Raiders ruining RP regions yet again...

[Zaolat]

Actually, you will find that SCOP attacked the region of Anzia in an attempt to pursue a war against the UIAF.

Of course, Anzia is not an ally of any of the UIAF regions. We never promised to defend it; only to offer it non-aggression.

However, that did not SCOP from attacking that region in an attempt to pursue hostilities against us.

The UIAF and Anzia were both signatories of the Green-Black Concordat. As both parties signed an official diplomatic agreement, they were therefore allied. Apparently you do not understand what the purpose of such diplomatic agreements really are.

[Whiskum]

Actually, you will find that SCOP attacked the region of Anzia in an attempt to pursue a war against the UIAF.

Of course, Anzia is not an ally of any of the UIAF regions. We never promised to defend it; only to offer it non-aggression.

However, that did not SCOP from attacking that region in an attempt to pursue hostilities against us.

The UIAF and Anzia were both signatories of the Green-Black Concordat. As both parties signed an official diplomatic agreement, they were therefore allied. Apparently you do not understand what the purpose of such diplomatic agreements really are.

Not every official diplomatic agreement is an alliance.

For example, a peace treaty following a war between two parties might be an official diplomatic agreement, but it is not an alliance.

In the Green Black Concordat, the only commitment made by the UIAF towards these regions is non-aggression.

They make an additional commitment to us in exchange for that, namely to supply troops, but we make no such commitment towards them.

An alliance implies the full range of mutual and friendly diplomatic and military relations as a minimum. We do not have that with them.

[Evil Wolf]

Don't worry, I'm leading a liberation on the region.

That's such a smart idea to just announce that on an open forum.

He's in a region called "The Darwin Allied Republics". I expect nothing less.

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

That's such a smart idea to just announce that on an open forum.

He's in a region called "The Darwin Allied Republics". I expect nothing less.

What is the point that you are trying to make?

[Port blood]

The only person to blame is your founder, who chose to die and abandon your region. It is common knowledge and clearly known that raiders target regions with no founders. I would recommend a hasty evacuation and re-founding.

Natives be like ""Screw this,I'm getting outta here""

To Whom it may concern,

You mean nobody?

You don't go to play the game Monopoly and roleplay little stories about what each person is doing in the little houses you get do you?

I do

Games have morals, too. Just sometimes they aren't enforced.

Suuuuuuure,shooting people without reason or justification in CoD is SOOOOOOO moralistic

He's in a region called "The Darwin Allied Republics". I expect nothing less.

What is the point that you are trying to make?

That he is failing natural selection

[Kyuji]

As long as R/D exists, regions get raided

[Shofercia]

I think the bigger issue here is that our region didn't vote on joining SCOP, and yet SCOP simply put our region's name as part of the alliance. Without actually checking, the raiders raided us. Don't get me wrong, I know that raiding's part of NS, I don't mind it. What's interesting to me is that the Casus Belli that raiders claimed was trumped up. If one was to take what happened, in context, does that mean that any organization can simply put any region as members, (with or without their approval,) and that automatically becomes Casus Belli for the raid? If so, that Casus Belli is weaker than Turchinov's support in East Ukraine.

[Whiskum]

I think the bigger issue here is that our region didn't vote on joining SCOP, and yet SCOP simply put our region's name as part of the alliance. Without actually checking, the raiders raided us. Don't get me wrong, I know that raiding's part of NS, I don't mind it. What's interesting to me is that the Casus Belli that raiders claimed was trumped up. If one was to take what happened, in context, does that mean that any organization can simply put any region as members, (with or without their approval,) and that automatically becomes Casus Belli for the raid? If so, that Casus Belli is weaker than Turchinov's support in East Ukraine.

If the name of your region is invoked against the United Imperial Armed Forces, then unless you repudiate it, you can be assured of retaliation.

Slavya's listed membership of SCOP between 3rd January and 7th January formed one element of the justification outlined in the statement.

If SCOP was being misleading in how it represented itself in relation to these regions, then that is between you and them.

Any region with an association with any group which undertakes actions hostile to the UIAF can expect to be hold responsible until they denounce them.

As Slavya has now unconditionally accepted our terms and repudiated SCOP, we can proceed differently, but the original basis stands entirely.

[Shofercia]

I think the bigger issue here is that our region didn't vote on joining SCOP, and yet SCOP simply put our region's name as part of the alliance. Without actually checking, the raiders raided us. Don't get me wrong, I know that raiding's part of NS, I don't mind it. What's interesting to me is that the Casus Belli that raiders claimed was trumped up. If one was to take what happened, in context, does that mean that any organization can simply put any region as members, (with or without their approval,) and that automatically becomes Casus Belli for the raid? If so, that Casus Belli is weaker than Turchinov's support in East Ukraine.

If the name of your region is invoked against the United Imperial Armed Forces, then unless you repudiate it, you can be assured of retaliation.

Slavya's listed membership of SCOP between 3rd January and 7th January formed one element of the justification outlined in the statement.

If SCOP was being misleading in how it represented itself in relation to these regions, then that is between you and them.

Any region with an association with any group which undertakes actions hostile to the UIAF can expect to be hold responsible until they denounce them.

As Slavya has now unconditionally accepted our terms and repudiated SCOP, we can proceed differently, but the original basis stands entirely.

You're basically expecting us to watch all alliance boards, to ensure that our name isn't randomly mentioned, and report to UIAF if the name is randomly mentioned? That's a very absurd requirement to have, since our members can be more productive with their time. We aren't going to do that. If you want to use that as a Casus Belli, you should make sure that our government members actually made posts, not some random nations claiming to post on our behalf. How would you like it if your region was invaded because someone made a post on your behalf without getting your region to vote on it? And we didn't really change anything. We were in full agreement with your terms before you invaded, during your invasion, and after your invasion. SCOP's illegal inclusion of Slavya, something that we didn't really know about, doesn't change that.

[Alyekra]

Games have morals, too. Just sometimes they aren't enforced.

Suuuuuuure,shooting people without reason or justification in CoD is SOOOOOOO moralistic

Different types of games will have different moral systems. It's wrong to Teamkill in CoD.

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

Suuuuuuure,shooting people without reason or justification in CoD is SOOOOOOO moralistic

Different types of games will have different moral systems. It's wrong to Teamkill in CoD.

dude it's a fucking video game that 12 year olds play

[Whiskum]

If the name of your region is invoked against the United Imperial Armed Forces, then unless you repudiate it, you can be assured of retaliation.

Slavya's listed membership of SCOP between 3rd January and 7th January formed one element of the justification outlined in the statement.

If SCOP was being misleading in how it represented itself in relation to these regions, then that is between you and them.

Any region with an association with any group which undertakes actions hostile to the UIAF can expect to be hold responsible until they denounce them.

As Slavya has now unconditionally accepted our terms and repudiated SCOP, we can proceed differently, but the original basis stands entirely.

You're basically expecting us to watch all alliance boards, to ensure that our name isn't randomly mentioned, and report to UIAF if the name is randomly mentioned? That's a very absurd requirement to have, since our members can be more productive with their time. We aren't going to do that. If you want to use that as a Casus Belli, you should make sure that our government members actually made posts, not some random nations claiming to post on our behalf. How would you like it if your region was invaded because someone made a post on your behalf without getting your region to vote on it? And we didn't really change anything. We were in full agreement with your terms before you invaded, during your invasion, and after your invasion. SCOP's illegal inclusion of Slavya, something that we didn't really know about, doesn't change that.

You do not need to watch all alliance boards to look for random mentions of your name.

You simply need to be aware of the actions of your members and allies in the context of events, such as the invasion of Slavia, connected to you.

It may be that SCOP acted misleadingly and you may feel that this has led to you being treated unfairly. However, that is quite simply not our business.

We simply identify suitable targets with material connections to those who have opposed us.

That is the policy that protects the interests of the UIAF regions.

As for our terms, they involved apologising for SCOP's actions, thereby facing up to your responsibilities for what was done in your name.

[Alyekra]

Different types of games will have different moral systems. It's wrong to Teamkill in CoD.

dude it's a fucking video game that 12 year olds play

IDK much about CoD honestly.

But any game that really allows you to make choices will have right and wrong choices.

[Venico]

Who defines right and wrong though? Can any choice be objectively called wrong? Without a set of rules or a specified goal there is no right or wrong choice. If you have a specified goal (General Patton taking North Africa for example) there are objectively right and wrong choices because you have a goal to measure your success. When there are sets of rules there are objectively right and wrong choices. Did you break a rule that you fall under the jurisdiction of? If yes then you have made the wrong choice.

Since NationStates as a game generally lacks a goal outside of having fun and raiding is within the boundaries of the rules, it cannot be called a wrong choice. Of course you can say in your opinion it's wrong but what makes your opinion better than mine?

[The Grim Reaper]

The UIAF and Anzia were both signatories of the Green-Black Concordat. As both parties signed an official diplomatic agreement, they were therefore allied. Apparently you do not understand what the purpose of such diplomatic agreements really are.

The only people involved on either side of this treaty, or R/D, who have the right to be proud is Slavya.

Thank you for ignoring the abstract, meaningless bulltripe of 'regional sovereignty in gameplay' to get back to actually doing something productive.

Everybody else can go circlejerk over who's more moral again.

[Venico]

Why does Slavya have a right to be proud? They got Goomba stomped into next week and then caved in to their new overlords demands. I call them sheep.

[The Grim Reaper]

Why does Slavya have a right to be proud? They got Goomba stomped into next week and then caved in to their new overlords demands. I call them sheep.

That's a little bit like arguing that Mothers Against Drunk Driving are sheep for not standing up for the rights of the Ukranian minorities in the Crimea.

They should be proud that they have a good head on their shoulders and know where they want to put their effort in.

[Venico]

I don't understand that analogy mate. They got smashed and surrendered. Are they smart for not putting up a fight? Or gutless? They submitted to their attacker's will and demands. That's surrendering.

[Port blood]

dude it's a fucking video game that 12 year olds play

IDK much about CoD honestly.

But any game that really allows you to make choices will have right and wrong choices.

Wrong.

nintendogs
Either pet a dog,or take it out for a walk

[RiderSyl]

What will help us better understand the debate over morality in NationStates? I know! Call of Duty and Nintendogs!

Oh you guys.

[Faschist Deutsch Reich]

What will help us better understand the debate over morality in NationStates? I know! Call of Duty and Nintendogs!

Oh you guys.

That's pretty much the same thing I was wondering... what has the world honestly come to?

[Port blood]

What will help us better understand the debate over morality in NationStates? I know! Call of Duty and Nintendogs!

Oh you guys.

That's pretty much the same thing I was wondering... what has the world honestly come to?

Well,we came to talking about nintendogs and CoD

[Delmonte]

I firmly support the idea that a system should be implemented so that RPing regions can avoid gamely and hostile takeovers.

So do I. Which is why I implemented one. Renounce all ties to gameplay permanently. Don't engage in defending. Then say "We want to be in the Green Black Concordat." And you're done. You've already arguably done the first one and can, through inaction, achieve the second. And if you want, I can make the third one easier. I can just ask you if you want the protection of the Concordat as a role playing region and you can just nod. Or say nothing. Then you can write in peace and not even go into the Gameplay forum again. Wouldn't that be nice? To have that peace of mind? Not to mention being able to sleep through updates until the end of time.

Everyone wins. You guys can go write in peace, the R/I people you were previously at war at have one less enemy to worry about and eliminate a defender recruiting ground.

So, to summarize, if writing truly is your first priority and you GENUINELY want role players exempted from gameplay so that they can write, you'll join the Concordat. If you don't, your complaints lose their credibility.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

He's in a region called "The Darwin Allied Republics". I expect nothing less.

What is the point that you are trying to make?

That I'm dumb, I don't care.

[Dremaur]

when did anzia become the hieght of conversation? I remember raiding them awhile back.