DRAFT: Condemn NAZI EUROPE

[TannerFrankLand]

Before I start I must warn you, I'm an old player, but I've only proposed one proposal in my entire history, and it failed, epically . So, I could really use some help from the WA veterans, because I am not experienced at writing resolutions. And if this has already been proposed, I’m sorry!!. Also, I don't have the two WA endos needed to propose this, but I've founded my own region, and 3 nations have applied to the WA, so hopefully at least two will answer my call to enorse me so I may propose this, and if they don't I'd be willing to go to a feeder for a few days to propose this.

RECOGNIZING the Nazi ideology as one of hate,

ASSERTING that any region condoning and encouraging such beliefs is a danger to a large range of minorities and cultures,

FURTHER ASSERTING that it is our responsibility to discourage this kind of intolerance,

HOPING that an official condemnation from the World Assembly will discourage people from listening to or believing any messages of hate or intolerance from this region,

the World Assembly hereby condemns the region of NAZI EUROPE.

[TannerFrankLand]

Am I being a newbie and we don't draft these like we draft the others???

Lol the WA part of this game is so hard to figure out... 2 or 3 years and I still havn't got it.

[Kandarin]

Am I being a newbie and we don't draft these like we draft the others???

Lol the WA part of this game is so hard to figure out... 2 or 3 years and I still havn't got it.

The Security Council forum is a good place to draft SC resolutions, just as the General Assembly forum is for its kind of resolutions. It isn't strictly necessary, and it's entirely possible to propose and pass a resolution of any kind without setting foot on a forum, but drafting is a good way to pick out errors and identify likely opposition.

[TannerFrankLand]

Am I being a newbie and we don't draft these like we draft the others???

Lol the WA part of this game is so hard to figure out... 2 or 3 years and I still havn't got it.

The Security Council forum is a good place to draft SC resolutions, just as the General Assembly forum is for its kind of resolutions. It isn't strictly necessary, and it's entirely possible to propose and pass a resolution of any kind without setting foot on a forum, but drafting is a good way to pick out errors and identify likely opposition.

Thanks. I'm getting the picture that drafting isn't as important for SC resolutions? At any rate, I intend to at least try seeing as I'm not good at this writing resolutions thing, and my first one failed so badly...
Although I don't know how well written somthing has to be to get people to condemn Nazis...

[Kandarin]

I'm getting the picture that drafting isn't as important for SC resolutions?

Less necessary, yes, but still important and a good idea. And if you think you are a poor writer, that is all the more reason to seek help.

[Ballotonia]

Well, these are new, so Gameplayers have to figure out how they prefer things to work.

There's a distinct difference with the way WA players interact. Where WA players consider themselves to be all in one organization and it hence is natural to discuss proposals amongst one another like one would expect from a legislative chamber, the C&C resolutions lend themselves more to politics instead of policy. I'm estimating this has as consequence that the specific wording of resolutions is far less important, placing the focus more on the overall meaning and (political) consequences of the act of passing the resolutions.

So, yeah, one might debate the wording... but to me far more important is who gets a C&C and why.

In your proposal you condemn a region for its ideology. All fine and dandy, but seen through my Gameplayer's eyes that generates a bit of a shrug. Since C&C's don't actually DO anything Gameplay-wise (they just add a cute logo to a regional page, so either a condemn or commendation could be seen as positive: a region has done enough to get noticed... in a "as long as they spell your name right..." sense) I regard the importance of C&C's to be primarily focused on interregional politics. Since Nazi Europe holds to my knowledge no importance whatsoever in that realm... hence the shrug. The Nazi's serve well to get picked on by both invaders and defenders alike, no more. They're not worthy of any badge.

Ballotonia

[TannerFrankLand]

Well, these are new, so Gameplayers have to figure out how they prefer things to work.

There's a distinct difference with the way WA players interact. Where WA players consider themselves to be all in one organization and it hence is natural to discuss proposals amongst one another like one would expect from a legislative chamber, the C&C resolutions lend themselves more to politics instead of policy. I'm estimating this has as consequence that the specific wording of resolutions is far less important, placing the focus more on the overall meaning and (political) consequences of the act of passing the resolutions.

So, yeah, one might debate the wording... but to me far more important is who gets a C&C and why.

In your proposal you condemn a region for its ideology. All fine and dandy, but seen through my Gameplayer's eyes that generates a bit of a shrug. Since C&C's don't actually DO anything Gameplay-wise (they just add a cute logo to a regional page, so either a condemn or commendation could be seen as positive: a region has done enough to get noticed... in a "as long as they spell your name right..." sense) I regard the importance of C&C's to be primarily focused on interregional politics. Since Nazi Europe holds to my knowledge no importance whatsoever in that realm... hence the shrug. The Nazi's serve well to get picked on by both invaders and defenders alike, no more. They're not worthy of any badge.

Ballotonia

I guess I'm not a game player then, as far as I'm concerned nothing in this game "actually DO anything" except maybe WA Resolutions and banjecting. And while yes, NAZI EUROPE, may not mind being condemned, I don't think anyone who takes the WA serriously can say they don't deserve a good condmening.

So your intentions are to condemn raiders and people who attempt coups basically?

[Ballotonia]

So your intentions are to condemn raiders and people who attempt coups basically?

Not just any raider, and not just anyone doing a coup. Sure, we could hand these things out like candy, but that would just mean they'd essentially be worthless and meaningless.

Take for instance the defender world (back when it was more than the few folks now). A bunch of them were separated into ideological groups like capitalists versus communists, but most of the time they still ended up on the same side in Gameplay. A Nazi theme would lend itself perfectly to play the Evil/Imperial side if they'd be willing to do that, but it's not a strict requirement Gameplay-wise. If they were to start a defender army, I can see them working together with communists without a hitch. As far as Gameplay is concerned, ofcourse.

So, what did Nazi Europe *DO* to deserve any condemnation? If nothing, then their existence is irrelevant (Gameplay-wise) and they might as well just be ignored altogether.

Ofcourse, these badges are not limited to defenders/invaders. If region A does something to really piss off region B, and region B has the clout / support for it, then surely a condemnation of region A is proper. What they did doesn't have to be an invasion, but could be. But please don't let this become a 'most people (dis)agree with your ideology' badge. From my perspective that would be pointless, and that would become quite apparent when the badges would be granted to idle nations and regions who don't care one iota about it anyway.

*ponders whether it would be possible to have both badges at the same time*

Ballotonia

[Ballotonia]

Re-reading your initial post, I do see a Gameplay action mentioned which could be the basis of a condemnation: they ' spammed' another region. Not an invasion, but surely an offense. In this case an offense to the region The Conservative Coalition.

Is one spamming action enough to warrant a badge? I don't think so. Wasn't it handled by the mods anyway? Also, it's a long time ago, and I wonder whether the players who did it are even still present in Nazi Europe. So, overall, I wouldn't support this condemnation.

Ballotonia

[TannerFrankLand]

A good thought, I don't know if you can be condemned and comended at the same time, probably not, but it might be missed by the admins when coding...

I see the WA as an ideological thing. And whether they have done anything to any region, (although they do have a spam tendancy ) they are still doing things which are morally wrong and deserve the opposition of the World Assembly. Meanwhile spamming would not justify a condemning in my view, as that would be more of the mods job (idk if they handled it).

And I don't see what it really DOES to stoop invaders or coupers... I mean the same is true, they don't care in most cases, and it won't stop them from doing anything, it's practically useless and worthless when you look at it like that aswell.

[Valipac]

I definitely agree that Commend/Condemn should do more than just serve as a gameplay function to slap raiders on the wrist and give defenders a pat on the back. I agree that it should be used for that, but there are many applications for its use besides that. I would support a condemnation for Nazi Europe as outlined.

[TannerFrankLand]

I definitely agree that Commend/Condemn should do more than just serve as a gameplay function to slap raiders on the wrist and give defenders a pat on the back. I agree that it should be used for that, but there are many applications for its use besides that. I would support a condemnation for Nazi Europe as outlined.

Thanks.

I fully agree with B when he said we shouldn't condemn every region we disagree with, but there is a big difference between an ideology we disagree with, and an ideology we feel is an evil, a threat, or a crime against humanity.

[TannerFrankLand]

Proposed it two hours ago.

Thanks to: Sydia, Tsruhkwah, Burnadest, Nolza, Russipines for giving their approval so quick! :-)

[Noordeinde]

if the proposal will get on the General Assemby's voting floor we will absolutely vote FOR the condemnation. And my compliments for the outlined proposal.

[TannerFrankLand]

if the proposal will get on the General Assemby's voting floor we will absolutely vote FOR the condemnation. And my compliments for the outlined proposal.

I have like 36 hours to get 8 approves, which dosn't sound bad, but seeing as I only got like 3 or 4 in the last 18 or so, it actually dosn't look good... your support is appreciated though!!

[TannerFrankLand]

if the proposal will get on the General Assemby's voting floor we will absolutely vote FOR the condemnation. And my compliments for the outlined proposal.

I have like 36 hours to get 8 approves, which dosn't sound bad, but seeing as I only got like 3 or 4 in the last 18 or so, it actually dosn't look good... your support is appreciated though!!

Ooh, I have 50/51!! Anyone want to put me over the top?

[Ballotonia]

AH! That calls for a test I was wondering about, but hadn't yet got the chance to do...

*adds approval, sees proposal in queue*

*removes approval, sees proposal no longer in queue*

Ok, that answers that question

Ballotonia

[Marcuslandia]

Forgive me for butting in.

I realize this proposal is already close to passing, but I have some questions, relating to an anecdote.
The anecdote: Back in college I belonged to the Parkside Association of Wargamers. One year we had to pitch the Student Council for some additional funding. When we met with the SC, we were informed that our request was denied "because any group that has the word 'war' in its name _must_ be comprised of BAD people." (This was when Viet Nam was winding down.) That left a lasting impression on me, especially because as wargamers, most of our members were actually quite outspoken pacifists.

So, as for condemning a nation because of its name...Would you also condemn a nation named the National Socialists (the long form of "Nazi") of Europe? I know that swastika flags are a no-no, just because of the kneejerk reaction to seeing one. Is "Nazis" in the same category.

I can see condemning a nation for its actions. But spamming? Sort of like a traffic cop executing a speeder on the freeway. What did that _one_ do that warrants such a harsh sentence, compared to the large number of offenders that go unpunished?

As for professing unpopular policies, how does a nation's internal policies adversely affect the surrounding neighbors? Theoretically, NS allows the ability to model a nation after ANY historical nation. How would a Nazi's intolerance of Jews, for instance differ from a theocracy that will not tolerate the presence of ANY other religion within its borders? Or what about Idi Amin's treatment of his own citizens in Uganda? Or Stalin in the USSR? NS _advertises_ that players can literally toy with their own citizens if they so choose. And if that "toying" mirrors actual historical behavior of some of the most gruesome regimes of all time...that just shows how good the modeling system works.

C & Cs are some heavy-duty stuff. They should be limited to exceptional candidates, both laudable and reprehensible.

[TannerFrankLand]

Forgive me for butting in.

I realize this proposal is already close to passing, but I have some questions, relating to an anecdote.
The anecdote: Back in college I belonged to the Parkside Association of Wargamers. One year we had to pitch the Student Council for some additional funding. When we met with the SC, we were informed that our request was denied "because any group that has the word 'war' in its name _must_ be comprised of BAD people." (This was when Viet Nam was winding down.) That left a lasting impression on me, especially because as wargamers, most of our members were actually quite outspoken pacifists.

So, as for condemning a nation because of its name...Would you also condemn a nation named the National Socialists (the long form of "Nazi") of Europe? I know that swastika flags are a no-no, just because of the kneejerk reaction to seeing one. Is "Nazis" in the same category.

I can see condemning a nation for its actions. But spamming? Sort of like a traffic cop executing a speeder on the freeway. What did that _one_ do that warrants such a harsh sentence, compared to the large number of offenders that go unpunished?

As for professing unpopular policies, how does a nation's internal policies adversely affect the surrounding neighbors? Theoretically, NS allows the ability to model a nation after ANY historical nation. How would a Nazi's intolerance of Jews, for instance differ from a theocracy that will not tolerate the presence of ANY other religion within its borders? Or what about Idi Amin's treatment of his own citizens in Uganda? Or Stalin in the USSR? NS _advertises_ that players can literally toy with their own citizens if they so choose. And if that "toying" mirrors actual historical behavior of some of the most gruesome regimes of all time...that just shows how good the modeling system works.

C & Cs are some heavy-duty stuff. They should be limited to exceptional candidates, both laudable and reprehensible.

National Socialists... I'm thinking that name could be used to describe different ways of thinking than just being a Nazi. So should some region be condemned because they have nationalist socialist in their name? No. But if you watch their RMB and they are Nazis then IMO yes, they should be condemned. If you don't think that living next to a nation controled by Nazis in real life would be dangerous for everyone involved (which I do)... I think we can agree that it would be at least dangerous for the nations own citizens. As for your arguement that all intolerance is bad, it is, and genocide deserves condemnation, by passing this we arn't condemning Nazis and saying everyone else is perfect, we would have to condemn regions/nations one at a time. In other words if you think a Ugandan region supportiing the efforts of Idi Amin deserves a condemnation, there is nothing to stop you. And while NS advertises that players can do whatever they want to their citizens, the World Assembly can disapprove what they do with a condemnation...

Yes, C& Cs "are some heavy-duty stuff." And I don't think they should just be used as a slap on the wrist to raiders.

[Marcuslandia]

National Socialists... I'm thinking that name could be used to describe different ways of thinking than just being a Nazi. So should some region be condemned because they have nationalist socialist in their name? No. But if you watch their RMB and they are Nazis then IMO yes, they should be condemned. If you don't think that living next to a nation controled by Nazis in real life would be dangerous for everyone involved (which I do)... I think we can agree that it would be at least dangerous for the nations own citizens. As for your arguement that all intolerance is bad, it is, and genocide deserves condemnation, by passing this we arn't condemning Nazis and saying everyone else is perfect, we would have to condemn regions/nations one at a time. In other words if you think a Ugandan region supportiing the efforts of Idi Amin deserves a condemnation, there is nothing to stop you. And while NS advertises that players can do whatever they want to their citizens, the World Assembly can disapprove what they do with a condemnation...

Yes, C& Cs "are some heavy-duty stuff." And I don't think they should just be used as a slap on the wrist to raiders.

I suppose that at some point I should mention that choosing to run a nation as some kind of _internal_ genocidal maniac is downright sick. And I can clearly say that invaders that specialize in griefing SHOULD get rapped on the knuckles. That's because it is what a player _chooses_ to do to another (one that doesn't happen to be a masochist). That said....

Somewhere under all of the rules is an intent. What is the intent of the designers? Do they want to create a loose simulation of international politics? In particular, one that does so with tongue in cheek? JUST HOW MUCH OF REALITY _INTENTIONALLY_ MODELED INTO THE DESIGN?

What you're angling towards is a _sanitized_ model of Reality. The technicality is that with the mechanics in place, it _is_ possible to construct Adolf Hitler's Third Reich, Josef Stalin's USSR, Idi Amin's Uganda, plus a plethora of other quite despicable regimes spread across history. If a player chooses to do so within his own borders, that's sort of between him and his conscience (if he has one). It's when he subjects others of more conservative scruples that it SHOULD become an issue.

I am reminded of a sign on the entrance to a strip club: "If nudity offends you, do not enter!" If someone with less-than-acceptable social mores establishes a region for like-minded players, he can always say, "Don't say we didn't warn you!"

Having disgusting moral values shouldn't become an issue as long as players holding such attitudes keep them to themselves. Their nations, their region, their social standards. Until they decide to take their disgusting attitudes and smear them all over somebody else's region, there shouldn't be anything actionable.

What people do in their own bedrooms is _their_ concern -- unless they open the curtains for all the world to see. And if their questionable moral standards come into public scrutiny because someone that objects to them to begin with goes and takes photos through a crack in the curtains, then HE is a Peeping Tom, and perhaps it is he that needs to get his knuckles rapped.

Yeah, I find the historical Nazi dogma reprehensible. But I also find censorship and intruding on people's privacy similarly objectionable.

[TannerFrankLand]

No one is censoring anyone... this merely says we disapprove of their region. This proposal does not destroy their region, that's not what the WA does.

[Marcuslandia]

No one is censoring anyone... this merely says we disapprove of their region. This proposal does not destroy their region, that's not what the WA does.

But what it does do is to attach a negative stigma to the specified region. Like the Amish practice of "shunning". It most definitely causes an negative impact on the health and growth of the region. It sends a message to any other possible immigrants to that region, "If you move there we will think that YOU too are a disgusting, sick, twisted person!" It's applying social pressure in order to modify behavior. That isn't a "censoring," but rather a "censuring" and it impacts on the freedom of others that hold differing social standards.

[Civylia]

I do not agree. We should not issue a condemnation to a region with a certain ideology as long as they are keeping it to themselves. NationStates encourages players to do whatever they like with their nations. They haven't DONE anything; so why should they be condemned?

You keep saying that all the condemnation does is say that the WA disapproves. We should not, however, just condemn any nation who's ideology we disagree with. The region is not special, and has not done anything other than run the nation the way they want to. Until they do, I will not support the condemnation of Nazi Europe.

[TannerFrankLand]

No one is censoring anyone... this merely says we disapprove of their region. This proposal does not destroy their region, that's not what the WA does.

But what it does do is to attach a negative stigma to the specified region. Like the Amish practice of "shunning". It most definitely causes an negative impact on the health and growth of the region. It sends a message to any other possible immigrants to that region, "If you move there we will think that YOU too are a disgusting, sick, twisted person!" It's applying social pressure in order to modify behavior. That isn't a "censoring," but rather a "censuring" and it impacts on the freedom of others that hold differing social standards.

Anyone going to a Nazi region dosn't give a damn what we think, hard to grasp, but true.
Evidence to that fact: Good Nazis the Delegate of Nazi Europe approved the proposal to get their name out, in his oppinion it will help their region. I'd consede the fact that they will get a little boost in numbers if this would go to vote, but, I don't think there would be a long term impact either way.
I don't see condemning a region as trying to hurt or damage a region.

[Marcuslandia]

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.)