[Abandoned] Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders"

[Consular]

So, didn't you say you weren't submitting this because of [some random excuse about invader delegates, idk].

What changed? Why the sudden decision to submit it now?

[KaelThas Quilor]

So you're telling me if I, tomorrow, were to Propose a condemn against Jagermeister, the first nation in NS history to be condemned for Forum Destruction, you would actually oppose it until we condemned everyone else?

I would oppose it because we're not going to condemn everyone else, and I don't think anything this serious should be unfairly applied to a few regions or nations -- or currently, just one -- rather than uniformly applied to everyone who does it.

There is no guarantee that we never will.

Except that as long as you're certain we never will...we never will, at least if you decide the vote's outcome.

Your entire logic is so bent up into pretzels as to be unrecognizable as logic.

Let's see you prove that we're not going to by proposing some condemns for people like Jagermister, the Ascendancy, TBR, etc. Because until then, your argument doesn't hold water.

SInce you're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Well this thread is a total disaster.

I'd just like to link to Condemn Unknown, and Repeal Condemn Unknown;
http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... /start=130
http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... /start=239

Cormac, I know how much you hate hearing this, but you're discussing events that happened before you showed up to this game. It's not usually a problem when you or any other player does that, really, unless they're an irredeemable nutcase; the problem is that you have speculated about something that happened, and people who were in attendance have corrected you on events, and you have argued that your speculation is the true case, not their eye witness accounts. It's even more irritating when the facts were written down in the very resolutions you're using to justify your standpoint, and you didn't bother to read them.

The World Assembly Security Council,

Identifying The Crusaders of Justice as a defender organization based out of Equinox,

Recognizing the validity and usefulness in responsible espionage missions carried out by regional governments,

Observing that Rougiers publicly pretended to break ties with Unknown and the invader community to ally with the defender community, all while secretly working with the upper levels of Unknown to gather information on defense forces,

Further observing Rougiers was left in charge of the forums of The Crusaders of Justice and given some power over the regional forums of The Council of Narnia following their apparent betrayal of the raider community,

Shocked that following the gathering of sensitive information from the two forums and the completion of the mission, Rougiers completely erased the forums of The Crusaders of Justice as well as erasing records from the regional forums of The Council of Narnia,

Asserting that a destruction of forums destroys the cultural and historical records of a region, as well as the collaborative effort put into it by its members, and also leaves the members of the region with no means of communication other than the Regional Civil Headquarters,

Insisting that the regional government of Unknown is responsible for the actions of its agent,

Dismayed with Unknown's refusal to accept responsibility; issuing instead a message to other regional governments blaming both The Crusaders of Justice and The Council of Narnia for the damage to their own regional forums,

Hereby:

Condemns the region of Unknown for the destruction of and the damage to the regional forums of both The Crusaders of Justice and The Council of Narnia caused by its agent.

The Security Council,

Remembering the unfortunate destruction of the regional forums of Crusaders of Justice and Council of Narnia by an intelligence agent of the regional government of Unknown,

Concerned by Unknown's reaction to these events, blaming the victim region in official statements, as well as welcoming the condemnation and image forum destroyers,

Knowing these events to have been long in the past, when the region was under different leadership,

Recalling the apology Unknown's leaders issued to the two victims, and admittance of mistakes in the handling of the events that led to the condemnation,

Realizing that Unknown has not only paid for the mistake of failing to punish the unstable agent in question by the negative label of forum destroyers, but also because the agent later took control of the founder nation of Unknown and ejected many nations from the region,

Satisfied by the statements and changes in Unknown since the original condemnation and,

Believing the region has suffered from stigma of being a 'forum destroying' region for long enough, and has faced the consequences for their mistakes,

Hereby repeals SC #27 Condemn Unknown.

I have highlighted the important parts in red, and I think you will understand why the circumstances surrounding Unknown and the Allied States of Euroislanders are different.

[Cormac Stark]

Bottom line: I don't think it's appropriate to leave Allied States of EuroIslanders the only region condemned for forum destruction, with no nations (representing individuals) condemned for it. The two options there are either to condemn others for forum destruction or to repeal this condemnation.

The Security Council has had years to condemn others for forum destruction; it has not. The suggestions that I should do it, as if I am solely responsible for seeing the condemnation of every forum destroyer in history occur, are ludicrous, especially when one considers that those arguing that we should condemn more forum destroyers haven't authored such condemnations and aren't volunteering to do so now. Operating under the safe assumption that things aren't going to change, and we aren't going to suddenly start condemning other forum destroyers after not doing so for years, I am pursuing repeal of a condemnation that is unjust if it remains the only condemnation for forum destruction as it has for years now.

We could debate this to death some more, but I think I'll pass. Those who disagree with this reasoning are free to vote against the resolution when it comes to vote.

[KaelThas Quilor]

You should write some because you're the one making the claim the WA would never pass such a resolution. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the initial claim.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Bottom line: I don't think it's appropriate to leave Allied States of EuroIslanders the only region condemned for forum destruction, with no nations (representing individuals) condemned for it. The two options there are either to condemn others for forum destruction or to repeal this condemnation.

The Security Council has had years to condemn others for forum destruction; it has not. The suggestions that I should do it, as if I am solely responsible for seeing the condemnation of every forum destroyer in history occur, are ludicrous, especially when one considers that those arguing that we should condemn more forum destroyers haven't authored such condemnations and aren't volunteering to do so now. Operating under the safe assumption that things aren't going to change, and we aren't going to suddenly start condemning other forum destroyers after not doing so for years, I am pursuing repeal of a condemnation that is unjust if it remains the only condemnation for forum destruction as it has for years now.

We could debate this to death some more, but I think I'll pass. Those who disagree with this reasoning are free to vote against the resolution when it comes to vote.

Bottom line: You actually don't give a damn.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Bottom line: I don't think it's appropriate to leave Allied States of EuroIslanders the only region condemned for forum destruction, with no nations (representing individuals) condemned for it. The two options there are either to condemn others for forum destruction or to repeal this condemnation.

The Security Council has had years to condemn others for forum destruction; it has not. The suggestions that I should do it, as if I am solely responsible for seeing the condemnation of every forum destroyer in history occur, are ludicrous, especially when one considers that those arguing that we should condemn more forum destroyers haven't authored such condemnations and aren't volunteering to do so now. Operating under the safe assumption that things aren't going to change, and we aren't going to suddenly start condemning other forum destroyers after not doing so for years, I am pursuing repeal of a condemnation that is unjust if it remains the only condemnation for forum destruction as it has for years now.

We could debate this to death some more, but I think I'll pass. Those who disagree with this reasoning are free to vote against the resolution when it comes to vote.

Bottom line: You actually don't give a damn.

Real Bottom Line: Cormac can't stand to let a defender be condemned.

[Evil Wolf]

Bottom line: I don't think it's appropriate to leave Allied States of EuroIslanders the only region condemned for forum destruction, with no nations (representing individuals) condemned for it. The two options there are either to condemn others for forum destruction or to repeal this condemnation.

I don't think it's fair for the Greater German Reich to be the only region condemned basically for being Nazis. I mean, Nazi Europe was condemned for being Nazis and they got their Condemn repealed. It's unfair for TGGR to be the only region condemned for Nazism, with no nations (representing individuals) condemned for it.

If the SC cared so much about TGGR being Nazi, they would have condemned all the other Nazi regions that sprung up after TGGR. This is clearly a personal bias by raiders, imperialists, and other scary words to keep TGGR condemned. It's completely unjust!

I mean, you either condemn others for being Nazis, or you Condemn no one! Am I right, Cormac? You've got my back on this, right?

[Onderkelkia]

Bottom line: I don't think it's appropriate to leave Allied States of EuroIslanders the only region condemned for forum destruction, with no nations (representing individuals) condemned for it. The two options there are either to condemn others for forum destruction or to repeal this condemnation.

I don't think it's fair for the Greater German Reich to be the only region condemned basically for being Nazis. I mean, Nazi Europe was condemned for being Nazis and they got their Condemn repealed. It's unfair for TGGR to be the only region condemned for Nazism, with no nations (representing individuals) condemned for it.

If the SC cared so much about TGGR being Nazi, they would have condemned all the other Nazi regions that sprung up after TGGR. This is clearly a personal bias by raiders, imperialists, and other scary words to keep TGGR condemned. It's completely unjust!

I mean, you either condemn others for being Nazis, or you Condemn no one! Am I right, Cormac? You've got my back on this, right?

What is the answer to this?

[Guy]

No one is yet to refute the point that Unknown's actions, as a region, were at least as egregious; and that this Council repealed Unknown's condemnation with almost unanimous support. The two cases are indistinguishable, and this is merely a matter of internal consistency. As such, I support this repeal.

[KaelThas Quilor]

No one is yet to refute the point that Unknown's actions, as a region, were at least as egregious; and that this Council repealed Unknown's condemnation with almost unanimous support. The two cases are indistinguishable, and this is merely a matter of internal consistency. As such, I support this repeal.

The fact that they are distinguishable was actually already made by several people. The fact that you didn't read them (or chose to ignore them) is instructive.

[Guy]

No one is yet to refute the point that Unknown's actions, as a region, were at least as egregious; and that this Council repealed Unknown's condemnation with almost unanimous support. The two cases are indistinguishable, and this is merely a matter of internal consistency. As such, I support this repeal.

The fact that they are distinguishable was actually already made by several people. The fact that you didn't read them (or chose to ignore them) is instructive.

I read them, they're wrong.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

The proposal has left the queue due to not having enough support at the start of an update.

[Cormac Stark]

The proposal has left the queue due to not having enough support at the start of an update.

Indeed. I won't be re-submitting it either.

I look forward to seeing all the condemnations that everyone says we should submit instead of repealing this condemnation, which of course will not be forthcoming as they have not been over the past several years.

Or, y'know, I look forward to seeing The Black Riders, Ceirien, and Madrigal expel the forum destroyers they're harboring, or their allies cut ties with them for harboring them.

But what I really look forward to is the fresh smell of hypocrisy in the morning when none of you do any of that, because the only kind of region destruction you actually oppose is the kind carried out against your regions -- which is why Allied States of EuroIslanders remains the only region condemned for forum destruction, and why none of you give a damn that regions you work with daily are harboring forum destroyers whose forum destruction incidents were recent.

[Zaolat]

The proposal has left the queue due to not having enough support at the start of an update.

Indeed. I won't be re-submitting it either.

I look forward to seeing all the condemnations that everyone says we should submit instead of repealing this condemnation, which of course will not be forthcoming as they have not been over the past several years.

Or, y'know, I look forward to seeing The Black Riders, Ceirien, and Madrigal expel the forum destroyers they're harboring, or their allies cut ties with them for harboring them.

But what I really look forward to is the fresh smell of hypocrisy in the morning when none of you do any of that, because the only kind of region destruction you actually oppose is the kind carried out against your regions -- which is why Allied States of EuroIslanders remains the only region condemned for forum destruction, and why none of you give a damn that regions you work with daily are harboring forum destroyers whose forum destruction incidents were recent.

I've sided with you on this issue, if you managed to read my posts in the AoI destruction/restoration threads.

I don't agree with this repeal, though tbh I never agree to the condemn in the first place. With Unknown, I was a citizen of CoN and was a high ranking official on CoJ. I eventually forgave Unknown for its involvement. What you tried to do here made no sense. Though I agree that Shadoke and Ridersyl should not get off scot free.

Hell, my actions weren't malevolent but I still made a mistake and literally faced consequences for my actions whereas neither the other two nor Sector Zyx ever did.

[Cormac Stark]

I'm fairly sure Sector ZYX did face consequences, but his act of forum destruction was six years ago and I believe the consequences occurred then. I'm not entirely sure.

Regardless, this resolution was proposed primarily because I saw the way invaders were treating the forum destroyers in their midst -- literally as if nothing even happened -- and I thought it unjust for ASE to continue to be stigmatized. The reaction to this proposal has confirmed for me that gameplay is every bit the toxic, poisonous, hypocritical environment I know it to be, and that most gameplayers don't actually care about forum destruction unless they can score political points. I'll remember that next time the same people still invading with Syl and Shadoke call for the heads of a forum destroyer they don't like, and I will no longer support any worse consequences for a forum destroyer than for a region destroyer.

[Communist Eraser]

I don't care about this to read the details. I probably voted whatever Topid wanted me to do in the original resolution.

But my tl;dr reasoning was. We condemn Unknown for forum region. We repealed it cause Unknown said sorry and actually was sorry and we believe it. ASE was condemned for forum destruction, ASE was unrepentant. So it stays condemned. Right?

[Cormac Stark]

I don't care about this to read the details. I probably voted whatever Topid wanted me to do in the original resolution.

But my tl;dr reasoning was. We condemn Unknown for forum region. We repealed it cause Unknown said sorry and actually was sorry and we believe it. ASE was condemned for forum destruction, ASE was unrepentant. So it stays condemned. Right?

I think that's very flawed in that there are numerous unrepentant forum destroying regions and nations that remain without condemnation, with nobody doing anything about it. Ridersyl and Shadoke destroyed the Association of Imperialism forum shortly after I made my retirement post but they're still running around tag raiding with their friends. Making an example of ASE and just leaving all the rest alone is petty and childish, but I'm not sure what I expected from gameplay.

[RiderSyl]

So, didn't you say you weren't submitting this because of [some random excuse about invader delegates, idk].
What changed? Why the sudden decision to submit it now?

Cormac needed an excuse to make forum-crashing a relevant issue, so he could pull this crap.

I haven't gotten off scot-free. I am not unrepentant. People have done something about it.
But I know you don't care about facts, Cormac. You care about trying to have fun.

You talk about poison and toxin, but you are the king cobra in that regard.
Unlike me, you don't give a single fuck about Rifty's forum. The crashed forum, my involvement in it...
All of that is just a device for you to cause drama and division, for your own entertainment.

Someone that's really sick of the toxicity would have really washed their hands of all this.
In reality, this game's toxicity is all you have left to excite you.

I'm not going to settle with being another tool for you to use to split up some alliances, or bolster your shitty political quarrels.
I didn't come this far in life to be some internet politician's bitch.

[Cormac Stark]

Cormac needed an excuse to make forum-crashing a relevant issue, so he could pull this crap.

I haven't gotten off scot-free. I am not unrepentant. People have done something about it.
But I know you don't care about facts, Cormac. You care about trying to have fun.

You talk about poison and toxin, but you are the king cobra in that regard.
Unlike me, you don't give a single fuck about Rifty's forum. The crashed forum, my involvement in it...
All of that is just a device for you to cause drama and division, for your own entertainment.

Someone that's really sick of the toxicity would have really washed their hands of all this.
In reality, this game's toxicity is all you have left to excite you.

I'm not going to settle with being another tool for you to use to split up some alliances, or bolster your shitty political quarrels.
I didn't come this far in life to be some internet politician's bitch.

As I said in response to your telegram:

I don't think that, but I do think the warm reception both you and Shadoke are receiving from the three regions I've been mentioning is inappropriate. You destroyed a forum; there are supposed to be consequences for that. There have been no consequences for it except that Shadoke has been made PNG in Osiris and you likely will be convicted and sentenced to a rather long ban. But I doubt that much matters to either of you, as Osiris was never the first priority for either of you.

That said, I don't plan to pursue this issue. I don't feel like trying to ensure you're banned from The Black Riders and Shadoke is banned from Madrigal and Ceirien, even though, frankly, both of you should be, because that is what happens to forum destroyers in NationStates. Or at least it was until now. The precedent that is being set here by letting the two of you get away with it is a disturbing precedent, because it sends the signal that forum destruction will no longer necessarily see a person ostracized from the communities they care about. That was the deterrent before; now there is no guaranteed deterrent.

That's why I care about this, and that's why I tried to repeal Condemn ASE. The consensus on forum destruction has been demolished by the two of you and the regions harboring both of you, and I don't think ASE should continue to be punished under a consensus to which invaders are no longer holding. Nonetheless, Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders" was the beginning and end of my plan for how to address this, and it failed to achieve quorum and has been abandoned. I consider the matter closed, and I have no intention of going after either of you for your acts of forum destruction. My plan now is simply to offer an emphatic and meaningful *shrug* the next time invaders are complaining because one of their forums have been destroyed, because a shrug is essentially what TBR, Ceirien, Madrigal, and those still working with those regions have offered in response to forum destruction.

Additionally, I get the sense you're angry with me. I don't care. I'm not exactly thrilled that you were going to let yourself get elected Pharaoh of Osiris with the potential of this blowing up either, or that you sat on IRC and on Skype while we ragged on Shadoke and discussed what to do about his act of forum destruction and said absolutely nothing about your involvement. Clearly, you never actually cared at all about Osiris, and any respect you had from me is gone. I am very glad that I ended up not casting my vote for you. I liked you and trusted you, and you betrayed that trust. You want to know why I've gone so hardcore anti-invader? Take a look in the mirror for part of the answer. You proved to me, once again, that invaders cannot be trusted.

[Consular]

You proved to me, once again, that invaders cannot be trusted.

I don't think there's any need to draw an absolute line in the sand here. Both sides have a few people you might think twice before trusting. I suspect you probably consider me an invader, but I don't think I've yet outright betrayed anyone's trust.

[Cormac Stark]

I don't think there's any need to draw an absolute line in the sand here. Both sides have a few people you might think twice before trusting. I suspect you probably consider me an invader, but I don't think I've yet outright betrayed anyone's trust.

I'm just going to lol at that and go on with my day.

[RiderSyl]

I cared about Osiris. The reason I fucked up, was in part due to something that I don't feel comfortable talking about in a public setting. The politics surrounding forum destroying, I could care less about, honestly. I just know, personally, that I wanted to be punished in every way possible for what I did. I held out my hands for people to slap the cuffs on. That's all I could do.

[Cormac Stark]

I cared about Osiris. The reason I fucked up, was in part due to something that I don't feel comfortable talking about in a public setting. The politics surrounding forum destroying, I could care less about, honestly. I just know, personally, that I wanted to be punished in every way possible for what I did. I held out my hands for people to slap the cuffs on. That's all I could do.

Okay. Well, as I said, I consider the matter closed with the failure of this repeal, and I have no further intention of pursuing it.

Your assumptions about me are false, and slanderous, but I don't feel the need to defend myself to you nor am I going to try.

[Blackbird]

I'm fairly sure Sector ZYX did face consequences, but his act of forum destruction was six years ago and I believe the consequences occurred then. I'm not entirely sure.

Regardless, this resolution was proposed primarily because I saw the way invaders were treating the forum destroyers in their midst -- literally as if nothing even happened -- and I thought it unjust for ASE to continue to be stigmatized. The reaction to this proposal has confirmed for me that gameplay is every bit the toxic, poisonous, hypocritical environment I know it to be, and that most gameplayers don't actually care about forum destruction unless they can score political points. I'll remember that next time the same people still invading with Syl and Shadoke call for the heads of a forum destroyer they don't like, and I will no longer support any worse consequences for a forum destroyer than for a region destroyer.

You are quite correct, Cormac.

Back in the days in which these events took place, invaders were more than happy to invade founderless regions, expel and grief all the natives, and refound it to prevent the community from existing again. Defenders united to fight against these invader scum.

When members of the Red Liberty Alliance, none of whom were members of the Allied States of Euroislanders, committed forum destruction, the Executive Committee of the Red Liberty Alliance, of which Eurosoviets was the head, and the Supreme Soviet of the Red Liberty Alliance, the highest legislative body of the Red Liberty Alliance, roundly and emphatically condemned the forum destruction, punished the offenders, and expelled them.

The only reason the Allied States of Euroislanders was targeted is that some people don't like its founder, and it's very easy to play with the politics of forum destruction. Invaders had no qualms about destroying communities back then, and though I do not pretend to be a follower of current events, as I understand it their regions and alliances continue to harbor those who have committed these acts.

It is simply rank hypocrisy, rank not because of its transparent self-serving nature, but rank because it is old and stale: it is part and parcel of the trends of invaders to try to make themselves "respectable" by playing a game of politics that they could never win.

[edit grammar is hard]