I admit that I gave up reading this on page 48, so assuming nothing new has occurred since then:
The arguments for this particular “liberation” of Haven seem to come in two flavors: “because it's fun” and “The South Pacific.” Discussion so far seems to have revolved around the merits of the second argument—and this is understandable, considering that most voters would consider Haven's possible participation in the raiding game to be the only legitimate issue that warrants cracking them open for retribution. I would like to focus most of my editorial comments on that section (not that it matters, as the proposal has already been submitted, but whatever):
The proposal's one and only mention of The South Pacific uses the coup of 2013 as a counter to any possible argument of leaving "peaceful regions" to their own devices. Interestingly, this clause provides no explicit proof of the assertion it makes. Even more interestingly, the line doesn't even explicitly connect Haven to those same “peaceful regions” that were “heavily involved” in the coup. Instead, it implies that Haven is like “peaceful regions” that were involved in the coup, but does not actually say, “Haven was involved in this event.” Editorially, I suggest that Haven is more solidly connected to nefarious doings at The South Pacific, with evidence to back it up, in order to give this proposal a snowball's chance in Hell of passing.
This supposes, of course, that the coup in The South Pacific is the primary reason for this proposal in the first place. We know from Mall's own statements that it is not. From the very beginning, Mall has openly explained that the incident in The South Pacific was incidental, and more than anything else a useful excuse, to use the SC to open a region to raiding. To give Mall credit, he has been open about this from the start, and the real purpose of this proposal is obvious in its own language: “Confident that a number of raiding organizations could utilize the region for far more interesting things than the current residents are choosing to,” etc. The fact that I can only give this player credit for being the boldest home-wrecker I have so far encountered in NationStates, however, is itself evidence of the disgusting nature of this proposal, and the frightening implications suggested by its unhindered submission.
To me, this proposal is not important because it intends to weaponize the “liberation” mechanic; as others have already mentioned, liberation has already been used in this way before. This proposal is important (and terrifying) because of the reasoning behind this weaponization. While I would argue against liberation for any reason other than ongoing occupation (and only at the behest of natives of the region in question), I find it difficult to believe that there is an argument for liberation more atrocious than simply, “Because I want to raid.” If this passes—and I am almost certain that it will not, but the fact that it has any support at all worries me, to be honest—NationStates will have a new precedent: Not only will raiders have official sanction to wreck any password-protected region they can scrounge up the votes for, but they will also have official confirmation in the language of this proposal that their vandalism is, for all intents and purposes, the “right” way to play NationStates.
As a player currently residing in a relatively-small, RP-dependent region, I resent the implication that maintaining our tight-knit community of trusted friends is “wrong.” I resent that my RP interests—or any interests that do not include R/D activity—are somehow objectively less interesting, less enjoyable, less worthy of respect, and less valuable to the NationStates community than actions purposely designed to ruin others’ gaming experiences. And while this is less important to me, I also resent that the player putting forward this insulting and dangerous piece of legislation is someone trusted by “those above” to keep the peace, and that the majority of “those above” who have responded to the resulting furor have, through their inaction, allowed this proposal to enter into queue unhindered, while occasionally attempting (and thankfully failing) to stifle the outrage that it has understandably brought about.
I am happy to see that the majority of this community has come together to condemn this action. But I am equally frustrated to see that matters were allowed to come this far. This proposal, apparently designed to blatantly denigrate and actively threaten entire sections of this community via legislation, is an absolute disgrace.
