would be for their own reasons. Not because Cormac self-servingly begged them to. Besides, if defending does hypothetically evolve to what BT and TGW are currently doing, stomping this commendation probably won't be a deterrent.

On topic: While I don't know BT all that well, what I do know of him suggests he's worthy of a commendation. Regardless of the current gnashing of teeth over TGW.

After careful consideration, our WASC delegation confirms its support of the active proposal. We believe that raiders who target noncombatants and innocents for sport have forfeited any right to sympathy or military or political protection. Indeed, such regimes must be opposed, isolated, destroyed where possible. It is also our belief that we honor the role of the Red Fleet in the history of Los Ángeles de lxs Liberadxs and the former Califan area in general by lodging a vote FOR this commendation.

We also find the lamentations of terrorist regimes in this hall to cause a true belly laugh that was a relief after weighing these serious issues.As you have caused grief, so may it be repaid threefold upon your house. We thank the so-called raiders for the free entertainment as they realize their fate one by one. Cry! Cry!

Defenders raiding isn't inherently a bad thing. Think about all the potential and the positive consequences that come with it.

Is that actually commendable though?

Once this and all the anti-invader fluff is brushed past, we reach Benevolent Thomas' CV - one that is hardly impressive compared to the work of others in their respective NationStates spheres.

We can all agree that Benevolent Thomas is the best "offender" out there. But Is that actually commendable?

Eluvatar wrote:Fat lady isn't singing yet.

I can hear her warming up for her aria already.

General Knot wrote:Defenders raiding isn't inherently a bad thing. Think about all the potential and the positive consequences that come with it.

Is that actually commendable though?

Once this and all the anti-invader fluff is brushed past, we reach Benevolent Thomas' CV - one that is hardly impressive compared to the work of others in their respective NationStates spheres.

We can all agree that Benevolent Thomas is the best "offender" out there. But Is that actually commendable?

I think you could take out everything about The Grey Wardens in the proposal and Benevolent Thomas would still be worthy of a commendation. Benevolent Thomas has been one of the strongest and most active voices in defending in the whole game since his start in leadership in TITO. Near constant update presence has been maintained by his organizations under his leadership for multiple years.

But Benevolent Thomas is not merely someone who has been a defender in this game. He has shown his ability to help build communities and maintain cultural regional activity, whether it be through roleplay in the European Union, as a Senator and Delegate of 10000 Islands, one of the largest UCRs in the game known for its cultural activity, or with reforms such as during his stewardship of Renegades Islands Alliance. There are of course other regions listed in the proposal that did things of note because of the actions of Benevolent Thomas but we can read the proposal for that.

I'd say he's been pretty accomplished as a player in this game in a variety of roles and in a few different forms of playing. He's been playing for about 6 years or more now (middle aged in this game) and he's put in above and beyond effort everywhere he went.

Cormactopia II wrote:Whether this behavior should be commended is not only a question for non-defenders, it's a question for defenders. Is this what you want defending to become? Do you really want the world to be seen in shades of grey, in which defending becomes mingled with "the darkspawn" and our tactics, or do you prefer the black and white worldview that has served you so well for so long?

If it means I get to watch you waste your time on these hilarious posts, I'd do it over and over again.

How come raiders are assumed to be bad and defenders are assumed to be good?

Taxpayers of Taxpayeria wrote:How come raiders are assumed to be bad and defenders are assumed to be good?

You know what they say about assuming!

Calling raiders "bad" is the norm, and definitely somewhat of a compliment to us that enjoy the time and dedication that we put forth to plan and execute invasions. Defenders are seen as the "good" side, for obvious reasons, and for the same obvious reasons we can see that the Grey Wardens are not defenders. What makes the Wardens worse than your average raider? I'm sure those that are voting AGAINST, including me, can tell you.

Cormactopia II wrote: For the rest of the gameplay world, it appears by the outcome of this vote that the answer is clear: Against.

In fairness, it is rather close in voting. Majority WA opinion could shift easily, dramatically and soon.

Official Message from the Constitutional Monarchy of Nordal
After consideration, both the People's Security Committee and government has decided to vote against the proposal. This is simply due to principal. If we, the countless numbers of delegates representing the WA & Security Council officially commend Benevolent Thomas for his work, then we simply can't say no to any other good-doer.

We recommend that Thomas seek commandment from other such committee's, in which we will thoroughly support him in such.

Best,
John Walker
Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

It is my humble opinion that the WA Assembly is within its rights to commend Benevolent Thomas; however, he has a few unnerving characteristics.

The name implies a bit of conceit; which I will not commend.

Mr. Thomas has little Political Freedom in his nation; if he is commended a detrimental method of running a nation is also commended.

I cannot, in good conscience, glorify one who is not a great steward of his nation and one whose name is a bit haughty and authoritarian.

It is true that Mr. Thomas was a a defender of high calibre. I caution all though, especially those in raider regions, to discover whether ir not he is a friend.

Our time in defending didn't really overlap much, but - for what's it worth - of what I saw of him on the field, I regarded him to be very competent, a real fighter and someone with his heart in the right place. His accomplishments over the years dovetail in this resolution to make a broad portrait of a commendable individual. And despite my best efforts (unintentionally) to butcher TRR-10K relations, I'm very thankful that he and others in 10000 Islands made a significant outreach to TRR to build bridges previously burnt and in doing so advance defender unity.

I hope this vote turns around for him. Cheers.

Taxpayers of Taxpayeria wrote:How come raiders are assumed to be bad and defenders are assumed to be good?

*looks up from polishing his Commendation*

This is not always the case. Besides, Thomas is more of a Fenda than an actual Defender anyway. He does the actions Defenders claim to hate and despise (invasions, refoundings, trophy regions), but he does it against the "right people" (see: political and military enemies of Defenders) and therefore they love him for it. He's their attack dog who can do the Defender's dirty work, useful for conveniently avoiding the unfortunate scenario of Defenders being framed as the hypocrites they are.

Legit question: is Thomas still banned from 10KI for his involvement in building another self-founded region when serving as delegate of 10KI?

Elke and Elba wrote:Legit question: is Thomas still banned from 10KI for his involvement in building another self-founded region when serving as delegate of 10KI?

There is a reason why, this late into the vote, the XKI still has not cast a "for" or "against".

Evil Wolf wrote:There is a reason why, this late into the vote, the XKI still has not cast a "for" or "against".

Actually, the forum vote was only just put up. Louis is away and thus hasn't been able to vote yet.

There are plenty of reasons to vote YES.

1. Benevolent Thomas is a top jumper: that's why many raiders like this proposal. This is GamePlay, the funny part.

2. Benevolent Thomas is nearly a decade really active as defender. It's a very active (almost daily active) defender
= 3 hours/day * 365 days = ... hours that this (main)nation did do a really nice things.

3. He is not 'just' a defender, it's a nation that does efforts to train new nations that have enough time to defend in one uniform way to avoid frictions. It's indeed a very good mentor.

4. It's a versatile defender that show all aspects of defending: detagging, R/D battles, try to prevent them (like Lazarus in the past), rebuild regions in it's original state and so on...

5. Benevolent Thomas is responsible for the strong organisation: every affliated defender region does have a particular function today. Regions are affliated if they accept the policy of The FRA. (technical stuff)

6. Some large missions: Lazarus, Westphalia, Australia, Hogwarts (rebuilding it) and many, many more.

Fact is that this nation shouldn't answer back just Benevolent...

Short: this nation deserve a commendation: I suspect a secret raider strategy to take this commendation back, just after receiving it and then there is no way to get commended back. (e.a.: During a raider battle...)

In the last case Benevolent Thomas might loose it's commendation. Some regions are virtual impossible to defend (e.a. raider created founderless regions). That seems the main problem, I suppose?