[DEFEATED] Repeal "Condemn The Pacific"

[Ramaeus]

Weighing in as someone who has actually been a GCR Delegate: most, if not all, of the 3-400 unique nations within the GCR don't care about democracy within the region, the forum government, or anything like that. They, broadly speaking, want stability and to be left alone.

[Sciongrad]

This is an example of the ideological imperialism to which the proposal refers. Just because you, a foreigner, do not agree with The Pacific's governing institutions doesn't mean actual native residents of The Pacific feel as you do. There is no clamoring for the forum oligarchy you misleadingly refer to as "democracy." Residents of The Pacific seem to be happy with their government. Who are you, who is Chester, and who am I to tell them that forms of government that consistently make residents of several other Feeders and Sinkers very unhappy would be preferable?

It is, frankly, ridiculous to argue that a system of government should not be criticized simply because it exists. Of course, one could very easily make the argument that all forum-based governments are functionally identical in that they're, to some extent, oligarchies, so at a fundamental level, this particular argument is pointless. But condemning a form of government is not, ipso facto "imperialism" and you know better than that.

[Cormactopia II]

This is an example of the ideological imperialism to which the proposal refers. Just because you, a foreigner, do not agree with The Pacific's governing institutions doesn't mean actual native residents of The Pacific feel as you do.

The idea that democracy is imperialistic to its subjects is totally absurd. You do realize that democracy gives people a choice as to their government? If the New Pacific Order is so great, it surely could win open elections.

That isn't the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that foreign regions and their people trying to impose what some call "democracy" upon The Pacific, or any other region for that matter, is imperialism.

There is no clamoring for the forum oligarchy you misleadingly refer to as "democracy."

Cormac, we pretty much agree on this point. I've been an opponent of forum oligarchy for longer than you've played this game. It's one reason why Right to Life, the region I founded, elects its president/delegate on the main page. (Voting is open to all WA residents.)

You may claim to be an opponent of forum oligarchy, and yet you don't seek to condemn a region like The Rejected Realms that is ruled by forum oligarchy. You have run for office there to be part of the oligarchy.

Weighing in as someone who has actually been a GCR Delegate: most, if not all, of the 3-400 unique nations within the GCR don't care about democracy within the region, the forum government, or anything like that. They, broadly speaking, want stability and to be left alone.

This has been my experience as well. Unfortunately regions like The North Pacific and Europeia would force a far less stable system of government on natives who don't want it, not for the benefit of regional natives, but to promote the ideological principles that empower their forum oligarchies and allow them to project their power outward to impose it upon others. They don't care what the natives of Feeder and Sinker regions want, they only care about their power and enhancing their ability to project and impose it upon others. This is imperialism.

This is an example of the ideological imperialism to which the proposal refers. Just because you, a foreigner, do not agree with The Pacific's governing institutions doesn't mean actual native residents of The Pacific feel as you do. There is no clamoring for the forum oligarchy you misleadingly refer to as "democracy." Residents of The Pacific seem to be happy with their government. Who are you, who is Chester, and who am I to tell them that forms of government that consistently make residents of several other Feeders and Sinkers very unhappy would be preferable?

It is, frankly, ridiculous to argue that a system of government should not be criticized simply because it exists. Of course, one could very easily make the argument that all forum-based governments are functionally identical in that they're, to some extent, oligarchies, so at a fundamental level, this particular argument is pointless. But condemning a form of government is not, ipso facto "imperialism" and you know better than that.

See above.

[Christian Democrats]

The idea that democracy is imperialistic to its subjects is totally absurd. You do realize that democracy gives people a choice as to their government? If the New Pacific Order is so great, it surely could win open elections.

That isn't the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that foreign regions and their people trying to impose what some call "democracy" upon The Pacific, or any other region for that matter, is imperialism.

Giving people a choice is not imperialism. If I say that Pacificans should have the opportunity to choose their own leaders, I'm not being imperialistic. I'm being the opposite. Truly, Cormac, you've bought into the arguments of African and Asian tin-pot dictators.

Cormac, we pretty much agree on this point. I've been an opponent of forum oligarchy for longer than you've played this game. It's one reason why Right to Life, the region I founded, elects its president/delegate on the main page. (Voting is open to all WA residents.)

You may claim to be an opponent of forum oligarchy, and yet you don't seek to condemn a region like The Rejected Realms that is ruled by forum oligarchy. You have run for office there to be part of the oligarchy.

Geez, I get criticized by both sides. Guy is criticizing me right now because he says that I think TRR's government is illegitimate.

[Tfw you accidentally withdraw endo]

I might be more likely to vote for this in a few years, but it's only been a bit over a year since the incident in Lazarus.

[Cormactopia II]

Giving people a choice is not imperialism. If I say that Pacificans should have the opportunity to choose their own leaders, I'm not being imperialistic. I'm being the opposite. Truly, Cormac, you've bought into the arguments of African and Asian tin-pot dictators.

There is a difference between just expressing your views and attempting to impose sanction to enforce your views. Condemnation is a form of sanction; it is meant to apply global political pressure on a particular region or nation by damaging their interregional or international reputation, to persuade them to bend to the pressure and conform to global standards as articulated by the condemnation resolution.

This form of sanction has, of course, been completely ineffective in most cases. But that doesn't change the fact that use of the Security Council to impose sanction upon a regional population that is content with its region's form of government, as a form of soft coercion aimed at making them alter their form of government, is imperialistic. If residents of The Pacific are content with the Pacific Order -- and all signs indicate they are -- that is none of anyone else's concern. We should respect their right to prefer stability to chaos.

[Pierconium]

If the mob mentality rules the day, as it typically does here, then the continued pettiness of a few will unfortunately influence the vote.

Several of the comments in this thread speaking against this resolution contain factual errors, as did the original condemnation, which has been acknowledged by the author.

In other instances an acknowledgment of this fact (error in original submission) would be enough to warrant a repeal. In others, the idea that a full year in NationStates is somehow 'too soon' would be scoffed at as absurd because of the pace with which this realm moves.

Regardless, if the vote fails, the nations of the Pacific are resilient. And at least this way we will be able to better gauge friend from foe. I personally do not buy in to the idea some are pushing that this is a vote against Cormac. Authorship should not be a burden on an amendment with merit.

My words to the world were sincere, and actions to correct the mistakes of a few, for which you condemned the many, have been taken. All we ask is that you vote based on fact and current reality and not because of blustering bullet points that make claims without evidence.

Some parties, who are forever powerless to enforce change from outside upon us, see this as their only means of retribution for perceived past wrongs. Therefore, the resolution will likely fail, and we will continue to wear the badge as a symbol of honor.

A symbol that the Pacific will not bend to the outside influences that wish to portray us negatively or see us fail. We will continue to grow in strength and resolve regardless of their false platitudes and hypocritical positions.

We do not want the condemnation, but if it is going to be thrust upon us because of falsehoods and inaccuracies, we will accept it and move forward. Forever forward.

[Christian Democrats]

Giving people a choice is not imperialism. If I say that Pacificans should have the opportunity to choose their own leaders, I'm not being imperialistic. I'm being the opposite. Truly, Cormac, you've bought into the arguments of African and Asian tin-pot dictators.

There is a difference between just expressing your views and attempting to impose sanction to enforce your views.

Giving others the ability to vote their views into law is not enforcing my views on others.

Condemnation is a form of sanction; it is meant to apply global political pressure on a particular region or nation by damaging their interregional or international reputation, to persuade them to bend to the pressure and conform to global standards as articulated by the condemnation resolution.

And what's your point?

But that doesn't change the fact that use of the Security Council to impose sanction upon a regional population that is content with its region's form of government, as a form of soft coercion aimed at making them alter their form of government, is imperialistic. If residents of The Pacific are content with the Pacific Order -- and all signs indicate they are -- that is none of anyone else's concern.

I repeat my earlier statement.

If the New Pacific Order is so great, it surely could win open elections.

We should respect their right to prefer stability to chaos.

There goes the rhetoric of a tin-pot dictator again.

[Pierconium]

The Pacific Order wins an election within the Pacific twice every day.

[Lazarus CoS]

It's definitely too soon for a repeal. I can't attest to any changes within The Pacific that may or may not have occurred, but a simple apology (sincere or not) in no way absolves them. Not to mention that John Turner makes a fair point. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Cormac authored this as a way to pander to the NPO in order to gain their support for his little stunt in Osiris. If anything it's expected and low for that matter. Now I'm clearly biased in this, I won't deny that, but if there's anything I'm sure of it's that this repeal is far from earned and most assuredly not deserved just yet.

[Pierconium]

It's definitely too soon for a repeal. I can't attest to any changes within The Pacific that may or may not have occurred, but a simple apology (sincere or not) in no way absolves them. Not to mention that John Turner makes a fair point. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Cormac authored his as a way to pander to the NPO in order to gain their support for his little stunt in Osiris. If anything it's expected and low for that matter. Now I'm clearly biased in this, I won't deny that, but if there's anything I'm sure of it's that this repeal is far from earned and most assuredly not deserved just yet.

The sitting Delegate in Osiris supports the government run by Cormac. That alone is sufficient to get our tacit support, even if materially that support is superficial. Just as we support the government currently in effect within Lazarus because the Delegate supports it. The Pacific supports the rights of a sitting Delegate within the GCRs.

No pandering necessary.

As to the rest, I am legitimately interested in knowing if there are other examples of regions being condemned, making leadership and policy changes and still being denied a repeal over a year later. It seems to me that certain parties are never going to be satisfied because of their own pettiness.

[Aeriea]

The Pacific Order wins an open election within the Pacific twice every day.

Endorsement limit is 10

[Pierconium]

The Pacific Order wins an open election within the Pacific twice every day.

Endorsement limit is 10

Do you have a point? Endorsement limits exist in almost all GCRs. We maintain a low count to control the Influence levels for the security of the region, but a limit is a limit, be it 10 or 100. The end result is the same.

[Cormactopia II]

The Pacific Order wins an open election within the Pacific twice every day.

But of course this decision made by hundreds of people twice a day is somehow less democratic than a dozen to two dozen people, at most, voting on an off-site forum once every few months.

#SecurityCouncilLogic

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Cormac authored this as a way to pander to the NPO in order to gain their support for his little stunt in Osiris.

While we would be pleased to deepen our relations with the Pacific Order -- which existed well before my current service as Pharaoh -- we were able, with the support of the Osiran regional community, to defy imperialistic pressure from numerous foreign powers to conform to their oligarchical standards, without doing any pandering.

As a quick glance at Osiris will indicate, we have no need to pander to maintain our government.

[Christian Democrats]

If the New Pacific Order is so great, it surely could win open elections.

The Pacific Order wins an open election within the Pacific twice every day.

The NPO wins an election in the Pacific twice each day, but it is certainly not open.

• "Endorsement limit is 10."
• "Citizenship is defined as having a World Assembly nation within the Pacific, endorsing both the Emperor and Consul nations, and a declaration of allegiance to the region [i.e., the party]."
• Prohibited: "Continued, flagrant refusal to become aligned with the Emperor via World Assembly endorsement.
"
• Prohibited: "Giving your endorsement to a nation with whom you are not familiar personally."
• Treason: "Seeking many endorsements without permission or breaking the endorsement cap.

"
• Treason: "Assisting those seeking many endorsements without permission.

"
• Treason: "Engaging in counter-revolutionary activities."

The real-world equivalent would be a country with the following laws.

• Except for the Leader and his appointees, anyone who receives more than 10 votes will be executed.
• Citizenship is reserved to those subjects who vote for the Leader and take an oath of loyalty to him.
• Repeated refusal to vote for the Leader will result in execution.
• Voting for a person with whom you are not familiar personally will result in execution.
• Seeking votes in an election if you are not the Leader will result in execution.
• Assisting persons other than the Leader who are seeking election will result in execution.
• Engaging in activities that are contrary to the ideology of the Leader will result in execution.

[Aeriea]

Do you have a point? Endorsement limits exist in almost all GCRs. We maintain a low count to control the Influence levels for the security of the region, but a limit is a limit, be it 10 or 100. The end result is the same.

Yeah, I do have a point. There are several reason you cannot cite a GCR delegate's success at retaining their position as evidence to support your claim that you have "free and open elections," but the most obvious is that an endorsement cap eliminates the "free" bit. I also have not argued this phenomenon is unique to the Pacific - I don't think any large region can really claim to hold "free and open elections."

[Funkadelia]

As with the numerous failed repeals of "Condemn Macedonia," just because a region has stopped doing something doesn't take away the fact that they've done it.

[Flanderlion]

I guess I'll have to support the repeal. I mean, I like the badge, but we don't exactly deserve to keep it, and there are far better recipients who are more deserving of a condemnation than the the Pacific. We've done a few large governmental changes since then, and far more policy changes, including the inclusion of democratic institutions, the reintroduction of Governors, and have over 10,000 nations who call the Pacific home. We have worked in multi region operations for the stability of Nationstates, including in the Atlantic, where we assisted a refound for ancient natives, and returning the rightful government of TWP to power after a foreign coup that was decried by the majority of Nationstates. We have also participated in other multi regional events, such as the world fair and other similar events. A condemnation is meant to be a catalyst for a reformation, and reform we have.

[Pierconium]

Do you have a point? Endorsement limits exist in almost all GCRs. We maintain a low count to control the Influence levels for the security of the region, but a limit is a limit, be it 10 or 100. The end result is the same.

Yeah, I do have a point. There are several reason you cannot cite a GCR delegate's success at retaining their position as evidence to support your claim that you have "free and open elections," but the most obvious is that an endorsement cap eliminates the "free" bit. I also have not argued this phenomenon is unique to the Pacific - I don't think any large region can really claim to hold "free and open elections."

I am fairly certain that I did not use the words 'free' or 'open' anywhere in my statement.

I do not make false claims of democracy or believe in the legitimacy of such institutions within the Feeders. They do not work for a region that wants a stable government.

Christian Democrats, thank you for yet another bullet point list. Yes, if the Pacific were a 'real world' nation it would be those things. And?

[Christian Democrats]

I am fairly certain that I did not use the words 'free' or 'open' anywhere in my statement.

The Pacific Order wins an open election within the Pacific twice every day.

Christian Democrats, thank you for yet another bullet point list. Yes, if the Pacific were a 'real world' nation it would be those things. And?

And the bullet point list I posted identifies the characteristics of what would be, by all accounts, an oppressive country. At least you acknowledge that the NPO is the simulated equivalent of a real-world government that executes political dissidents.

The real-world equivalent would be a country with the following laws.

• Except for the Leader and his appointees, anyone who receives more than 10 votes will be executed.
• Citizenship is reserved to those subjects who vote for the Leader and take an oath of loyalty to him.
• Repeated refusal to vote for the Leader will result in execution.
• Voting for a person with whom you are not familiar personally will result in execution.
• Seeking votes in an election if you are not the Leader will result in execution.
• Assisting persons other than the Leader who are seeking election will result in execution.
• Engaging in activities that are contrary to the ideology of the Leader will result in execution.

[Pierconium]

Ah, my mistake. I will edit the post accordingly.

And again, yes, if the Pacific were a real world country those things would be true. Just as most nations would have a multitude of nonsensical laws in place and many would have populations too large for the planet to sustain them and any number of other nonsense comparisons that make no sense because, and let me make sure this is clear, the Pacific is not a real world country.

[Cormactopia II]

The real-world equivalent would be a country with the following laws.

• Except for the Leader and his appointees, anyone who receives more than 10 votes will be executed.

I wasn't aware the Delegate of The Pacific had the power to make nations cease to exist, never to be refounded.

In less snarky terms: I think the "real-world equivalent" you're looking for would be exile rather than execution. Of course, NationStates gameplay is really nothing at all like the real world, so referring to a "real-world equivalent" is fairly meaningless.

[Louisistan]

In accordance with the current standings of our offsite poll, I have cast our voted against this repeal.

[Pierconium]

In accordance with the current standings of our offsite poll, I have cast our voted against this repeal.

Indeed. I'm glad yourself and two other nations decided to vote against and at least are willing to acknowledge that you decided to stack the vote.

[United Lammunist Republic]

*beep* We're sorry. The proposal you have submitted can't not be voted for at this time. Please try again in — 2 years —. Thank you for calling the security council, where we just don't give a shit about security. *beep*

All joking aside, this is a very well written proposal, however, repealing this resolution is like sending a criminal out on probation a couple of years early. I can see this resolution being voted 'for' in the future (during the probation meeting), but not at this time.