[DEFEATED] Commend Mahaj

[RiderSyl]

>Wants to shame Zaolat for opposing the commendation of a defender that's done so much else
>Commendation of an invader that's done so much else? "Doesn't matter, he's an invader, oppose it."

Hypocrisy abounds.

[Cormac Stark]

>Wants to shame Zaolat for opposing the commendation of a defender that's done so much else
>Commendation of an invader that's done so much else? "Doesn't matter, he's an invader, oppose it."

Hypocrisy abounds.

Currently engaging in condemnable behavior should disqualify you from commendation.

I'm sorry that most of NationStates thinks invading is condemnable behavior -- well, actually, I'm not sorry -- but that's the way it is. You don't get to play the victims of unfair discrimination card; nobody's making you go ransack other people's regions, thus earning their contempt and condemnation, you're choosing to do that. Don't expect the people whose regions you're ransacking to be happy about it and pat you on the backs with commendations.

[RiderSyl]

Currently engaging in condemnable behavior should disqualify you from commendation.

I've never seen a raider disqualified from condemnation because of commendable behavior, mainly because that commendable behavior is shouted down as being lesser than the material in the proposal.

So, I'm holding this to those same standards. What Evil Wolf is doing now is not condemnable enough to override the reasons for commendation outlined in this proposal.

I'm sorry that most of NationStates thinks invading is condemnable behavior -- well, actually, I'm not sorry

Thanks for wasting 5 seconds of my life, Cormac.

-- but that's the way it is. You don't get to play the victims of unfair discrimination card; nobody's making you go ransack other people's regions, thus earning their contempt and condemnation, you're choosing to do that. Don't expect the people whose regions you're ransacking to be happy about it and pat you on the backs with commendations.

So, the nature of invading causes people in the Security Council to have negative bias towards anyone that participates, or has participated in raiding. Isn't that pretty much the definition of discrimination? Or are you arguing that raiders are fairly discriminated against?

[Ivo Mullur]

So, the nature of invading causes people in the Security Council to have negative bias towards anyone that participates, or has participated in raiding. Isn't that pretty much the definition of discrimination? Or are you arguing that raiders are fairly discriminated against?

Yes, the nature of invading causes the general NS populace (aka people crying foul about having their regions tagged ) to have a negative view of raiders. Discrimination tends to have the connotation of arbitrary unfair treatment or bias, whereas raiding, well, who actually wants their region invaded? Would you expect natives to shrug off a little tag or occupation as nothing? Nah, not really.

[Cormac Stark]

I've never seen a raider disqualified from condemnation because of commendable behavior, mainly because that commendable behavior is shouted down as being lesser than the material in the proposal.

So, I'm holding this to those same standards. What Evil Wolf is doing now is not condemnable enough to override the reasons for commendation outlined in this proposal.

Okay, but you're wrong. Region destruction is condemnable enough to override the reasons for commendation outlined in the proposal. That you don't see it as condemnable really isn't my problem. The vast majority of NationStates agrees with me.

So, the nature of invading causes people in the Security Council to have negative bias towards anyone that participates, or has participated in raiding. Isn't that pretty much the definition of discrimination? Or are you arguing that raiders are fairly discriminated against?

Essentially yes, that's what I'm arguing. You folks choose to behave this way, nobody is forcing you to do it. You shouldn't opt to play the bad guy in a game and then expect to be treated as the good guy whilst still playing the bad guy. If you don't want to be treated like the bad guy, don't play the bad guy.

[RiderSyl]

Okay, but you're wrong. Region destruction is condemnable enough to override the reasons for commendation outlined in the proposal. That you don't see it as condemnable really isn't my problem. The vast majority of NationStates agrees with me.

I doubt you're the spokesperson for the "vast majority of NationStates".

You say that region destruction is that strong of a condemnable action, to override everything in this Commendation proposal... but raiders can't be condemned based on region destruction alone. This isn't adding up, Cormac, and I'm pretty sure I know why; because you're wrong.

So, the nature of invading causes people in the Security Council to have negative bias towards anyone that participates, or has participated in raiding. Isn't that pretty much the definition of discrimination? Or are you arguing that raiders are fairly discriminated against?

Essentially yes, that's what I'm arguing. You folks choose to behave this way, nobody is forcing you to do it. You shouldn't opt to play the bad guy in a game and then expect to be treated as the good guy whilst still playing the bad guy. If you don't want to be treated like the bad guy, don't play the bad guy.

Bad guys can be commended for doing good things. The good guys be condemned for doing bad things. Reality doesn't exist in the colors of black-and-white, like you seem to think it does.

[Tim Stark]

Okay, but you're wrong. Region destruction is condemnable enough to override the reasons for commendation outlined in the proposal. That you don't see it as condemnable really isn't my problem. The vast majority of NationStates agrees with me.

I doubt you're the spokesperson for the "vast majority of NationStates".

Not jumping into this too much as I don't like Security Council arguments, but it's a widely accepted fact that Raiding is disliked by a Majority of Nationstates players, with only really the Gameplay Community being quite supportive of it. I'll note that we, compared to communities like the RP and the NSG groups, are significantly smaller than them.

[-The West Coast-]

I had not realized we all fell into 'The Twilight Zone'.

[RiderSyl]

I doubt you're the spokesperson for the "vast majority of NationStates".

Not jumping into this too much as I don't like Security Council arguments, but it's a widely accepted fact that Raiding is disliked by a Majority of Nationstates players, with only really the Gameplay Community being quite supportive of it. I'll note that we, compared to communities like the RP and the NSG groups, are significantly smaller than them.

Thanks for noting it, instead of announcing it like you're the NS Majority Leader or something.

[Normlpeople]

Lets check the SC 'Standard for Commendation' checklist:

Defender: check
Member of alphabet treaty defender organization: check
Active in government of a sinker/feeder: check

Yup, submit it, the voters will make sure it goes through. I won't support it though.

[Zaolat]

Lets check the SC 'Standard for Commendation' checklist:

Defender: check
Member of alphabet treaty defender organization: check
Active in government of a sinker/feeder: check

Yup, submit it, the voters will make sure it goes through. I won't support it though.

Well that's how the black and white dichotomy is supposed to be though! There's no room for grey area, it's unacceptable! Mahaj can't be not commended!

[KaelThas Quilor]

I doubt you're the spokesperson for the "vast majority of NationStates".

Not jumping into this too much as I don't like Security Council arguments, but it's a widely accepted fact that Raiding is disliked by a Majority of Nationstates players, with only really the Gameplay Community being quite supportive of it. I'll note that we, compared to communities like the RP and the NSG groups, are significantly smaller than them.

And We're supposed to care? This is Gameplay Tim. Not NSG or RP. And since much of RP and just about all of NSG happens on these forums (Which raiders can't touch), regional 'destruction' still isn't that huge a concern.

[Solorni]

If we take out all the references related to defending or the UDL I might support this.

[Consular]

If we take out all the references related to defending or the UDL I might support this.

There would be very little left over if he did that.

[The Stalker]

A bit of a late reply, but what Uni said here is what I meant by more people get condemned for raiding than commend for defending.

I would argue that invaders are more likely to be invaded solely for being invaders, whereas defenders are usually commended for a number of things beyond their work as a defender because their work as a defender is regarded as "not enough" for a commendation.

[RiderSyl]

A bit of a late reply, but what Uni said here is what I meant by more people get condemned for raiding than commend for defending.

I would argue that invaders are more likely to be invaded solely for being invaders, whereas defenders are usually commended for a number of things beyond their work as a defender because their work as a defender is regarded as "not enough" for a commendation.

I am so surprised Unibot was your source.

[KaelThas Quilor]

A bit of a late reply, but what Uni said here is what I meant by more people get condemned for raiding than commend for defending.

I would argue that invaders are more likely to be invaded solely for being invaders, whereas defenders are usually commended for a number of things beyond their work as a defender because their work as a defender is regarded as "not enough" for a commendation.

Still a false statement, Stalker.

[The Stalker]

@ Ridersyl, lol not my source, but he said what I was trying to say better.

[Jakker]

And this proposal is attempting to commend Mahaj for more than simply being a defender. My point is that defenders are far more likely to be commended than raiders are to be condemned.

I would argue that invaders are more likely to be invaded solely for being invaders, whereas defenders are usually commended for a number of things beyond their work as a defender because their work as a defender is regarded as "not enough" for a commendation.

Your argument is not really based on fact though, Uni. Many defenders have done more and have been recognized as such, however I don't think simply raiding or simply defending is worthy of being recognized. You have to be awesome and noteworthy about it.

[Solorni]

Despite the fact that Unibot is dead set against religion, it is ironic that he constantly seeks to portray defenders as martyrs. Perhaps he is filling an imaginary hole.

[The Stalker]

Well perhaps someone could go through the resolutions and generate a list eh? I can think of half a dozen people condemned for mainly raiding, but very few come to mind that are commended for mainly defending. Most defenders are commended for a mix of reasons.

[Jakker]

Well perhaps someone could go through the resolutions and generate a list eh? I can think of half a dozen people condemned for mainly raiding, but very few come to mind that are commended for mainly defending. Most defenders are commended for a mix of reasons.

Nations solely condemned for raiding-Jakker, Mall (his assistance in TSP coup was a major contributing factor), Gest, Halc
Nation solely commended for defending- Ananke II (briefly mentions work in 10000 Islands), Wordy

And the above does not include many commendations that have a bulk discussing work as a defender. Also, being condemned for raiding again has only been a thing for around 2 years. I would say it is a challenge for a defender or raider to be recognized for those actions solely. To argue there's some vendetta against defenders is so silly.

[Cormac Stark]

For the record, I think commendations and condemnations are relatively tough to pass, period. There's no question that those who have been commended or condemned thus far have deserved it. But the threshold for both defenders and invaders tends to be higher than just defending or invading.

The invaders who are condemned tend to be among the worst in terms of region destruction, etc. If someone tried to condemn Andacantra, technically an invader with The Cat Burglars, just for their relatively non-destructive invasions, that would never fly.

[Consular]

There's no question that those who have been commended or condemned thus far have deserved it.

Then save me some stamps and stop trying to repeal Commend Westwind.

[Todd McCloud]

Lets check the SC 'Standard for Commendation' checklist:

Defender: check
Member of alphabet treaty defender organization: check
Active in government of a sinker/feeder: check

Yup, submit it, the voters will make sure it goes through. I won't support it though.

There are plenty of nations that have been commended and do not fit that list.


That all said, I could get behind a balanced commendation of Mahaj.