Page 4 of 10
Posted:
Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:47 pmby The Stalker
Heh well looks like this is gonna struggle to reach queue.
There's no way this would pass, TBR and their Riders can get all the condemnations they want, but commending? Not likely. Raiders may support this, but to the masses who aren't involved in the raiding / defending element of the game, you just attack and occupy their regions, they won't commend you for that.
Posted:
Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:07 pmby Redsward
Chester Pearson wrote:Redsward wrote:Apparently your proposal is failing miserably. And Chester Pearson gave you his stamp of disapproval.
He approves all the bad proposals so they can get defeated at vote.
I approved this one because I hope to see it pass.....
Oh. But the Stalker is still right.
Posted:
Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:19 pmby Chester Pearson
Redsward wrote:Chester Pearson wrote:I approved this one because I hope to see it pass.....
Oh. But the Stalker is still right.
Maybe so. That still doesn't change the fact that I am a Delegate, and will continue to approve this resolution as man times as it is submitted....
Posted:
Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:26 pmby Naginii
Raiders are routinely condemned by the SC, whereas defenders are commended. That is because the majority in the SC see raiding as generally bad, defending as generally good. Were this organization's majority raiders, I can assure you the coin would flip.
The bottom line is using these tags for/against players in the R/D side of the game is pointless except that it fuels the gameplay. That's point a few new players clearly, as posted earlier, don't appreciate or understand the merit of.
Raiding and defending gives this game a least a good share of it's geopolitical RP credibility. International geopolitics isn't about everyone getting along nicely without ever having to deal with conflict. If it weren't for the game within the game, which provides a bit of reality and consequence, NS would've died-off a long time ago. Many, many regions and nations have tried, and would love to see raiders go away, but they'd start missing us when the game became an echo-chamber devoid of contrast. And as soon as every raider left, new players would sprout-up. It's human nature, and that's what makes this game so insidious.
DEN refounding aside, I'd vote for this if it ever made it to the floor, just to see my side get a little something for everything we've put into the game (can't have black without white, etc.) That said, if it does make it out to a vote, it'll just get soundly humiliated in defeat — there aren't enough people in here that see this as a game that needs both sides of the spectrum to survive.
And when it does fail, and the defender crowd crow, the raiders will just shrug and go back to what they've been doing for years...same if they were condemned. It really, honestly, doesn't make a whit of difference.
Posted:
Tue Jan 06, 2015 6:00 amby We Are Not the NSA
Alright, back to drafting. Does anybody have any suggestions?
Posted:
Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:57 amby We Are Not the NSA
I added some new content, and changed a couple of words around. Thoughts?
Posted:
Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:33 amby Mundiferrum
A few suggestions by a sleepy young orator: [The king mandated that the young part be clarified: he is only young outside of the fourth wall, but within it he's fairly old, having a bunch of neat, college age children and all that]
Okay, apparently we ran out of coffee here (and fourth walls), but anyway, here goes:
Try completely eliminating the word "raid, to decrease resentment. Also maybe remove that part about "common enemy" since enemy=/=commendation usually, and, well, that only really distracts from the "more obviously good" things you're trying to highlight there, like the activity boosts and the democracy. Oh, and maybe try to attack the fact that usually defenders get commendations for their defendery actions, in that they being defenders doesn't necessarily stop all the raiding but fuels it, hence pulling most rpers who don't want to be part of gp back into gp anyway, and so putting raiders and defenders on equal measure (or some reasonable cake like that).
Posted:
Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:28 pmby Rifty
I just can't see the commendation ever passing down to the vote of those who don't follow proposals or anything else. The bunch that do nothing more than answer issues.
Posted:
Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:52 amby Nation of Quebec
No, just no.
Raiders should never be commended. They have disrupted and destroyed many innocent regions and we should not reward them for their acts of cruelty and oppression.
I will strongly oppose this proposal and urge every WA member to do the same.
Posted:
Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:55 pmby Redsward
Nation of Quebec wrote:No, just no.
Raiders should never be commended. They have disrupted and destroyed many innocent regions and we should not reward them for their acts of cruelty and oppression.
I will strongly oppose this proposal and urge every WA member to do the same.
Unforunately, we already have, through condemning them. Raiders want to be condemned, and defenders don't understand. Also, a raider org called
the Skeleton Army was commended in SC #35.
Posted:
Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:51 pmby Khronion
As I understand, the Skeleton Army was not a Gameplay raider group. They "raided" by moving into a region and having a party on the RMB. No endorsements were placed on a raider delegate, and the "raids" in question happened with native delegate support.
That all said, someone who was around for those should probably chime in.
Anyways -- precedent is not really a good justification to rely on in the SC. The WA is a political body, not a judicial body. Precedent matters a whole lot less than political will. The reason we don't see more offensive liberations dealt out isn't because there's a lack of precedent, it's because there's a lack of political will.
Posted:
Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:53 pmby Redsward
Khronion wrote:As I understand, the Skeleton Army was not a Gameplay raider group. They "raided" by moving into a region and having a party on the RMB. No endorsements were placed on a raider delegate, and the "raids" in question happened with native delegate support.
That all said, someone who was around for those should probably chime in.
Anyways -- precedent is not really a good justification to rely on in the SC. The WA is a political body, not a judicial body. Precedent matters a whole lot less than political will. The reason we don't see more offensive liberations dealt out isn't because there's a lack of precedent, it's because there's a lack of political will.
Oh.
Posted:
Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:00 pmby Ramaeus
Nation of Quebec wrote:No, just no.
Raiders should never be commended. They have disrupted and destroyed many innocent regions and we should not reward them for their acts of cruelty and oppression.
I will strongly oppose this proposal and urge every WA member to do the same.
Todd McCloud, SkyDip, Kandarin (was part of an invasion of TEP), 1 Infinite Loop, and a few other raiders (or those who have raided) have been commended.
Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:34 amby We Are Not the NSA
Mundiferrum wrote:A few suggestions by a sleepy
young orator: [The king mandated that the young part be clarified: he is only young outside of the fourth wall, but within it he's fairly old, having a bunch of neat, college age children and all that]
Okay, apparently we ran out of coffee here (and fourth walls), but anyway, here goes:
Try completely eliminating the word "raid, to decrease resentment. Also maybe remove that part about "common enemy" since enemy=/=commendation usually, and, well, that only really distracts from the "more obviously good" things you're trying to highlight there, like the activity boosts and the democracy. Oh, and maybe try to attack the fact that usually defenders get commendations for their defendery actions, in that they being defenders doesn't necessarily stop all the raiding but fuels it, hence pulling most rpers who don't want to be part of gp back into gp anyway, and so putting raiders and defenders on equal measure (or some reasonable cake like that).
Hmm. You're probably right. I already mention that they are condemned, so further reminders of why they are condemned are unnecessary and detrimental. I'm going to change a few of those up, and add some more on their good qualities.
Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:19 pmby Chester Pearson
Redsward wrote:Khronion wrote:As I understand, the Skeleton Army was not a Gameplay raider group. They "raided" by moving into a region and having a party on the RMB. No endorsements were placed on a raider delegate, and the "raids" in question happened with native delegate support.
That all said, someone who was around for those should probably chime in.
Anyways -- precedent is not really a good justification to rely on in the SC. The WA is a political body, not a judicial body. Precedent matters a whole lot less than political will. The reason we don't see more offensive liberations dealt out isn't because there's a lack of precedent, it's because there's a lack of political will.
Oh.
Perhaps understanding history, before giving lectures on history might be in order?
Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:32 pmby Khronion
Chester Pearson wrote:Perhaps understanding history, before giving lectures on history might be in order?
I mean no disrespect. Carry on
Posted:
Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:05 amby The Sapientia
Did you mention the "liberation" of Nazi Europe?
Well y'know
Posted:
Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:53 pmby Yael-Har our glorious mountain Ibex
Whatever is right will just have to be done.
TBD.
Ibex out
Posted:
Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:00 pmby Chester Pearson
The Sapientia wrote:Did you mention the "liberation" of Nazi Europe?
The Riders weren't involved in drafting that liberation, that was the GCR's, under Feux's glorious leadership....
Khronion wrote:Chester Pearson wrote:Perhaps understanding history, before giving lectures on history might be in order?
I mean no disrespect. Carry on
My comment was directed at Red.
Posted:
Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:41 amby We Are Not the NSA
The Sapientia wrote:Did you mention the "liberation" of Nazi Europe?
Who controlled Nazi Europe before it was refounded? I can't remember exactly who it was.
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:52 pmby Toronina
Isn't this illegal? I mean the nation who writ it is a member of the Black Riders themselves?
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:56 pmby Crazy girl
Self-commendations are frowned upon, but not illegal.
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:31 pmby Chester Pearson
We Are Not the NSA wrote:The Sapientia wrote:Did you mention the "liberation" of Nazi Europe?
Who controlled Nazi Europe before it was refounded? I can't remember exactly who it was.
German Dragons
Posted:
Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:01 pmby We Are Not the NSA
Chester Pearson wrote:We Are Not the NSA wrote:Who controlled Nazi Europe before it was refounded? I can't remember exactly who it was.
German Dragons
Were they a part of an organization? I really don't know a lot about the liberation of Nazi Europe. I remember it happening, but I didn't know any of the details.
Posted:
Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:46 pmby Yevan
Crazy girl wrote:Self-commendations are frowned upon, but not illegal.
Plus who said that the recommendation had to come from within The Black Riders, I'm sure they're many people from other regions that would be willing to put this proposal on the WA