[Abandoned] Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders"

[Topid]

There is a distinction between a 'Raider' and a 'Person Who Raids'. For a Raider, raiding is what they do. Its their whole thing. For a person who raids, its just one part of them activities, one thing they do.

I also believe there is a distinction between a 'Defender' and a 'Person Who Defends', though it seems that this is less common on the defending side of things, as far as I can tell.

I'm not going to buy it. You can certainly use them that way if you choose, but to me when you add "er" to the end of a verb it means someone who does that verb. Cormac is not alone in using that plain-meaning version of the word, by far.

Though I will say, back to the genesis of all of this, speaking in terms of actions Mouse is definitely not an invader or raider.

[Evil Wolf]

And as a guy who has noted that invaders prefer to be called the softer and friendlier term "raiders" rather than invaders, and imperialists and independents prefer to be called neither, I don't care. That's what it means to me and how I'm using it, and I will not have the terminology I use dictated to me by -- wait for it -- invaders.

Actually, I prefer the term Region Crasher, or Crasher, if you're going to go for a light and fluffy interpretation.

In any case, I hope this abomination doesn't even make it to vote. The repeal even has language in it which implies Forum Destruction ain't no big thing and is totally cool. Try it today, kids! >_>

[KaelThas Quilor]

Not buying it doesn't make it false, Topid. I don't buy that there's a real person behind Unibot's posts sometimes ( ). But I'm sure that that premise is not false, in reality.

I don't buy the assumption Hillary Clinton will have the Democratic nomination or the presidency in a walk (as some think she will). That doesn't inherently make that premise false (albeit here I think we can safely say its more likely than the Unibot example).

And I will say again, NS, like any game or large field of discussion or endeavor, accumulates specific terminology that doesn't really fit with what the standard form of the English language word means. 'Raider' and 'Defender' are such terms, as are (for example), 'Feeder' 'Sinker' 'Crasher' and 'Cosmopolitan''.

@Cormac: Cormac Stark everyone. He's rejecting reality and substituting it with his own. Fun stuff.

[Topid]

Except definitions of game terms aren't facts. They only carry the meaning we give them, and just like in the real-world two people can be talk about the same thing with two different words. See: Definition of "Conservative." If you read my calling Cormac a raider when he inevitably takes down a region with the Red Fleet as meaning he is one with "Unity" then you are in fact wrong. That's not what I meant, clearly. It is not a hard thing to figure out that these labels are used differently by different people here, and accept that when reading other's writing you if you just pretend they always accept your definition, you're not going to be actually communicating with them.

The way you use "raider" is no better or worse than the way I use it.

[Unibot III]

I've used the terms, "defenderist" and "invaderist" for people who share the beliefs of defenders and invaders - but admittedly it's not the catchiest of terms and "defender" and "invader" are applied to non-mobiles who have been active in the past like me.

I don't think it's silly to identify Mouse as some kind of invaderist. While she hasn't participated in any invasions, she seems a-Okay with the practice.

[Evil Wolf]

While she hasn't participated in any invasions, she seems a-Okay with the practice.

So is Max Barry. I guess he's an Invader now too.

[Cormac Stark]

While she hasn't participated in any invasions, she seems a-Okay with the practice.

So is Max Barry. I guess he's an Invader now too.

I don't think Max Barry advocated invading regions because they approved one of my WA proposals. That would be President of Europeia and WA moderator Mousebumples.

[Unibot III]

While she hasn't participated in any invasions, she seems a-Okay with the practice.

So is Max Barry. I guess he's an Invader now too.

First of all, I didn't say that made someone an invader. Furthermore, I'm not sure he is. He did try a raid, out of curiosity. [violet] has specifically said that gameplayers should stop trying to glean their opinions of what the site admins think is right and wrong based off of the site's rules.

Doing otherwise is like assuming Max Barry is a fascist because he allows fascist regions in NS. Granted, he allows players to invade, but he also allows them to be defenders and to volunteer their time and effort to do that. The site rules tell us very little about what he believes and even if he did, it wouldn't dictate to me what I think and who I think could use help in NationStates and why.

[Alderaan Leaugues]

Even if many other acts of destruction are being done, no matter what:

EuroIslanders is guilty. The fact that others also are guilty and yet are not condemned does not right the wrong. He is not suddenly "innocent" just because other's are also doing it.

At the end of the day, being guilty is guilty.

[Unibot III]

Even if many other acts of destruction are being done, no matter what:

EuroIslanders is guilty. The fact that others also are guilty and yet are not condemned does not right the wrong. He is not suddenly "innocent" just because other's are also doing it.

At the end of the day, being guilty is guilty.

Sorry... who in EuroIslanders is guilty. EuroSoviets?

[Evil Wolf]

I don't think Max Barry advocated invading regions because they approved one of my WA proposals. That would be President of Europeia and WA moderator Mousebumples.

I thought Mousy disapproved, but this is all getting rather off topic.

Cormac, you claim that you're (suddenly) doing this because Unknown (years ago) had it's Condemn reversed (by the very same person who wrote the original condemn) for no good reason (after they apologized publicly) and therefore ASE is also no longer deserving of a condemn for Forum Destruction.

However, I remain convinced that if the situation was flipped and ASE had their condemn repealed and Unknown still had theirs in effect, you would not be here proposing a repeal of Unknown's condemn on the logic that, because ASE had theirs repealed and no other region has been condemned for the sinister act, that Unknown shouldn't be condemned either.

If you truly think that ASE shouldn't be condemned because Unknown got their condemn repealed, let's hear the reverse argument defending Unknown and their Forum Destruction. Defy those critics who say you're only doing this because of Defender bias and defend a Region Crasher region for Forum Destruction. We are listening.

[Cormac Stark]

Cormac, you claim that you're (suddenly) doing this because Unknown (years ago) had it's Condemn reversed (by the very same person who wrote the original condemn) for no good reason (after they apologized publicly) and therefore ASE is also no longer deserving of a condemn for Forum Destruction.

However, I remain convinced that if the situation was flipped and ASE had their condemn repealed and Unknown still had theirs in effect, you would not be here proposing a repeal of Unknown's condemn on the logic that, because ASE had theirs repealed and no other region has been condemned for the sinister act, that Unknown shouldn't be condemned either.

If you truly think that ASE shouldn't be condemned because Unknown got their condemn repealed, let's hear the reverse argument defending Unknown and their Forum Destruction. Defy those critics who say you're only doing this because of Defender bias and defend a Region Crasher region for Forum Destruction. We are listening.

You can assume whatever you'd like, and I doubt I'll be able to change your mind. But yes, if this situation were reversed, I would be advocating the repeal of Unknown's condemnation. It's about the injustice of leaving one region among the many nations who have committed forum destruction and the many regions that have harbored forum destroyers as the only one actually condemned for it. This isn't about EuroIslanders being defender for me.

[Evil Wolf]

But yes, if this situation were reversed, I would be advocating the repeal of Unknown's condemnation.

I'm not asking if you would want Unknown's Condemn repealed if it still stood, Cormac. I'm asking for you to come up with a hypothetical justification for the repeal of the Condemnation, given for Forum Destruction, of the invaders and region destroyers in Unknown.

Do you think you could handle that?

[Cormac Stark]

I'm not asking if you would want Unknown's Condemn repealed if it still stood, Cormac. I'm asking for you to come up with a hypothetical justification for the repeal of the Condemnation, given for Forum Destruction, of the invaders and region destroyers in Unknown.

Do you think you could handle that?

It would be the same justification used in this repeal. I'm not going to re-write it for Unknown, because Unknown's condemnation is, in fact, repealed, and I'm not a huge fan of wasting my time.

[Evil Wolf]

It would be the same justification used in this repeal. I'm not going to re-write it for Unknown, because Unknown's condemnation is, in fact, repealed, and I'm not a huge fan of wasting my time.

So am I to assume you couldn't come up with a justification made for Unknown? Only one specifically for ASE? Interesting.

[Cormac Stark]

So am I to assume you couldn't come up with a justification made for Unknown? Only one specifically for ASE? Interesting.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The justification would be the same in either case: I don't think one region should stand alone among all the individuals who have destroyed forums and the regions that have harbored them as the only one actually condemned for it.

[Evil Wolf]

I have no idea what you're talking about. The justification would be the same in either case: I don't think one region should stand alone among all the individuals who have destroyed forums and the regions that have harbored them as the only one actually condemned for it.

Forgive me for saying so, but in your repeal, you stated several reasons beyond "Unknown got theirs repealed and no one else has been condemned". Also you gave several examples that would not well fit Unknown. I'm simply asking for you to justify your logic in this thread as it applies to everyone, not just ASE.

I also presume that you would oppose the Condemnation of any nation or region that does Forum Destruction in the future, since you view it as a matter not worthy of being Condemned for? Would you say the same if it happened to your own forums?

[Cormac Stark]

Forgive me for saying so, but in your repeal, you stated several reasons beyond "Unknown got theirs repealed and no one else has been condemned". Also you gave several examples that would not well fit Unknown. I'm simply asking for you to justify your logic in this thread as it applies to everyone, not just ASE.

I also presume that you would oppose the Condemnation of any nation or region that does Forum Destruction in the future, since you view it as a matter not worthy of being Condemned for? Would you say the same if it happened to your own forums?

I'm not going to theoretically justify repeal of Unknown's now non-existent condemnation. The primary justification for repealing ASE's condemnation is the one I've stated, which would apply to any region. The rest are just further, additional justifications, and most of the additional justifications applicable to Unknown are noted in the repeal of their condemnation.

Yes, I oppose future condemnations for forum destruction since it has been demonstrated that we are not going to act with anything resembling uniformity in regard to forum destroyers. It has happened to my own forum; Jagermeister destroyed Asgard's forum after I joined the UDL in 2012. He is not condemned either.

[Evil Wolf]

It has happened to my own forum; Jagermeister destroyed Asgard's forum after I joined the UDL in 2012. He is not condemned either.

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?

Of course, we couldn't condemn everyone else, by your logic, because no one else has been condemned, and therefore we must oppose anyone being condemned for Forum Destruction, leading to no one being Condemned for Forum Destruction because no one else is Condemned for Forum Destruction.

That's such a Catch-22 that I made my own head hurt just thinking about the logic that I explained.

[Cormac Stark]

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.

We've had years to condemn literally anyone else for forum destruction and nobody has bothered. We shouldn't leave this condemnation in place hoping eventually the world might actually care about forum destruction rather than this token effort, because the preceding years have demonstrated that is never going to happen.

[Solorni]

It's pretty sad that we're only doing this because it is a defender region.

[Cormac Stark]

It's pretty sad that we're only doing this because it is a defender region.

It's pretty sad that you continue to insist that's the case despite my assertions to the contrary.

[Solorni]

Then I would have liked to have seen this before you switched into the defender camp again.

[Cormac Stark]

Then I would have liked to have seen this before you switched into the defender camp again.

And I too would like to see you do anything non-partisan in your time in NationStates, but I'm not going to.

[Solorni]

Then I would have liked to have seen this before you switched into the defender camp again.

And I too would like to see you do anything non-partisan in your time in NationStates, but I'm not going to.

I literally was the Prime Minister of a FRA region...