[DRAFT] REPEAL CONDEMN YAUNA

[Asorestan]

The Security Council,

OBSERVING that the nation of Yauna, whether existing or deceased, has been the actual founder of Greece for five years.

RECOGNIZING that the resident founder, by logic and convention, is inherently a native of the region.

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region.

RECALLING the following undisputed details about Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece:

1. The resolution had sought action against what was claimed to be invaders, and not specifically the founder.

2. The resolution had reasonably concluded that Yauna was unlikely allied with an invading force.

NOTING the following observations about Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna:

1. The resolution blatantly declared Yauna was an invader without explaining why its proponents deviated from the conclusion in Security Council Resolution #29, and this tends to arouse the suspicion that the accusation was a clumsy propaganda tool to justify the case to refound.

2. The resolution mentioned the usual expulsion of self-appointed liberation forces to support the vilification of Yauna, and neglected another point of view—more consistent with Security Council Resolution #29—that these nations were expelled not for their political affiliations but for their real threat to the founder's ownership of the region.

DISPUTING that Yauna engages in the region griefing on the following grounds:

1. The founder has the legal authority and conventional right to protect the region from any form of total usurpation; therefore, the nation does not grief by banishing others.

2. The individuals rejected were not the only claimants to the region; there are long-time residents still existing today.

DENOUNCING the dubious censure of Yauna for defamatory and derogatory language, when the truth of the allegation has never been verified.

REJECTING that Yauna deprives fundamental rights by ejecting nations, on the basis that regional membership is generally a privilege and not a right.

CONCERNED by the following consequences of Security Council Resolution #110:

1. The resolution could be cited as a precedent for supporting the audacious seizure of a controversially refounded region by a vindictive party, and to condemn its founder should the nation naturally thwart attempts to invade or recreate that region.

2. The controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are viewed by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as persistent harassment.

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the current, local conflict.

SEEKING to clear the name of the founder of Greece, and encourage the nation's vital participation in a proposed dialogue to peacefully resolve crucial disputes.

HOPING to promote understanding, cooperation, and respect among the regular inhabitants and claimants of Greece.

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

[Bears Armed]

Looks at authorial nation.
Notes various details.
Thinks that possibly it belongs to somebody in the same group of players as Yauna's owner.

[Timocreon]

The Security Council of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING that the nation of Yauna, whether existing or deceased, has been the actual founder of Greece for five years.

RECOGNIZING that any resident founder, by logic and convention, is inherently a native of the region it founded.

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region.

RECALLING the following undisputed items in Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece:

1. The resolution sought action against an invasion, and not specifically the founder.

2. The resolution admitted the founder had performed its duties by repelling invasions.

3. The resolution has reasonably concluded that Yauna is unlikely allied with an invading force.

MAKING the following observations about Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna:

1. The resolution blatantly declared Yauna was an invader without properly addressing why its proponents had deviated from the conclusion in Security Council Resolution #29; and consequently, this accusation has aroused suspicions of being clumsy propaganda to justify the case to refound.

2. The resolution mentioned the frequent expulsion of liberation forces to discredit Yauna, and had neglected the argument—consistent with Security Council Resolution #29—that these nations were expelled not for their political affiliation but for their threat to the founder's ownership of the region.

3. Yauna had only operated within Greece; therefore, the resolution failed to demonstrate the nation had the intent or capability to threaten the international community as a whole.

DISPUTING that Yauna engages in region griefing on the following grounds:

1. Any founder has the legal authority and conventional right to protect its region from any form of total usurpation; thus, one does not "grief" by ejecting nations.

2. Most of the nations banished were newcomers, foreigners, or puppets.

3. The individuals rejected have not been the only claimants of the region; there are long-time residents existing today.

DENOUNCING the dubious censure of Yauna for defamatory and derogatory language, when the truth of the allegation has never been verified.

REJECTING that Yauna deprives fundamental rights by ejecting nations, on the basis that regional membership is generally a privilege and not a right.

DENYING Yauna's direct involvement in any effort to turn Greece into a trophy region, because the nation has allowed regional governments to function and it has never displayed partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry.

CONCERNED that the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as persistent harassment.

FURTHER CONCERNED that Security Council Resolution #110 could be cited as a precedent for supporting the seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party, and to condemn its founder should the nation naturally thwart attempts to invade or recreate that region.

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the current, local conflict.

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to peacefully resolve severe disputes.

HOPING that support for a succcessful repeal will become one of many gestures of good will to foster respect and cooperation among the regular claimants of Greece, and serve as an inspiration for other nations in the World to prefer diplomacy over defamation.

HEREBY repeals Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

Authored with the assistance of concerned nations in Greece.

[Timocreon]

I submitted a proposed revision of the original draft, with improved grammar and important additions.

The proposal does not appear vengeful like Security Council Resolution #29 and Security Council Resolution #110. It doesn't attack people, it confronts allegations.

The proposal is reconciliatory. Its more neutral stance intends to heal and not to agitate.

The proposal attempts to be consistent with a reference when citing it. It tries to avoid contradictions or outright manipulations, unlike Security Council Resolution #110.

The Security Council is a political body with judicial powers, and not a court authority with judicial powers. Some resolutions have relied more on popular issues than on substantial details for their success.

Hopefully, the matter will be decided purely on the merits of the case.

I believe we should be using the Security Council to build bridges instead of tearing down. The nations of Greece desire peace. There can be no peace when people are trying to always bring others down. It's time to heal, and put away divisive condemnations.

Greece asks the World to please support the region in its quest for peace and understanding among all its members. This repeal will not benefit only one group in Greece, it will benefit all who wish to see a better future for the region.

[Applebania]

Fuck no. I'm not one to refer to raiders as bullies, but the torment Yauna has put Greece through for the past few years is fucking despicable.

[Timocreon]

Fuck no. I'm not one to refer to raiders as bullies, but the torment Yauna has put Greece through for the past few years is fucking despicable.

Why do you behave like Yauna has personally harmed you? Most of the nations in Greece do not feel that the founder has been oppressive. The region of Greece should know more about what is best for them than an outsider like you.

This proposal was not meant to oppose troublemakers. It was meant to help the claimants of Greece pursue friendly means to solve their disputes.

[Elke and Elba]

Fuck no. I'm not one to refer to raiders as bullies, but the torment Yauna has put Greece through for the past few years is fucking despicable.

Why do you behave like Yauna has personally harmed you? Most of the nations in Greece do not feel that the founder has been oppressive. The region of Greece should know more about what is best for them than an outsider like you.

This proposal was not meant to oppose troublemakers. It was meant to help the claimants of Greece pursue friendly means to solve their disputes.

"3 hours ago: Timocreon was founded in The West Pacific."

You, native? What silly nonsense.

When the rest of Greece went about backing Condemn Yauna and Liberate Greece - at least use an old nation to do your silly acts in the face of incriminating evidence.

[Greece Is Free Again]

The Security Council of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING that the nation of Yauna, whether existing or deceased, has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,

RECOGNIZING that any resident founder, by logic and convention, is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region,

RECALLING the following undisputed facts from Liberate Greece, Security Council Resolution #29:
1. The resolution sought action against an invasion, and not specifically the founder,
2. The resolution admitted the founder had performed its duties by repelling invasions,
3. The resolution has reasonably concluded that Yauna is unlikely allied with an invading force,

MAKING the following observations about Condemn Yauna, Security Council Resolution #110:
1. The resolution blatantly declared Yauna was an invader without properly addressing why its proponents had deviated from the conclusion in Security Council Resolution #29; and consequently, this assertion has aroused suspicions of being clumsy propaganda to justify the case to refound,
2. The resolution mentioned the frequent expulsion of liberation forces to discredit Yauna, and had neglected the argument—consistent with Security Council Resolution #29—that these nations were expelled not for their political affiliation but solely for their threat to the founder's ownership of the region,
3. Yauna had only operated within Greece; therefore, the resolution failed to demonstrate the nation had the intent or capability to adversely affect the wider international community,

DISPUTING that Yauna engages in region griefing on the following grounds:
1. Any founder has the legal authority and conventional right to protect its region from all forms of total usurpation; thus, no region griefing actually occurs when one ejects in self-defense,
2. Most of the nations banished have been intruders—newcomers, foreigners, and puppets,
3. The members rejected have not been the only residents of the region,

DENOUNCING the dubious censure of Yauna for defamatory and derogatory language, when the truth of the accusation has never been verified,

REJECTING that Yauna deprives fundamental rights, on the basis that regional membership is generally a privilege and not a right,

DENYING Yauna's culpability in general allegations of turning Greece into a trophy region, because the nation has allowed regional governments to function and it has never declared partisan preference in official regional publication,

ADDING that Yauna has displayed sportsmanship by generously tolerating some advocates of Security Council Resolution #110 to visit Greece, in spite of their hostility,

CONCERNED that Security Council Resolution #110 could be cited as a precedent for supporting the seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party, and to condemn its founder should the nation naturally thwart attempts to invade or recreate that region,

AWARE that the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as persistent harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the current, local conflict,

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to peacefully resolve severe disputes,

HOPING that support for a successful repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue diplomacy over defamation,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna, in aid of ending conflict and promoting friendship in Greece.

Authored with the assistance of concerned nations in Greece.

[District XIV]

Does anyone else think that referring to "the World Factbook Entry" is an R4 violation?

[Ramaeus]

Does anyone else think that referring to "the World Factbook Entry" is an R4 violation?

It's a legal term.

[District XIV]

Does anyone else think that referring to "the World Factbook Entry" is an R4 violation?

It's a legal term.

Got it.

[Greece Is Free Again]

Does anyone else think that referring to "the World Factbook Entry" is an R4 violation?

Thanks. If the only error is a technical term, this proposal must be doing something right.

[District XIV]

Does anyone else think that referring to "the World Factbook Entry" is an R4 violation?

Thanks. If the only error is a technical term, this proposal must be doing something right.

You can't just assume that because no one has pointed out any other errors that there aren't any.

[Greece Is Free Again]

You can't just assume that because no one has pointed out any other errors that there aren't any.

That may be true, but I think the arguments of the proposal are strong, considering that the first two criticisms against them have been on minor issues, one against a nation posting and one on a purely technical matter.

[The North Polish Union]

nah. Yauna deserves his condemnation.

[Greece Is Free Again]

nah. Yauna deserves his condemnation.

SCR #29 seems to contradict this. And so many other details in this proposal.

This repeal is not only about Yauna. It is about including people intimately involved in Greece in a peace process. We believe friendship with Yauna can assist with efforts that will benefit all the regular claimants.

[Greece Is Free Again]

"3 hours ago: Timocreon was founded in The West Pacific."

You, native? What silly nonsense.

When the rest of Greece went about backing Condemn Yauna and Liberate Greece - at least use an old nation to do your silly acts in the face of incriminating evidence.

The nations of Greece respect the region of Yggdrasil. It is unfortunate that you chose to attack the messenger instead of the message to express your disapproval for the proposal.

Despite this controversy, we wish your region prosperity and success.

[Spartan Laconia]

Fuck no. I'm not one to refer to raiders as bullies, but the torment Yauna has put Greece through for the past few years is fucking despicable.

Why do you behave like Yauna has personally harmed you? Most of the nations in Greece do not feel that the founder has been oppressive. The region of Greece should know more about what is best for them than an outsider like you.

This proposal was not meant to oppose troublemakers. It was meant to help the claimants of Greece pursue friendly means to solve their disputes.

If you think the region of Greece itself knows better than any outside nation, why did you come to WA in the first place? It's literally a body of outsiders whose purpose it to evaluate things from an outside perspective.

"3 hours ago: Timocreon was founded in The West Pacific."

You, native? What silly nonsense.

When the rest of Greece went about backing Condemn Yauna and Liberate Greece - at least use an old nation to do your silly acts in the face of incriminating evidence.

The nations of Greece respect the region of Yggdrasil. It is unfortunate that you chose to attack the messenger instead of the message to express your disapproval for the proposal.

Despite this controversy, we wish your region prosperity and success.

It is unfortunate that you apparently didn't read the message he was responding to (the same one I responded to displayed directly above), in which the messenger specifically told someone they don't have a right to disagree because they as an outsider don't know better.

[Spartan Laconia]

Also, I hope you don't mind but I'm going to deconstruct this and address it piece by piece, because it's so full of error that I don't know where to begin otherwise. I'll openly admit I'm a biased perspective (my main account is Sparta Dominion, an old native of founderless Greece), so I'll stick to facts and let you (and outside viewers/commenters) dispute them if you disagree.

RECOGNIZING that any resident founder, by logic and convention, is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region

The Greek natives of founderless Greece were in the process of refounding the region for its own security, and Yauna refounded it out from underneath them in the middle of the process. While the moderators didn't get involved because it is technically legal, most nations have recognized this as a dirty move not in the spirit of the game, and consider it to be stealing the region. Hence determining Yauna to be an invader with two WA resolutions, SCR #29 to liberate the region of Greece and #110 to specifically condemn Yauna.

RECALLING the following undisputed facts from Liberate Greece, Security Council Resolution #29:
1. The resolution sought action against an invasion, and not specifically the founder,
2. The resolution admitted the founder had performed its duties by repelling invasions,
3. The resolution has reasonably concluded that Yauna is unlikely allied with an invading force,

1. Resolution #110 was made specifically to seek action against Yauna, whether or not #29 did is irrelevant.
2. The exact verbiage in #29 was "Taking into consideration that, although Yauna performed its duties to the region's security by eventually repelling invasions, it was a notably inactive nation and even called a “joke” of a founder, by one native". Those aren't exactly words of praise for a job well done. It's a comment that although Yauna has performed security duties, he did so infrequently and was usually slow to respond. You've taken it out of context to mean exactly the opposite.
3. You're suggesting we should repeal a newer resolution built on more recent information, because of something said in an older resolution with information made obsolete by said newer information. Forgive me for declaring that to be an illogical course of action, but it is.

MAKING the following observations about Condemn Yauna, Security Council Resolution #110:
1. The resolution blatantly declared Yauna was an invader without properly addressing why its proponents had deviated from the conclusion in Security Council Resolution #29; and consequently, this assertion has aroused suspicions of being clumsy propaganda to justify the case to refound,
2. The resolution mentioned the frequent expulsion of liberation forces to discredit Yauna, and had neglected the argument—consistent with Security Council Resolution #29—that these nations were expelled not for their political affiliation but solely for their threat to the founder's ownership of the region,
3. Yauna had only operated within Greece; therefore, the resolution failed to demonstrate the nation had the intent or capability to adversely affect the wider international community,

1. See what I already said above
2. See what I already said above
3. Is irrelevant to any of the reasons mentioned in SCR #110

DISPUTING that Yauna engages in region griefing on the following grounds:
1. Any founder has the legal authority and conventional right to protect its region from all forms of total usurpation; thus, no region griefing actually occurs when one ejects in self-defense,
2. Most of the nations banished have been intruders—newcomers, foreigners, and puppets,
3. The members rejected have not been the only residents of the region,

As I have clarified above, Yauna stole the region from its natives, and has repeatedly ejected and banned said natives from the region, including but not limited to Tetrapolis, Iasonia, Nikolaos the Great, and my own main account (Sparta Dominion). Most nations consider this to be griefing, and the fact that he has kept it up for years makes it one of the most well known cases of regional griefing in NS.

DENYING Yauna's culpability in general allegations of turning Greece into a trophy region, because the nation has allowed regional governments to function and it has never declared partisan preference in official regional publication,

He allows exactly one regional government to function, that led by members of the Persian Empire, which assists them in making the region into a trophy and doing exactly the opposite of what you say. Whenever a Greek nation is elected as delegate to lead the regional government, Yauna ejects and bans all Greek WA-member nations from the region (even though they pose no threat to him as founder so long as he remains active, and he could chose to simply revoke the delegate's executive powers to stay in control himself).

And said Persian regional government that Yauna blatantly supports has made its preferences clear in multiple official regional publications. It makes the Greece regional flag into a Persian icon, states that "Everything held dear by the West... originally formed in the Persian Empire by the ancient Aryans" in the World Factbook Entry (still present), and for a good amount of time actually included in the entry the phrase "Glory to Iran!". It can also be observed in old archives here and here respectively that the very first entry in 2009 after the Persians took the region was a message about how "All of Greece has been finally conquered by the great Persian Empire", and that for a time The Persian Empire region listed Greece as one of its conquests.

In light of the fact that the only regional government Yauna has supported in all this time is the same one that did all of these things, one can only be led to the conclusion that Yauna has played a significant role in making Greece a trophy region.

ADDING that Yauna has displayed sportsmanship by generously tolerating some advocates of Security Council Resolution #110 to visit Greece, in spite of their hostility,

Yauna hasn't generously tolerated advocates. Their presence is not because Yauna allows them, but because of Yauna's aforementioned infrequent activity. Whenever he returns, it is to ban those that oppose himself and the Persian Empire. And then he disappears again afterward, which allows their return.

CONCERNED that Security Council Resolution #110 could be cited as a precedent for supporting the seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party, and to condemn its founder should the nation naturally thwart attempts to invade or recreate that region,

This statement is highly hypocritical, since in this case Yauna himself is considered to be the vindictive party who seized the region of Greece.

AWARE that the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as persistent harassment,

My main account, a native of Greece since before Yauna's nation was even founded, gets banned from Greece by Yauna whenever he decides to be active. I consider this to be persistent harassment.

Also, you do realize that in appealing to the WA for support, you're asking for a repeal from that same body of outside nations that sees the Greek resistance to Yauna and the Persians as justified, correct?

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to peacefully resolve severe disputes,

Yauna doesn't even exist right now. You'll have to bring Yauna to participate by first logging in, and then getting him to stay active since he usually doesn't and CTE's again after logging in for only one or two sessions. Until that happens, it's literally impossible to involve him any dialogues of peace whatsoever.

HOPING that support for a successful repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue diplomacy over defamation,

The three parties primarily involved in the conflict of Greece are the Persian Empire, the native Greeks, and the ERE. If Yauna is neutral as you claim, how does uncondemning him serve as goodwill towards any of those three? It could serve as a sign of goodwill if he had ties to the Persians, which we highly, highly suspect he does, but thus far the Persian Empire has denied any such affiliation, in which case repealing his condemnation should mean nothing to them.


If you really want a repeal of Yauna's condemnation brought to a vote at the World Assembly, go ahead, there's nothing wrong with that. But have the basic decency to not fill the resolution will half-truths or flat-out lies about the situation.

[Timocreon]

Hello, everybody! This nation has been appointed as a representative of Greece. The delegate and other natives can attest to this representation.

RECOGNIZING that any resident founder, by logic and convention, is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region

No half-truths or flat-out lies here. These are standards of common knowledge accepted by the game community.

If founders could be arbitrarily declared as non-natives or invaders of their own regions, any invader would have a valid reason to evict them from their respective properties. This is against the intention of the game when it gave founders legitimate control over their regions.

The Greek natives of founderless Greece were in the process of refounding the region for its own security, and Yauna refounded it out from underneath them in the middle of the process. While the moderators didn't get involved because it is technically legal, most nations have recognized this as a dirty move not in the spirit of the game, and consider it to be stealing the region.

Here is the half-truth:

Hence determining Yauna to be an invader with two WA resolutions, SCR #29 to liberate the region of Greece and #110 to specifically condemn Yauna.

Only one of them, SCR # 110 was involved in identifying Yauna as an invader.

And if his crime to you was that he refounded a region before someone else did (and these are incidents which happen often in the game without condemnations) why did the authors of the resolution go overboard and maligned him for using defamatory language? It was totally unnecessary for them to have added that! We both know he has hardly posted anything. Where is the proof? This accusation was made only in the resolution and never on Greece's RMB.

Outright, malicious lying has no place in respectable World Assembly documents.

RECALLING the following undisputed facts from Liberate Greece, Security Council Resolution #29:
1. The resolution sought action against an invasion, and not specifically the founder,
2. The resolution admitted the founder had performed its duties by repelling invasions,
3. The resolution has reasonably concluded that Yauna is unlikely allied with an invading force,

1. Resolution #110 was made specifically to seek action against Yauna, whether or not #29 did is irrelevant.

We dispute this. It appears self-serving and manipulative for their proponents to cite SCR #29 to justify SCR #110, while asserting that SCR #29 is irrelevant to this issue.

2. The exact verbiage in #29 was "Taking into consideration that, although Yauna performed its duties to the region's security by eventually repelling invasions, it was a notably inactive nation and even called a “joke” of a founder, by one native". Those aren't exactly words of praise for a job well done. It's a comment that although Yauna has performed security duties, he did so infrequently and was usually slow to respond. You've taken it out of context to mean exactly the opposite.

We didn't take anything out of context. The proposal stated:

RECALLING the following undisputed facts from Liberate Greece, Security Council Resolution #29:
2. The resolution admitted the founder had performed its duties by repelling invasions,

It was you who interpreted what it meant. It's as if you're trying to spin another half-truth.

Your interpretation seems to bolster our argument: the conclusion that he was unlikely allied with an invader was made in spite of reasons to dislike him.

3. You're suggesting we should repeal a newer resolution built on more recent information, because of something said in an older resolution with information made obsolete by said newer information. Forgive me for declaring that to be an illogical course of action, but it is.

A resolution to condemn doesn't officially update a resolution to liberate.

The proposal doesn't have to be consistent with SCR #110 because it's meant to repeal it. If we had accepted all the items in SCR #110, then we would have no reason to seek its revocation.

And this new information you speak of is just so and not indisputable fact. SCR # 29 explained how it logically arrived at its conclusion. SCR #110 didn't; it just made blatant assertions.

A great example of the inconsistency of SCR #110 was when it claimed SCR #29 had sought action against a non-native nation named Yauna. SCR #29 never exactly affirmed that idea. Does SCR #110 actually rewrite the words in SCR #29? Is this one of your examples of new information making older information obsolete? It looks more like obvious lying.

You've falsely accused the proponents of this proposal of lying while ignoring the authors of SCR #110 for having lied.

This proposal is trying to demonstrate the information in SCR #110 is false and misleading. Therefore, it will naturally and soundly dispute specific contents in that resolution.

MAKING the following observations about Condemn Yauna, Security Council Resolution #110:
1. The resolution blatantly declared Yauna was an invader without properly addressing why its proponents had deviated from the conclusion in Security Council Resolution #29; and consequently, this assertion has aroused suspicions of being clumsy propaganda to justify the case to refound,
2. The resolution mentioned the frequent expulsion of liberation forces to discredit Yauna, and had neglected the argument—consistent with Security Council Resolution #29—that these nations were expelled not for their political affiliation but solely for their threat to the founder's ownership of the region,
3. Yauna had only operated within Greece; therefore, the resolution failed to demonstrate the nation had the intent or capability to adversely affect the wider international community,

1. See what I already said above
2. See what I already said above
3. Is irrelevant to any of the reasons mentioned in SCR #110

You're hiding behind lazy excuses. You haven't explained why those points were irrelevant. You're avoiding the issues on a dubious technicality.

If you really believed that

Resolution #110 was made specifically to seek action against Yauna, whether or not #29 did is irrelevant

then why did you contradict yourself when you said,

Hence determining Yauna to be an invader with two WA resolutions, SCR #29 to liberate the region of Greece and #110 to specifically condemn Yauna."

?

You have a habit being contradictory, like SCR #110 is contradictory to SCR #29.

Item number 3 is particularly interesting. Security Council Resolutions are suppose to act on adverse actions by nations or regions on the international community as a whole. If Yauna had a habit of controversial activities directly influencing multiple nations and regions, then his actions would have been cause for international concern. But he only has ejected nations in his own region. He hasn't operated outside Greece, so this is one reason why SCR #110 should be repealed.

DISPUTING that Yauna engages in region griefing on the following grounds:
1. Any founder has the legal authority and conventional right to protect its region from all forms of total usurpation; thus, no region griefing actually occurs when one ejects in self-defense,
2. Most of the nations banished have been intruders—newcomers, foreigners, and puppets,
3. The members rejected have not been the only residents of the region,

As I have clarified above, Yauna stole the region from its natives, and has repeatedly ejected and banned said natives from the region, including but not limited to Tetrapolis, Iasonia, Nikolaos the Great, and my own main account (Sparta Dominion). Most nations consider this to be griefing, and the fact that he has kept it up for years makes it one of the most well known cases of regional griefing in NS.

Let us try to understand this: Yauna refounded your former region, that is why there is SCR #29. He ejected you, that is why there is SCR #110.

Therefore, it was tolerable that he took your region before SCR #29 because you didn't condemn him at that time. You only had a problem when he ejected you because, afterwards, he was condemned in SCR #110.

So, would you say that he stole the region when he refounded it, or was it stolen the moment he ejected you and your friends? Did the alleged theft of Greece begin when it was recreated, or when the members of the former region were ejected by the founder?

You said earlier that when Yauna refounded Greece "most nations have recognized this as a dirty move not in the spirit of the game, and consider it to be stealing the region." So, why didn't you condemn him for "stealing" your region in 2009 when he recreated it? He wasn't a member of the original Greece, and that fact was true in SCR #110 and didn't change in SCR #29.

Maybe a new item could be added to the proposal:

"CONFUSED that in Security Council Resolution #29, Yauna was not treated as a thief despite not being a member of the original Greece; but in Security Council Resolution #110, the nation was condemned for stealing the region because it was not a member of the original Greece,"

If you had recognized his legitimate regional ownership in SCR #29, and rejected it in SCR #110, then you're asserting the legitimacy of a founder of a refounded region depends on the whimsical favor of its former members, and not on the founder's inherent right as recognized by the game. This is against what the game has intended when it gave founders their supreme control over their regions.

Once an old region expires, the native status of its residents doesn't automatically transfer with them when they move to the new region refounded. If native status was transferable, then any nation could claim native status in multiple regions it has been active in over long periods—a ridiculous situation!

The game rules recognize the two regions aren't the same in this regard. This particular issue has been affirmed by unbiased Moderator statements.

As we have previously tried to clarify, those nations declared their intent to steal the region from its founder. Seizing a region from its founder and residents of many years through regional destruction is considered region griefing by the conventions of game play, and it should be treated as such by all nations.

Yauna has never invaded a region, ejected all the nations from that region, and recreated it. How can it be fair for nations of the original Greece to inflict regional destruction on the region of a nation which has never done the same thing to them? Or anyone else, for that matter?

You failed to consider the other residents of the region who are recognized by game convention as practically natives. If you refound the region forcefully, you're also doing so without native consent. And that is pure region griefing.

Region griefing, destroying a region by ejecting its natives to refound, should never be justified no matter what the cause. Some may argue that region griefing may be within the rules, but to condemn a case of region refounding while supporting a related case of intent at regional destruction appears not only hypocritical, but vengeful and malevolent.

In other words, the ends don't justify the means. That is one reason why SCR #110 should be repealed. It supports the justification for true region griefing in Greece. As other forum users have observed, it's hard to refound a region without griefing it.

Finally, we think Yauna keeps on ejecting your Roman friends because they keep on invading his region with the intent to destroy and recreate it.

DENYING Yauna's culpability in general allegations of turning Greece into a trophy region, because the nation has allowed regional governments to function and it has never declared partisan preference in official regional publication,

He allows exactly one regional government to function, that led by members of the Persian Empire, which assists them in making the region into a trophy and doing exactly the opposite of what you say.

If he has allowed only one regional government to function, then why have there been many regional governments by players of the original Greece in these five years? According to SCR #29, he allowed a government of members from the original Greece to function.

If he was a determined anti-Greek, surely he would have immediately prevented your allies from establishing their active administrations of Greece, which usually lasts for months. If he was a dedicated Persian, surely he would have personally made the World Factbook Entry and regional flag characteristically "Persian."

Therefore, it's reasonable to believe he wasn't Persian when he allowed the present natives to administer the region when he was inactive, and he wasn't also Greek when he allowed the Greek claimants to run Greece when he was inactive.

Whenever a Greek nation is elected as delegate to lead the regional government, Yauna ejects and bans all Greek WA-member nations from the region (even though they pose no threat to him as founder so long as he remains active, and he could chose to simply revoke the delegate's executive powers to stay in control himself).

The resolution mentioned the frequent expulsion of liberation forces to discredit Yauna, and had neglected the argument—consistent with Security Council Resolution #29—that these nations were expelled not for their political affiliation but solely for their threat to the founder's ownership of the region,

Perhaps he wouldn't have ejected and banned those nations if they hadn't declared their intention to steal the region from him.

Perhaps he has ejected those nations because SCR #29 mentioned that they "had plotted to refound and commit mutiny against Yauna."

Perhaps he has ejected those nations because they chose to be hostile to him through SCR #110.

Perhaps he has ejected those nations because they supported a resolution that censured him for defamatory and derogatory language, when there is absolutely no truth to that at all. That was just pure malice from its sponsors!

What those people are doing is against normal conduct. In almost all regions, nations rely on the generosity or tolerance of the founder to stay. Sparta Laconia is implying a group of nations who don't own a region have the inalienable right to reside in that region without the founder's consent or respect for the founder. He is conceitedly arguing for special treatment for him and his friends!

And said Persian regional government that Yauna blatantly supports has made its preferences clear in multiple official regional publications. It makes the Greece regional flag into a Persian icon, states that "Everything held dear by the West... originally formed in the Persian Empire by the ancient Aryans" in the World Factbook Entry (still present),

Sassanian Empire wrote that, and not Yauna. Therefore, that doesn't contradict the assertion of this proposal:

DENYING Yauna's culpability in general allegations of turning Greece into a trophy region, because the nation has allowed regional governments to function and it has never declared partisan preference on official regional publication,

You forgot to mention that the regional flag of Greece under Yauna was the flag of the Hellenic Republic.

You failed to mention that Yauna's World Factbook Entry was:

"Welcome to Greece! Birthplace of Western Civilization and Democracy. Enjoy our lovely islands, join in on some fine dancing and sip some Ouzo! Opa!"

This WFE is generally supportive of the Greeks.

You've falsely accused the proponents of this proposal of half-truths and lying when you're the real one guilty of these.

ADDING that Yauna has displayed sportsmanship by generously tolerating some advocates of Security Council Resolution #110 to visit Greece, in spite of their hostility,

Yauna hasn't generously tolerated advocates. Their presence is not because Yauna allows them, but because of Yauna's aforementioned infrequent activity. Whenever he returns, it is to ban those that oppose himself and the Persian Empire.

Not exactly true and you know that. Grandon was there for a long time without being ejected by Yauna. We don't recall Yauna having banned Nikolaos the Great or Iasonia. The founder didn't eject your nation after the latest Eastern Roman Empire invasion, but the delegate of Greece did. Your best friend Sensai, who Yauna didn't eject, is still there in spite of all the trouble he is making.

You've falsely accused the proponents of this proposal of half-truths and lying when you're the real one guilty of these.

CONCERNED that Security Council Resolution #110 could be cited as a precedent for supporting the seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party, and to condemn its founder should the nation naturally thwart attempts to invade or recreate that region,

This statement is highly hypocritical, since in this case Yauna himself is considered to be the vindictive party who seized the region of Greece.

Just because someone was accused of stealing doesn't mean that someone else can resort to violence (or region griefing) to acquire what was allegedly stolen.

We don't want people to think region griefing by regional destruction can be justified by any cause. We respect the fundamental rights of founders.

The Romans have inflicted regional destruction on our regions, but we don't advocate regional destruction to recover those. If it isn't morally acceptable for us to destroy those regions to get them, it shouldn't be morally acceptable for you to destroy ours.

AWARE that the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as persistent harassment,

My main account, a native of Greece since before Yauna's nation was even founded, gets banned from Greece by Yauna whenever he decides to be active. I consider this to be persistent harassment.

It isn't the duty of a founder to get along with a particular region member, because the founder determines who or who doesn't get to stay. It's the responsibility of a region member to get along with the founder if they want to stay in his region. Your nation was ejected because the region may have considered its presence as harassment.

If a nation is rejected by a founder and that nation also rejects the founder, the game provides that nation with the legal option of choosing a new home.

You may have been a native of founderless Greece. You aren't in the Greece with a founder. The two regions aren't the same in regards to nativity. If the former natives of NAZI EUROPE aren't natives of the newly-recreated NAZI EUROPE, then your nation shouldn't be considered indispensable to the current Greece.

Yauna didn't ban Sparta Dominion. He allowed you to stay. It was Sassanian Empire who banned your nation because you said you would endorse another invasion of Greece. That is considered harassment by the natives of Greece.

When the proposal stated,

"AWARE that the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as persistent harassment,"

it was meant to be fair to both sides: the claimants and their allies felt their resistance was justified with the aid of strong international support, but the natives felt the periodical invasions and pestering were harassment.

The impression you give is different: to you, your one nation is right to be in Greece, but the delegate and all its many supporters, and even the regional founder, of five years are wrong to be there.

You aren't successfully arguing your case. You're trying to center the whole matter on your personal feelings.

I think you and your friends could have stayed if they didn't try to play power politics. If they made a sincere effort to co-exist with the current natives and the founder, instead of all this invading and condemning.

Also, you do realize that in appealing to the WA for support, you're asking for a repeal from that same body of outside nations that sees the Greek resistance to Yauna and the Persians as justified, correct?

Of course, we did. That is why the proposal refers to "the activities of certain nations... are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance."

We knew the repeal process would be extremely difficult, with the odds against us.

Read the proposal again. We emphasized on defending Yauna. We didn't condemn any claimant nor applaud any resident. The proposal is neutral by trying to focus on the issues, and not on other personalities or on mudslinging politics. It's trying to be fair:

"ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the current, local conflict,"

There is another side to this conflict with legitimate grievances, and it's not only the supporters of the two SC resolutions.

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to peacefully resolve severe disputes,

Yauna doesn't even exist right now. You'll have to bring Yauna to participate by first logging in, and then getting him to stay active since he usually doesn't and CTE's again after logging in for only one or two sessions. Until that happens, it's literally impossible to involve him any dialogues of peace whatsoever.

We know. That is why we hope support for a repeal will keep him interested to actively participate. This repeal proposal is partly an incentive.

That beats waiting for the next Eastern Roman Empire invasion from your allies.

HOPING that support for a successful repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue diplomacy over defamation,

The three parties primarily involved in the conflict of Greece are the Persian Empire, the native Greeks, and the ERE. If Yauna is neutral as you claim, how does uncondemning him serve as goodwill towards any of those three? It could serve as a sign of goodwill if he had ties to the Persians, which we highly, highly suspect he does, but thus far the Persian Empire has denied any such affiliation, in which case repealing his condemnation should mean nothing to them.

By supporting a repeal of SC #110, the nations involved in Greece would be inviting him as a friend that they could negotiate with. We feel Yauna may not want to get involved if there are some people who want something from him, but are unwilling to make a serious friendly gesture.

Would it be pleasant to deal with a person with a condemn badge? Would a person with a condemn badge feel comfortable in dealing with the ones who endorsed it? Could he even trust them? Condemnation isn't about trust. We shouldn't be ostracizing Yauna if we expect him to interact with us.

We believe it's reasonable to expect the support for a repeal would convince Yauna that all parties are sincere in being friendly to him. That way, we could secure his participation in negotiations. He would hopefully notice our efforts, and revive so he could join the peace initiative. For us, it's more important to try and get important people involved in negotiations than clinging to unproductive condemnations.

You don't convince someone to negotiate by condemning him. Besides, that whole "defamatory and derogatory language" accusation was a low blow; it wasn't true and sounded more malicious than judgmental. Was that meant to put him in the same league as the notorious Grandon?

We figured past attempts have failed because the claimants and natives only focused on what they each wanted. They had not considered what the founder may have wanted. This proposal is an invitation for genuine reconciliation among all the relevant parties in Greece.

Remember, we are working for the Greeks to acquire the region of Greece through negotiations. It's important that they support us in an endeavor that will ultimately benefit them also. We wish all of us friendship and success.

[Spartan Laconia]

If founders could be arbitrarily declared as non-natives or invaders of their own regions, any invader would have a valid reason to evict them from their respective properties. This is against the intention of the game when it gave founders legitimate control over their regions.

Funny, I thought I addressed the fact that this wasn't just an arbitrary declaration when I took the time to explain how

The Greek natives of founderless Greece were in the process of refounding the region for its own security, and Yauna refounded it out from underneath them in the middle of the process. While the moderators didn't get involved because it is technically legal, most nations have recognized this as a dirty move not in the spirit of the game, and consider it to be stealing the region.

Moving on..

Here is the half-truth:

Hence determining Yauna to be an invader with two WA resolutions, SCR #29 to liberate the region of Greece and #110 to specifically condemn Yauna.

Only one of them, SCR # 110 was involved in identifying Yauna as an invader.

Well then, in that case allow me to clarify. Look at the time gap between SCR #'s 29 and 110. SCR #29 was made in 2010 specifically to liberate the region from an invasion by the Persian Empire, the very same nations you are now referring to as the 'Aryanic Natives of Greece'. Thee years later the same Persian invaders were still there and still in power, because Yauna blatantly supported them; thus SCR #110 was passed to condemn him for doing so.

And if his crime to you was that he refounded a region before someone else did (and these are incidents which happen often in the game without condemnations)

Name one other instance that 'a relatively unknown nation happened to refound the region before the native which intended to become the new founder could', and everyone just accepted it and walked away.

why did the authors of the resolution go overboard and maligned him for using defamatory language? It was totally unnecessary for them to have added that! We both know he has hardly posted anything. Where is the proof? This accusation was made only in the resolution and never on Greece's RMB.

I wasn't an author, so I wouldn't know. Perhaps you could have noticed that's one of the only parts of your proposed repeal I didn't dispute, because you're right. I haven't seen him post anything defamatory or derogatory (although plenty of other Persian nations from the regional government he supports have), because I haven't seen him post anything on the RMB. Ever.

1. Resolution #110 was made specifically to seek action against Yauna, whether or not #29 did is irrelevant.

We dispute this. It appears self-serving and manipulative for their proponents to cite SCR #29 to justify SCR #110, while asserting that SCR #29 is irrelevant to this issue.

Try using a little bit of reasoning here. If #29 had already sought direct action against Yauna, there would never have been any need for #110's existence in the first place. As explained earlier, #29 was made specifically to help counter the invasion of Greece by the Persian Empire. Yauna blatantly supported the invaders for years after, so #110 condemned him for it. Whether or not he was specifically incriminated years earlier in #29 for doing so doesn't really make a difference.

2. The exact verbiage in #29 was "Taking into consideration that, although Yauna performed its duties to the region's security by eventually repelling invasions, it was a notably inactive nation and even called a “joke” of a founder, by one native". Those aren't exactly words of praise for a job well done. It's a comment that although Yauna has performed security duties, he did so infrequently and was usually slow to respond. You've taken it out of context to mean exactly the opposite.

We didn't take anything out of context. The proposal stated:

RECALLING the following undisputed facts from Liberate Greece, Security Council Resolution #29:
2. The resolution admitted the founder had performed its duties by repelling invasions,

It was you who interpreted what it meant. It's as if you're trying to spin another half-truth.

The person who pulled the full exact quote from SCR #29 and explained it is the one spinning a half-truth, and the person who paraphrased it in an oversimplified sentence isn't taking it out of context? Real sound logic there, buddy. Keep arguing like that, please, you're making this easier for me.

3. You're suggesting we should repeal a newer resolution built on more recent information, because of something said in an older resolution with information made obsolete by said newer information. Forgive me for declaring that to be an illogical course of action, but it is.

A resolution to condemn doesn't officially update a resolution to liberate.

The proposal doesn't have to be consistent with SCR #110 because it's meant to repeal it. If we had accepted all the items in SCR #110, then we would have no reason to seek its revocation.

And this new information you speak of is just so and not indisputable fact. SCR # 29 explained how it logically arrived at its conclusion. SCR #110 didn't; it just made blatant assertions.

Again your logic is unsound. You're right, you don't have to be consistent with #110 if you're repealing it. However, that doesn't mean you can just revert back to #29's conclusions. #29 was made less than a year after Yauna usurped control and the Persians invaded the region. #110 was made three years later with that much time to observe his behavior. You can't just neglect those observations and regress to conclusions made before them, you would need to point out the things he's done over that time that make him worthy repealing his condemnation.

A great example of the inconsistency of SCR #110 was when it claimed SCR #29 had sought action against a non-native nation named Yauna. SCR #29 never exactly affirmed that idea. Does SCR #110 actually rewrite the words in SCR #29? Is this one of your examples of new information making older information obsolete? It looks more like obvious lying.

Again I apologize, but I wasn't the author. However, you're right, it should have said 'sought action against the seizure of the region of Greece by members of the Persian Empire', not Yauna.

MAKING the following observations about Condemn Yauna, Security Council Resolution #110:
1. The resolution blatantly declared Yauna was an invader without properly addressing why its proponents had deviated from the conclusion in Security Council Resolution #29; and consequently, this assertion has aroused suspicions of being clumsy propaganda to justify the case to refound,
2. The resolution mentioned the frequent expulsion of liberation forces to discredit Yauna, and had neglected the argument—consistent with Security Council Resolution #29—that these nations were expelled not for their political affiliation but solely for their threat to the founder's ownership of the region,
3. Yauna had only operated within Greece; therefore, the resolution failed to demonstrate the nation had the intent or capability to adversely affect the wider international community,

1. See what I already said above
2. See what I already said above
3. Is irrelevant to any of the reasons mentioned in SCR #110

You're hiding behind lazy excuses. You haven't explained why those points were irrelevant. You're avoiding the issues on a dubious technicality.

Actually I was trying to avoid redundancy and unnecessary lengthening of an already long post, but since you seem to be too lazy to make the connections between what I had previously said and how it applies to these, I'll pull you the quotes.
1.

The Greek natives of founderless Greece were in the process of refounding the region for its own security, and Yauna refounded it out from underneath them in the middle of the process. While the moderators didn't get involved because it is technically legal, most nations have recognized this as a dirty move not in the spirit of the game, and consider it to be stealing the region. Hence determining Yauna to be an invader

2.

Whenever a Greek nation is elected as delegate to lead the regional government, Yauna ejects and bans all Greek WA-member nations from the region (even though they pose no threat to him as founder so long as he remains active, and he could chose to simply revoke the delegate's executive powers to stay in control himself).

I'll explain this bit further, to clarify. Your argument is that he is banning nations to keep the region from being refounded. However, he can only ban nations when he's active, and when he's active the region already cannot, literally cannot be refounded, because no one has the power to eject the founder. And if his reason was that he wanted to manage the region himself, he could always retract the delegate's executive powers. He doesn't though, instead he bans all Greek WA nations from the region and allows the Persians (deemed invaders by the resolution you so love to cite) to govern it, until he CTE's again and his bans expire.

Item number 3 is particularly interesting. Security Council Resolutions are suppose to act on adverse actions by nations or regions on the international community as a whole. If Yauna had a habit of controversial activities directly influencing multiple nations and regions, then his actions would have been cause for international concern. But he only has ejected nations in his own region. He hasn't operated outside Greece, so this is one reason why SCR #110 should be repealed.

The regional government Yauna is supporting in Greece was deemed to be invaders from the Persian Empire in SCR #29. There's your two regions being affected, happy?

As I have clarified above, Yauna stole the region from its natives, and has repeatedly ejected and banned said natives from the region, including but not limited to Tetrapolis, Iasonia, Nikolaos the Great, and my own main account (Sparta Dominion). Most nations consider this to be griefing, and the fact that he has kept it up for years makes it one of the most well known cases of regional griefing in NS.

Let us try to understand this: Yauna refounded your former region, that is why there is SCR #29. He ejected you, that is why there is SCR #110.

Therefore, it was tolerable that he took your region before SCR #29 because you didn't condemn him at that time. You only had a problem when he ejected you because, afterwards, he was condemned in SCR #110.

So, would you say that he stole the region when he refounded it, or was it stolen the moment he ejected you and your friends? Did the alleged theft of Greece begin when it was recreated, or when the members of the former region were ejected by the founder?

People have had a problem and called him a region thief since the refounding. The fact that it took that long to get a security council resolution passed doesn't mean everyone was happy beforehand. You show your ignorance about the issue when you speak like he ejected us once and that led to a resolution. He's ejected us all numerous times over the course of the years.

If you had recognized his legitimate regional ownership in SCR #29, and rejected it in SCR #110, then you're asserting the legitimacy of a founder of a refounded region depends on the whimsical favor of its former members, and not on the founder's inherent right as recognized by the game. This is against what the game has intended when it gave founders their supreme control over their regions.

Actually, #29 didn't exactly recognize him. It said it was concerned by the fact that Yauna had become the founder. It also acknowledged that Yauna was doing nothing to help the region through its civil turmoil. True endorsement of him there, right?

Once an old region expires, the native status of its residents doesn't automatically transfer with them when they move to the new region refounded. If native status was transferable, then any nation could claim native status in multiple regions it has been active in over long periods—a ridiculous situation!

Well, the world seems to disagree with you there.

As we have previously tried to clarify, those nations declared their intent to steal the region from its founder. Seizing a region from its founder and residents of many years through regional destruction is considered region griefing by the conventions of game play, and it should be treated as such by all nations.

By that very definition you just wrote, seizing a region from its residents of many years, Yauna is guilty of region griefing.

And as I have previously clarified, it's literally impossible to refound it when Yauna is active. It can only be done at a time when he has CTE'd. By that notion, any actions he takes to secure the region are unnecessary, the only thing he has to do is remain active in nation states. If he can't do that, that's his fault, and if he's gone and neglecting the region that's a legitimate reason to want to refound it.

Yauna has never invaded a region, ejected all the nations from that region, and recreated it. How can it be fair for nations of the original Greece to inflict regional destruction on the region of a nation which has never done the same thing to them? Or anyone else, for that matter?

He didn't invade and eject them, but he did watch as they tried to refound it themselves and then step in during the process and seize the region. Really, how is that any better?

You failed to consider the other residents of the region who are recognized by game convention as practically natives.

Really, because resolution #29 whose conclusions you so love to draw upon deemed them to be long-term invaders.

Finally, we think Yauna keeps on ejecting your Roman friends because they keep on invading his region with the intent to destroy and recreate it.

The ERE is no friend of mine.

He allows exactly one regional government to function, that led by members of the Persian Empire, which assists them in making the region into a trophy and doing exactly the opposite of what you say.

If he has allowed only one regional government to function, then why have there been many regional governments by players of the original Greece in these five years? According to SCR #29, he allowed a government of members from the original Greece to function.

If he was a determined anti-Greek, surely he would have immediately prevented your allies from establishing their active administrations of Greece, which usually lasts for months. If he was a dedicated Persian, surely he would have personally made the World Factbook Entry and regional flag characteristically "Persian."

Believe I addressed that when I said

Their presence is not because Yauna allows them, but because of Yauna's aforementioned infrequent activity. Whenever he returns, it is to ban those that oppose himself and the Persian Empire. And then he disappears again afterward, which allows their return.

Whenever a Greek nation is elected as delegate to lead the regional government, Yauna ejects and bans all Greek WA-member nations from the region (even though they pose no threat to him as founder so long as he remains active, and he could chose to simply revoke the delegate's executive powers to stay in control himself).

The resolution mentioned the frequent expulsion of liberation forces to discredit Yauna, and had neglected the argument—consistent with Security Council Resolution #29—that these nations were expelled not for their political affiliation but solely for their threat to the founder's ownership of the region,

And as I have repeatedly explained, they pose no threat to Yauna as long as he plays nation states.

And said Persian regional government that Yauna blatantly supports has made its preferences clear in multiple official regional publications. It makes the Greece regional flag into a Persian icon, states that "Everything held dear by the West... originally formed in the Persian Empire by the ancient Aryans" in the World Factbook Entry (still present),

Sassanian Empire wrote that, and not Yauna. Therefore, that doesn't contradict the assertion of this proposal:

DENYING Yauna's culpability in general allegations of turning Greece into a trophy region, because the nation has allowed regional governments to function and it has never declared partisan preference on official regional publication,

Sassanian Empire wrote that, and Yauna has blatantly supported Sassanian Empire's being in power. Therefore he has helped turn the region into a trophy region.

You forgot to mention that the regional flag of Greece under Yauna was the flag of the Hellenic Republic.

You failed to mention that Yauna's World Factbook Entry was:

"Welcome to Greece! Birthplace of Western Civilization and Democracy. Enjoy our lovely islands, join in on some fine dancing and sip some Ouzo! Opa!"

This WFE is generally supportive of the Greeks.

Those weren't under Yauna, they were from when The New Hellenic State was the regional delegate. And then Yauna ejected him, and Sassanian Empire returned and changed both the flag and the WFE back again.

Yauna hasn't generously tolerated advocates. Their presence is not because Yauna allows them, but because of Yauna's aforementioned infrequent activity. Whenever he returns, it is to ban those that oppose himself and the Persian Empire.

Not exactly true and you know that. Grandon was there for a long time without being ejected by Yauna. We don't recall Yauna having banned Nikolaos the Great or Iasonia. The founder didn't eject your nation after the latest Eastern Roman Empire invasion, but the delegate of Greece did. Your best friend Sensai, who Yauna didn't eject, is still there in spite of all the trouble he is making.

Not exactly true and you know it. Grandon would go long stretches without getting ejected, but he would be whenever he successfully deposed the Persian delegate, same for Nikolaos or Iasonia. Yauna has ejected me numerous times before, the reason he didn't this time was because he had already gone inactive before I even arrived. Same reason he didn't eject Sensai. Also, best friend? Go to page 57 of the RMB, look at my posts Sassanian Empire suppressed and tell me who I was primarily arguing against.

This statement is highly hypocritical, since in this case Yauna himself is considered to be the vindictive party who seized the region of Greece.

Just because someone was accused of stealing doesn't mean that someone else can resort to violence (or region griefing) to acquire what was allegedly stolen.

Doesn't change the hypocrisy of the statement in the proposal.

My main account, a native of Greece since before Yauna's nation was even founded, gets banned from Greece by Yauna whenever he decides to be active. I consider this to be persistent harassment.

It isn't the duty of a founder to get along with a particular region member, because the founder determines who or who doesn't get to stay. It's the responsibility of a region member to get along with the founder if they want to stay in his region. Your nation was ejected because the region may have considered its presence as harassment.

Normally true, but you're still speaking as if he hadn't stolen the region and had a justifiable reason to be the founder.

You may have been a native of founderless Greece. You aren't in the Greece with a founder. The two regions aren't the same in regards to nativity.

The world seems to disagree with you on that.

Yauna didn't ban Sparta Dominion. He allowed you to stay. It was Sassanian Empire who banned your nation because you said you would endorse another invasion of Greece. That is considered harassment by the natives of Greece.

This time Yauna wasn't the one to ban me, because he's inactive. He has, however, banned me multiple times in the past.

When the proposal stated,

"AWARE that the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as persistent harassment,"

it was meant to be fair to both sides: the claimants and their allies felt their resistance was justified with the aid of strong international support, but the natives felt the periodical invasions and pestering were harassment.

The impression you give is different: to you, your one nation is right to be in Greece, but the delegate and all its many supporters, and even the regional founder, of five years are wrong to be there.

Those you refer to as natives were deemed invaders by #29. Also by Sassanian Empire's very first WFE (here).

I think you and your friends could have stayed if they didn't try to play power politics. If they made a sincere effort to co-exist with the current natives and the founder, instead of all this invading and condemning.

Funny enough, I was actually one of the first to suggest a peace deal that involved coexistence between Greek and Persian nations in the region. It was rejected on the grounds that it didn't give them 'anything reliable' in return, like the regions the ERE had stolen from them (something they knew I had no power to offer, because am not a member of the ERE and never have been). And you can tell I'm not making this up because Iran and Non-Iran still remembers it and said so on the RMB. Honestly, I'd still be up for a deal of coexistence in Greece between Greeks and Aryans. My conditions would be that the regional flag is Greek, the WFE maintains a message that honors Greece's history and legacy, the region has no password so nations of any culture may come and go as they please, and the delegate is elected by popular vote and not because all members are required by law to endorse one nation. If they could honor those provisions, I'd have no problem coexisting with them.

Read the proposal again. We emphasized on defending Yauna. We didn't condemn any claimant nor applaud any resident. The proposal is neutral by trying to focus on the issues, and not on other personalities or on mudslinging politics. It's trying to be fair:

"ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the current, local conflict,"

There is another side to this conflict with legitimate grievances, and it's not only the supporters of the two SC resolutions.

Go back and look through my post again, you may notice that was another proposal point that I never took up any issue with.

Yauna doesn't even exist right now. You'll have to bring Yauna to participate by first logging in, and then getting him to stay active since he usually doesn't and CTE's again after logging in for only one or two sessions. Until that happens, it's literally impossible to involve him any dialogues of peace whatsoever.

We know. That is why we hope support for a repeal will keep him interested to actively participate. This repeal proposal is partly an incentive.

Your logic is once again unsound. He hasn't even logged in to nation states since April. Repealing his condemnation doesn't encourage him to log in again. Yauna exhibited his behavior of inactivity for years before he was ever condemned, that much was even recognized back in SCR #29. And the resolution that first recognized him as unlikely to be allied with the Persians didn't boost his activity, so there's no reason to think repealing his condemnation will suddenly make him an active player either.

That beats waiting for the next Eastern Roman Empire invasion from your allies.

This never get's old, so I'll say it again. The ERE is neither my ally nor my friend.

The three parties primarily involved in the conflict of Greece are the Persian Empire, the native Greeks, and the ERE. If Yauna is neutral as you claim, how does uncondemning him serve as goodwill towards any of those three? It could serve as a sign of goodwill if he had ties to the Persians, which we highly, highly suspect he does, but thus far the Persian Empire has denied any such affiliation, in which case repealing his condemnation should mean nothing to them.

By supporting a repeal of SC #110, the nations involved in Greece would be inviting him as a friend that they could negotiate with. We feel Yauna may not want to get involved if there are some people who want something from him, but are unwilling to make a serious friendly gesture.

Would it be pleasant to deal with a person with a condemn badge? Would a person with a condemn badge feel comfortable in dealing with the ones who endorsed it? Could he even trust them? Condemnation isn't about trust. We shouldn't be ostracizing Yauna if we expect him to interact with us.

I can't speak for you, but the fact that his nation wears a condemn badge makes no difference in how much I want to talk to him. If he really cared about having a condemn badge pinned on him, don't you think he would have at least started asking what he would need to do to get it removed? The conclusion is he doesn't care about it, and that's further evidenced by the fact that he barely even plays nation states. If he becomes active, I'd be happy to talk to him. And once his actions are no longer worthy of condemnation, I'll vote to repeal SCR #110. But not before.

You aren't successfully arguing your case.

I'll let outside observers be the judge of that.

[Unibot III]

Against!

[Jeffersonborg]

*sigh*

The correct way to do this is to take the time to region build, re-create an entire community, and then once you have an whole generation of new geninue natives (Natives because they have been recruited for your region based on the community you've built and your version fo history and they knew of nothing else), re-write history by repealing the condemn.

I almost wished I took that project.

[Karpathos]

Many of the original natives of Greece have left the game because of the current situation. Some fought as long as they could before leaving this game, joining the ERE, or were successfully flamebaited and DEATed. Against. Always and forever. It's a shame that a once vibrant region full of not only ethnic Greeks but also many philhellenes who were also giants in the game
In their own right. A lot of forgotten history and prestige was once tied up in that region. All because of a botched refound because we were tried of being griefed over and over again.

[Timocreon]

If founders could be arbitrarily declared as non-natives or invaders of their own regions, any invader would have a valid reason to evict them from their respective properties. This is against the intention of the game when it gave founders legitimate control over their regions.

Funny, I thought I addressed the fact that this wasn't just an arbitrary declaration when I took the time to explain how

The Greek natives of founderless Greece were in the process of refounding the region for its own security, and Yauna refounded it out from underneath them in the middle of the process. While the moderators didn't get involved because it is technically legal, most nations have recognized this as a dirty move not in the spirit of the game, and consider it to be stealing the region.

To maintain the region was stolen is a biased and subjective position, since an unbiased and objective decison has been already made by the proper authorities that theft was not the case.

And if his crime to you was that he refounded a region before someone else did (and these are incidents which happen often in the game without condemnations)

Name one other instance that 'a relatively unknown nation happened to refound the region before the native which intended to become the new founder could', and everyone just accepted it and walked away.

Most people would recognize that a region's exact name doesn't give purpose to their community. It is the individuals acting as a community that gives a region its value. So, they could survive and prosper as a community in a different region with a new name.

It seems the former members of the original Greece can't let go and try to build an independent community elsewhere. They seem more interested in tagging along whenever the Eastern Roman Empire decides to invade Greece.

We dispute this. It appears self-serving and manipulative for their proponents to cite SCR #29 to justify SCR #110, while asserting that SCR #29 is irrelevant to this issue.

Try using a little bit of reasoning here. If #29 had already sought direct action against Yauna, there would never have been any need for #110's existence in the first place. As explained earlier, #29 was made specifically to help counter the invasion of Greece by the Persian Empire. Yauna blatantly supported the invaders for years after, so #110 condemned him for it. Whether or not he was specifically incriminated years earlier in #29 for doing so doesn't really make a difference.

The author of SCR #110, and those who have voted for the resolution, thought differently when the condemnation implicated Yauna as the antagonist of SCR #29. If that did not really matter to those who participated in its passage, that would not have been declared so prominently. What the authors have pronounced in their resolution is more relevant to this proposal than your assessment of SCR #110.

And, of course, the reader should be allowed to make up his own mind on how relevant SCR #29 is to SCR #110.

A resolution to condemn doesn't officially update a resolution to liberate.

The proposal doesn't have to be consistent with SCR #110 because it's meant to repeal it. If we had accepted all the items in SCR #110, then we would have no reason to seek its revocation.

And this new information you speak of is just so and not indisputable fact. SCR # 29 explained how it logically arrived at its conclusion. SCR #110 didn't; it just made blatant assertions.

Again your logic is unsound. You're right, you don't have to be consistent with #110 if you're repealing it. However, that doesn't mean you can just revert back to #29's conclusions. #29 was made less than a year after Yauna usurped control and the Persians invaded the region. #110 was made three years later with that much time to observe his behavior. You can't just neglect those observations and regress to conclusions made before them, you would need to point out the things he's done over that time that make him worthy repealing his condemnation.

Your criticism misinterprets the purpose of the citation concerned. The conclusion of SCR #110 is wrong not entirely because that of SCR #29 is more correct, but the latter does help in attempts to disprove major points of the former.

SCR #110 relies on the proposition that the founder is a not a native. It takes the position that the relation of SCR #110 to SCR #29 is a case of new information updating old information.

The proposal relies on the proposition that the founder is a native. It take the position that the relation of SCR #29 to SCR #110 is a case of reliable information contrasting controversial information.

When the proposal recalls that SCR #29 has focused on an invasion and not the founder, has admitted that the founder had repelled invasions, and has concluded that the founder is unlikely an invader, it does so to dispute the assertion made by SCR #110 that the liberation resolution was primarily against the founder. The three, when taken together to refute the aforementioned inconsistent point, help highlight the manipulative nature and disputable character of SCR #110 . They also have value in disputing the allegation that the founder is illegitimate, because Yauna was considered legitimate in SCR #29 when the alleged source of his illegitimacy preceded the resolution; therefore, the founder was really condemned not for taking the region but for refusing to submit to its claimants.

SCR #110 has contradicted SCR #29. The former has significantly relied on a contradictory statement about the latter. SCR #110 declared that the liberation resolution had sought action against a founder depicted as a non-native. This pronouncement has clearly deviated from the actual purpose and capability of SCR #29. It was not just an auxillary statement, it was a principal one since it was the very first declaration. It also reflected the belief of the author, who was a prominent delegate of the Eastern Roman Empire, that continuity with SCR #29 was very important to his proposal.

Item number 3 is particularly interesting. Security Council Resolutions are suppose to act on adverse actions by nations or regions on the international community as a whole. If Yauna had a habit of controversial activities directly influencing multiple nations and regions, then his actions would have been cause for international concern. But he only has ejected nations in his own region. He hasn't operated outside Greece, so this is one reason why SCR #110 should be repealed.

The regional government Yauna is supporting in Greece was deemed to be invaders from the Persian Empire in SCR #29. There's your two regions being affected, happy?

The Security Council was meant to issue resolutions to act on matters affecting the wider interests of it members. Many feel an instance of a local regional dispute involving a nation that has operated only within a particular area should not be the concern of the Security Council. If the condemnation had established a pattern of disruption influencing multiple nations in multiple regions that takes the character of an international menace, then such a scenario would be more worthy of the attention of the Security Council. The authors of SCR #110 linked their proposal to SCR #29 because they had lacked a precedent to connect Yauna to any established pattern of disrupting the international community.

Supporters of SCR #110 have admitted they are still suspicious of Yauna's alleged invader affiliation, and this contrasts the confident posture of the pronouncements given by SCR #110.

Let us try to understand this: Yauna refounded your former region, that is why there is SCR #29. He ejected you, that is why there is SCR #110.

Therefore, it was tolerable that he took your region before SCR #29 because you didn't condemn him at that time. You only had a problem when he ejected you because, afterwards, he was condemned in SCR #110.

So, would you say that he stole the region when he refounded it, or was it stolen the moment he ejected you and your friends? Did the alleged theft of Greece begin when it was recreated, or when the members of the former region were ejected by the founder?

People have had a problem and called him a region thief since the refounding. The fact that it took that long to get a security council resolution passed doesn't mean everyone was happy beforehand. You show your ignorance about the issue when you speak like he ejected us once and that led to a resolution. He's ejected us all numerous times over the course of the years.

If you had recognized his legitimate regional ownership in SCR #29, and rejected it in SCR #110, then you're asserting the legitimacy of a founder of a refounded region depends on the whimsical favor of its former members, and not on the founder's inherent right as recognized by the game. This is against what the game has intended when it gave founders their supreme control over their regions.

Actually, #29 didn't exactly recognize him. It said it was concerned by the fact that Yauna had become the founder. It also acknowledged that Yauna was doing nothing to help the region through its civil turmoil. True endorsement of him there, right?

Yauna is the founder of the region, therefore he is the primary and principal native. A native generally has the right to eject an undesirable member, regardless whether that nation is a native or not. The repeated expulsions were arguably relative to the low regard of the claimants for the founder at the time of SCR #29, and their practical declaration of war in SCR #110.

If Yauna was a thief, his legitimacy would have been invalid when he recreated the region, regardless whether he was independent or an agent. The members from the original Greece had accepted his ownership when they were allowed to stay; whether they did so with reluctance or not is irrelevant. However, they rejected his legitimacy when they began to threaten the region after their initial residency had been terminated. Yauna did not steal the region, he just did not let them borrow it for very long. Therefore, there is a strong perception that the founder was condemned not because he took the region, but because he refused to submit to the claimants.

These nations chose to pursue refounding by force because the founder did not share their specific vision for sharing the region. By supporting a repeal, the members of the Security Council could reject regional destruction as a preferable way to acquire a disputed region, and recognize it as a dirty move not in the spirit of the game.

Once an old region expires, the native status of its residents doesn't automatically transfer with them when they move to the new region refounded. If native status was transferable, then any nation could claim native status in multiple regions it has been active in over long periods—a ridiculous situation!

Well, the world seems to disagree with you there.

Well, the Moderators, the game rules, fair gameplay convention, and those who consistently practice what they preach by respecting these, would disagree in principal with the kind of region griefing SCR #110 advocates.

As we have previously tried to clarify, those nations declared their intent to steal the region from its founder. Seizing a region from its founder and residents of many years through regional destruction is considered region griefing by the conventions of game play, and it should be treated as such by all nations.

By that very definition you just wrote, seizing a region from its residents of many years, Yauna is guilty of region griefing.

Many nations have refounded regions without the consent of their former members, and were not condemned. It has been recognized that just because the Security Council does not condemn all controversial actions does not mean that it condones them. However, many feel that to target an instance of refounding under less offensive conditions, while tolerating cases of refounding through blatant regional destruction, is unfair.

Under the "eye for an eye" maxim, if a nation had taken a region by regional destruction from its members and refounded it, they could take a region by regional destruction from that nation and refound it. If a nation had refounded a region which was abolished by its former members, they could refound a region abolished by that nation. But the scenario here is a nation had refounded a region which was abolished by its former members, and they feel justified to take a region by regional destruction from that nation and refound it.

It was extremely hypocritical for the proponents of SCR #110 to have condemned Yauna as an invader for refounding their former region, while tolerating their allies who have refounded regions after first invading them. A player who owned native nations of the original Greece snatched regions which had belonged to the players of the natives of the current Greece. The current natives of Greece respect gameplay convention and modestly accept the legitimacy of the founders who destroyed and recreated those regions. The former natives of Greece and their supporters resist gameplay convention and audaciously reject the legitimacy of the founder who only recreated a single region but did not destroy the original one.

You failed to consider the other residents of the region who are recognized by game convention as practically natives.

Really, because resolution #29 whose conclusions you so love to draw upon deemed them to be long-term invaders.

But the Moderators recognized them as natives. They are more knowledgeable about the rules than any group of players.

What is the use of listening to the Moderators when they make pronouncement about how the game should be played, when people like Spartan Laconia arrogantly think they have a firmer grasp of what a native actually means?

Defenders also probably recognized Sassanian Empire as the native delegate because the did not try to liberate the region when he has been the very first delegate of the current Greece.

And as I have repeatedly explained, they pose no threat to Yauna as long as he plays nation states.

Just because somebody can do something doesn't mean that he would want to do it. And it's still a threat even if you claimed it's harmless. The threats are signs of disrespect because they have been announced publicly. We shouldn't assume that the correct thing for him to do is to permanently tolerate the nuisance of many unfriendly people in his region, even if he could protect himself. Many founders have banned misbehaving members, notwithstanding the knowledge that they could deny them access to regional power.

They natives of this region also have reasons to be not content with their current lot. If I controlled the founder, I wouldn't have allowed this situation where the natives have superior but not comfortable control. Right now, the natives can't prevent, conveniently and effectively, unwanted people from entering the region to harass them. They lack the sense of safety provided by regions with active founders under responsible native command.

Sassanian Empire wrote that, and not Yauna. Therefore, that doesn't contradict the assertion of this proposal:

Sassanian Empire wrote that, and Yauna has blatantly supported Sassanian Empire's being in power.

That remark still does not contradict the assertion of the proposal that Yauna did not directly nor personally announce political preference through regional publication.

This proposal is about the actions of Yauna and not the actions of Sassanian Empire. Sassanian Empire has been the first native delegate of Greece since the refound.

If you like mentioning Sassanian Empire so much, ask your Roman ally why his condemnation of the delegate of Greece did not push through.

You forgot to mention that the regional flag of Greece under Yauna was the flag of the Hellenic Republic.

You failed to mention that Yauna's World Factbook Entry was:

"Welcome to Greece! Birthplace of Western Civilization and Democracy. Enjoy our lovely islands, join in on some fine dancing and sip some Ouzo! Opa!"

This WFE is generally supportive of the Greeks.

Those weren't under Yauna, they were from when The New Hellenic State was the regional delegate. And then Yauna ejected him, and Sassanian Empire returned and changed both the flag and the WFE back again.

I am starting to feel you are arguing for the sake of arguing and not relying on the facts.

"Welcome to Greece! Birthplace of Western Civilization and Democracy. Enjoy our lovely islands, join in on some fine dancing and sip some Ouzo! Opa!"

That was not The New Hellenic State's WFE. That was Yauna's. Any native of Greece would attest to this. You are lying again.

Not exactly true and you know that. Grandon was there for a long time without being ejected by Yauna. We don't recall Yauna having banned Nikolaos the Great or Iasonia. The founder didn't eject your nation after the latest Eastern Roman Empire invasion, but the delegate of Greece did. Your best friend Sensai, who Yauna didn't eject, is still there in spite of all the trouble he is making.

Not exactly true and you know it. Grandon would go long stretches without getting ejected, but he would be whenever he successfully deposed the Persian delegate, same for Nikolaos or Iasonia. Yauna has ejected me numerous times before, the reason he didn't this time was because he had already gone inactive before I even arrived. Same reason he didn't eject Sensai.

Oh, come on! He was active to eject the Roman invaders but not active enough to eject you and Sensai when all of you have been in the region at the same time he was alive?

Doesn't change the hypocrisy of the statement in the proposal.

Just because you think its hypocritical does not change the fact that region griefing, ejecting all the members of a region and even the founder without their consent, is wrong. Even other forum members agree, it is hard to refound a region without griefing it.

Normally true, but you're still speaking as if he hadn't stolen the region and had a justifiable reason to be the founder.

And you're speaking if your opinion matters more than the game rules, and what the Moderators say in this matter.

The Moderators, the game rules, gameplay convention, and those who actually practice what they preach by respecting these, would disagree in principal with an arbitrary definition of a native.

Honestly, I'd still be up for a deal of coexistence in Greece between Greeks and Aryans. My conditions would be that the regional flag is Greek, the WFE maintains a message that honors Greece's history and legacy, the region has no password so nations of any culture may come and go as they please, and the delegate is elected by popular vote and not because all members are required by law to endorse one nation. If they could honor those provisions, I'd have no problem coexisting with them.

Yauna, when he was existing, has allowed all those to happen, except for the delegate part. That does not sound like a "Persian."

The natives have popularly elected Sassanian Empire as delegate. They gave him the mandate to implement the endorsement law to protect the region from invasions.

Your logic is once again unsound. He hasn't even logged in to nation states since April. Repealing his condemnation doesn't encourage him to log in again. Yauna exhibited his behavior of inactivity for years before he was ever condemned, that much was even recognized back in SCR #29. And the resolution that first recognized him as unlikely to be allied with the Persians didn't boost his activity, so there's no reason to think repealing his condemnation will suddenly make him an active player either.

Nothing is absolutely certain. But we felt that we had to do something to convince him to be more active. We have not tried something like this before. We should give it a chance to work. Nothing can be accomplished if we dwell too much on negative excuses.

This never get's old, so I'll say it again. The ERE is neither my ally nor my friend.

And you should never expect that to stop, because your actions speak louder than your words. You collaborated with many Roman invasions of Greece, and that leaves a more definite impression than any denial you could devise.

And Emperor Justinianus not ERE? Come on!

I can't speak for you, but the fact that his nation wears a condemn badge makes no difference in how much I want to talk to him. If he really cared about having a condemn badge pinned on him, don't you think he would have at least started asking what he would need to do to get it removed? The conclusion is he doesn't care about it, and that's further evidenced by the fact that he barely even plays nation states. If he becomes active, I'd be happy to talk to him. And once his actions are no longer worthy of condemnation, I'll vote to repeal SCR #110. But not before.

This is not only about you. It's about all who want something better.

By supporting a repeal of SC #110, the nations involved in Greece would be inviting him as a friend that they could negotiate with. We feel Yauna may not want to get involved if there are some people who want something from him, but are unwilling to make a serious friendly gesture.

Would it be pleasant to deal with a person with a condemn badge? Would a person with a condemn badge feel comfortable in dealing with the ones who endorsed it? Could he even trust them? Condemnation isn't about trust. We shouldn't be ostracizing Yauna if we expect him to interact with us.

Greece is his region. He doesn't have to trade it. Both sides want him to trade it.

It's hardly fair to blame one person for everything. Maybe he refused to get involved because of the hostility of the Greeks. He was condemned in spite of his efforts to defend a region from destruction.

It's reasonable to approach him diplomatically because he has something we want, while we aren't sure yet what he wants.

One doesn't convince somebody to negotiate with an attitude like, "This is all your fault! You brought this mess upon yourself, so fix it! Give us what we want and we will give you what we assume you want!"

And by pushing for negotiations but not supporting the repeal, that may be the kind of message we send if he revives.

It will be hard to convince him to be part of the negotiations if we also consider him a thief and region-griefer.

Why should he be considered a thief? If someone actually stole your watch, you wouldn't ask him to share it with you. You would demand he return it right away. That was not what the members of the original Greece did. They first tried to get Yauna to share the region according to their terms. One doesn't ask someone to share if he doesn't have some legitimate right to ownership.

The entire World Assembly cannot give Greece to the Greeks. But friendship with Yauna may be able to do that.

I hope the world will appreciate more the necessity of Yauna's participation in the peace talk. If we take the position that he has to submit to us, we are not being diplomatic. We would be clinging to an unproductive Condemnation that really gives no one what they want.