DRAFT: Condemn NAZI EUROPE

[TannerFrankLand]

You're thinking about buying a car. You read an issue of Consumer Reports. In it, there is an article that awards "Best Car in its Class" to a given make and model of car. Given you're NOT familiar with that car, what are you inclined to think about that car, based on what you've read?

Same scenario, except that instead an article entitled, "Lemon of the Year". Now what do you think about _that_ car?

Official stamps of approval or disapproval most definitely have _some_ impact on whatever is being stamped.

Maybe Good Nazis is of the opinion that "Any press is Good Press." Entirely beside the point. As the Official Voice of the WA Elite, you're not in the Public Relations biz. As far as I can guess, your function is to prevent and/or suppress abuses of the system, and to promote healthy gameplay -- without getting intranational or intraregional morality issues. (I know, it sounds contradictory; how can an immoral set of beliefs be healthy? When they keep those beliefs to themselves.)

We are not putting a stamp on a car. A better analogy is we are putting a "Not to be used by children" stamp on an M-16.

Anyone who is going to go to the region Nazi Europe (to contribute, not the people who go there to raise hell for the Nazis, ), is not going to care.

[Marcuslandia]

Ooooo! Is there going to be a formal ESRB rating for every region? Who within the game has been given that authority, and what agency awarded them that authority?

Slippery slope, sticky wicket, hallway monitor syndrome, etc. The Terms & Conditions ( http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html ) pretty clearly delineates what is or isn't acceptable in the way of gameplay. The owner/operators or their specifically appointed representatives are empowered to deal with those that are in breach of the T & C.

Think back to the almost-theocracy that the Puritans established in the Massachusetts colony. Undoubtedly, the Puritans thought they were doing "the Right Thing" -- which led to 19 people being executed for witchcraft. And it all started with, "We don't like what you're doing."

Yeah, it's monumental leap. But, really, what people do behind closed doors is _their_ business and nobody else's (unless there's somebody else in there being done unto in an illegal way).

[TannerFrankLand]

Ooooo! Is there going to be a formal ESRB rating for every region? Who within the game has been given that authority, and what agency awarded them that authority?

Slippery slope, sticky wicket, hallway monitor syndrome, etc. The Terms & Conditions ( http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html ) pretty clearly delineates what is or isn't acceptable in the way of gameplay. The owner/operators or their specifically appointed representatives are empowered to deal with those that are in breach of the T & C.

Think back to the almost-theocracy that the Puritans established in the Massachusetts colony. Undoubtedly, the Puritans thought they were doing "the Right Thing" -- which led to 19 people being executed for witchcraft. And it all started with, "We don't like what you're doing."

Yeah, it's monumental leap. But, really, what people do behind closed doors is _their_ business and nobody else's (unless there's somebody else in there being done unto in an illegal way).

No one is saying they don't have the right to play this game either, I understand the T&C says they can... This isn't about them not being able to play the game; this isn't an attempt to hurt their region, this is symbolically saying, "We STRONGLY disapprove of what you do."

And if you don't think the Nazi ideology is worth condemning then don't approve it or vote against it. I do, along with 53 other delegates, and thus we are here.

[Bears Armed]

If you don't think that living next to a nation controled by Nazis in real life would be dangerous for everyone involved

OOC: unless you're Switzerland, of course...

[Marcuslandia]

This isn't about them not being able to play the game; this isn't an attempt to hurt their region, this is symbolically saying, "We STRONGLY disapprove of what you do."

Individually, we can render our _personal_ opinions. [Heck, I'll add mine: Anyone that actually embraces Nazi ideology should seek psychiatric help.] But when a formal group with the official Stamp of Approval starts rendering opinions, you _will_ have an impact. Such as, you may not like the color your neighbor painted his house, and you may even say so. But if the Homeowners Association renders an official statement saying as much....

Look: be honest. You're not just doing this because you dislike his attitudes. You're doing it this way because you want for there to be an impact on the success or failure of his enterprise. You want for other players to NOT move to his region, and you want others that share your view to speak up as well. ["We think" carries so much more weight than "I think"] If the shoe was on the other foot, if other players were agitating to get the Security Council to condemn _your_ region because we should all dislike you for your own, Real Life religious beliefs, you be screaming about harassment, libel, and defamation of character. And if you learned that even if only ONE other potential immigrant to your region turned away because of their actions, you would think that was grounds for some kind of legal action.

Understand this very clearly: Dress it up as you will, what you are proposing is NOT an attack on the game region; it's a slam aimed at the _player_ of that nation and players that may hold similar attitudes and beliefs. And you're justifying your personal distaste for another's moral standards (or lack there of) by putting it in game terms. If the player has pointedly done nothing that violates the game's rule than this personal attack constitutes an ad hominem assault on the target's Real Life personal beliefs. You are NOT saying Good Nazis is a misbehaving player that needs to be admonished; what you're saying is, "I don't like his attitude!" --and getting NationStates to back your play.

Next you'll get a large body of Christian players wanting an official SC endorsement that all Islamic nations should be admonished, because Islam is the religion of terrorists. Or vice versa.

"The game's the thing;" we should stick to that. Leave the moralistic condemnations to the TV evangelists.

[TannerFrankLand]

Ugh. Anyone who is going to join NAZI EUROPE, is a Nazi, someone who is interested in Nazi thinking, or someone who wants to harass Nazis. None of those will care if it's condemned, all of them will expect it to be condemned. No one in that region expects it to hurt them, they are all fairly excited about it, they were talking the other day about being sad it was going to take 16 days to go to vote...

[Marcuslandia]

Ugh. Anyone who is going to join NAZI EUROPE, is a Nazi, someone who is interested in Nazi thinking, or someone who wants to harass Nazis. None of those will care if it's condemned, all of them will expect it to be condemned. No one in that region expects it to hurt them, they are all fairly excited about it, they were talking the other day about being sad it was going to take 16 days to go to vote...

If the residents won't care one way or another, than why is it important to YOU? [Please present your concern in such a way that it shows why what Nazi Europe damages gameplay. Otherwise you're abusing the function and purpose of the SC.]

[TannerFrankLand]

Ugh. Anyone who is going to join NAZI EUROPE, is a Nazi, someone who is interested in Nazi thinking, or someone who wants to harass Nazis. None of those will care if it's condemned, all of them will expect it to be condemned. No one in that region expects it to hurt them, they are all fairly excited about it, they were talking the other day about being sad it was going to take 16 days to go to vote...

If the residents won't care one way or another, than why is it important to YOU? [Please present your concern in such a way that it shows why what Nazi Europe damages gameplay. Otherwise you're abusing the function and purpose of the SC.]

Because I believe they should be condemned based on their extreme beliefs. Their region dosn't damage gameplay... But that's not the purpose of the SC to only condemn raiders... Condemnations arn't an attempt by the WA to destoy a region, I don't know where you got such an idea...

Frankly, my head hurts from trying to understand your thinking (or lack there of), I think it's clear your against it, and since this is a draft thread... we got it. Thanks.

[Marcuslandia]

If what you are condemning is NOT game-related, then it is not the business of the game to pass judgment on the world at large. You go that route, then start lining up condemnations for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization

[TannerFrankLand]

If what you are condemning is NOT game-related, then it is not the business of the game to pass judgment on the world at large. You go that route, then start lining up condemnations for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization

Again, only condemn raiders, we got it. Thanks. I feel that more than raiders like Macedon deserves to be condemned, you aparently don't. Seeing as this is a draft thread and the proposal in question is already In Queue, it's a little late to contribute to this thread. See you in about 20 days.

[Valipac]

If what you are condemning is NOT game-related, then it is not the business of the game to pass judgment on the world at large. You go that route, then start lining up condemnations for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization

Again, only condemn raiders, we got it. Thanks. I feel that more than raiders like Macedon deserves to be condemned, you aparently don't. Seeing as this is a draft thread and the proposal in question is already In Queue, it's a little late to contribute to this thread. See you in about 20 days.

Seriously. Just because it can be used to condemn the people involved in "gameplay" doesn't mean it can't be used to condemn other people. The WA isn't solely the gameplayers playground, other people frequent it as well.

[TannerFrankLand]

If what you are condemning is NOT game-related, then it is not the business of the game to pass judgment on the world at large. You go that route, then start lining up condemnations for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization

Again, only condemn raiders, we got it. Thanks. I feel that more than raiders like Macedon deserves to be condemned, you aparently don't. Seeing as this is a draft thread and the proposal in question is already In Queue, it's a little late to contribute to this thread. See you in about 20 days.

Seriously. Just because it can be used to condemn the people involved in "gameplay" doesn't mean it can't be used to condemn other people. The WA isn't solely the gameplayers playground, other people frequent it as well.

Thanks.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If what you are condemning is NOT game-related, then it is not the business of the game to pass judgment on the world at large. You go that route, then start lining up condemnations for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization

Wait a sec: you mean to tell me that when we implement a feature with no rules or standards whatsoever, proposals even you guys think are unworthy can make it through? Well... Who'd have thought it, huh?

[Cobdenia]

So, hang on, have these blokes actually done anything bad? Are they invaders? Do the RP fascistic tendencies on the forums? Do they answer all issues with the non-existant "blame it the Jews" option?

Or maybe it's something in real life? Do the real life players drop labrador puppies from flyovers into the path of oncoming Scammells? Perhaps they are in violation of the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1956? Is there internet connection funded from the profits of Somalian Piracy? I know...they' have a coal fire in a smokeless zone, right? No? Hmmm...Part their hair in the centre? I mean, that is just wrong.

Or is it just a name? If it is, then may I remind you of the wise words of confucious:

"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt"

Actually, that might have been Heathcliff the cat. It's one of the two...

[Kandarin]

I think it's tempting to look at C&Cs the wrong way. Indeed, the opinion has been brought up many times in this forum that C&Cs (and other, proposed, SC tools) are a way of giving admin/mod authority to players; that is, they allow players to use the WA to speak for and act in the stead of the game mods/rules. This is not what the Security Council actually does. The Security Council is not a place to define the game rules nor to punish those who violate them. The actual game rules are set by the admins, and while they do seek player input, players have no direct control over what is and isn't legal. Punishing actual violations of the game rules is the sole responsibility of the game moderators.

So if the Security Council doesn't speak for the authority of the proverbial Voice of Mod, what does it speak for? The answer is simple: itself. WA resolutions speak for the members and delegates of the WA, no more and no less. C&Cs do indeed deliver an Official Stamp of Approval/Disapproval, but it's the Official Stamp of "Thus Says The WA". It's the word of an organization that consists of its member nations; higher powers need not apply.

Those member nations aren't united, either. There are a lot of different, often competing, interests in the vast international organization that is the WA. They're coming from different backgrounds, and they often have very different opinions on what actions are good or bad, which have little to do with what the official game rules say is legal or illegal. The proposals that are submitted are entirely the product of these opinions. When you see a C&C, you're seeing players trying to get the WA body to make a statement/action that supports their opinion; in other words, politics. It's much like the process in the real-life UN where various nations try to politick it into giving legitimacy to their actions or illegitimacy to actions they don't like. Or, indeed, like the factious minorities that make up Parliament and Congress trying to convince a majority of the whole get their ideas passed into law. It shouldn't be taken as anything more.

In short, the WA's authority begins and ends with the WA, and of course everyone within it is going to try to use it as a vessel for their own agenda. This isn't a bad thing for the game at large, merely a framework for player actions.

[Greater Americania]

We will vote against this.

[Spredronia]

Seeing what the Nazis did in WWII, full support.

[Australian Asia]

Well... It's a serious problem... But I will vote against :> Freedom, you know.

[Marcuslandia]

Seeing what the Nazis did in WWII, full support.

Then what you are saying is that the player (that probably wasn't born until several decades after the end of WWII) is the same as those Nazis that were stomped and the few survivors sent into hiding after 1945. By the same reasoning, anyone named Cain should be chastised for what Cain did to Able.

[Australian Asia]

Seeing what the Nazis did in WWII, full support.

Then what you are saying is that the player (that probably wasn't born until several decades after the end of WWII) is the same as those Nazis that were stomped and the few survivors sent into hiding after 1945. By the same reasoning, anyone named Cain should be chastised for what Cain did to Able.

They are just the same, yet the only difference is they don't have crisis and some guy to make good speeches. As for now. And they are bit dumbiest.

[United Justice Nation]

I seem to be a bit unfamiliar with this whole process, what does it actually mean for the region if it is condemned??

[Kandarin]

I seem to be a bit unfamiliar with this whole process, what does it actually mean for the region if it is condemned??

Check out the effects of the region of Macedon for an example. Condemned (or Commended) regions get a tag prominently displayed on their region page. Clicking on the tag links to the Resolution explaining why it's there.

[United Justice Nation]

OOC:Thank You for the info.

[SilentScope4]

Condemnation of a nation based solely on its political ideology is something that I would not support. It will only lead to the Security Council turning into a lynch mob. What if people start sanctioning the Alliance of Socialist States for promoting poorly writte hakius and social justice? Plus, even the despiciable ideology of National Socialism can change. For example, the Communist Imperial Reich of Augarundus recently banned people from saying racist stuff in public, an obivous showcase of how Augarundus is supporting racial equality. We need to support reformism, not tar Nazis all in one brush.

This post also showcased us the "evil" of NAZI EUROPE:

Nothing at all. It's been such a boring day, that I made another account and started to float around other regions in search of a conversation.

Most of the books I ordered came in, so I might read those later before going to the drinking mess tonight. Right now I'm reading World War Z by Max Brooks, since I wanted a break from nonfiction, and so far it's well written and an amazing read.

About the proposal thread, I wouldn't enter there unless you really watch your words, as you don't want to give this place a bad name or enforce the neo-nazi stereotype.

Yep. Reading World War Z. Clearly, NAZI EUROPE must be stopped with a slap on the wrist. I strongly support a resolution that would prohibit people from condemning nations solely based on their ideology.

[Plankton City]

If I were a WA member, I'd vote against this.