[DRAFT] Repeal "Condemn DEN"

[John Turner]

Against.

And why is that?

Because most people want to see DEN with the shittiest possible condemnation proudly displayed at the top of their region page. It pays no credence to any of their major operations and thus they cannot gain anything from them if they are not recognized. It is a matter of reverse psychology, and we all know falling for reverse psychology is the hallmark of lemmings.

[Wallenburg]

And why is that?

Because most people want to see DEN with the shittiest possible condemnation proudly displayed at the top of their region page. It pays no credence to any of their major operations and thus they cannot gain anything from them if they are not recognized. It is a matter of reverse psychology, and we all know falling for reverse psychology is the hallmark of lemmings.

In any case, DEN can use the lack of quality in this resolution to campaign on the platform "even a piece of crap condemning us can win! Look how many people hate us so strongly! Clearly, we are the best at what we do!"

[John Turner]

Because most people want to see DEN with the shittiest possible condemnation proudly displayed at the top of their region page. It pays no credence to any of their major operations and thus they cannot gain anything from them if they are not recognized. It is a matter of reverse psychology, and we all know falling for reverse psychology is the hallmark of lemmings.

In any case, DEN can use the lack of quality in this resolution to campaign on the platform "even a piece of crap condemning us can win! Look how many people hate us so strongly! Clearly, we are the best at what we do!"

I understand that position as well, and don't necessarily disagree with it. I am just trying to iterate that DEN has pissed off a lot of people, and repealing this may not be as easy as one would think. They were already condemned with a crappy resolution that had to be repealed, and now they are being condemned yet again. People are going to get tired of seeing there name come up for vote and just vote nay. My main problem is this repeal is yet again paying credence to their atrocities and that is why I oppose it.

Just want you to keep that in mind.

[Wallenburg]

I understand that position as well, and don't necessarily disagree with it. I am just trying to iterate that DEN has pissed off a lot of people, and repealing this may not be as easy as one would think. They were already condemned with a crappy resolution that had to be repealed, and now they are being condemned yet again. People are going to get tired of seeing there name come up for vote and just vote nay. My main problem is this repeal is yet again paying credence to their atrocities and that is why I oppose it.

Just want you to keep that in mind.

Well, I can understand that. I myself am getting a little tired of the back-and-forth, which is why I'm hoping the draft to condemn DEN will go to vote reasonably soon, so that we can at least have something reasonable to keep on the books.

[John Turner]

I understand that position as well, and don't necessarily disagree with it. I am just trying to iterate that DEN has pissed off a lot of people, and repealing this may not be as easy as one would think. They were already condemned with a crappy resolution that had to be repealed, and now they are being condemned yet again. People are going to get tired of seeing there name come up for vote and just vote nay. My main problem is this repeal is yet again paying credence to their atrocities and that is why I oppose it.

Just want you to keep that in mind.

Well, I can understand that. I myself am getting a little tired of the back-and-forth, which is why I'm hoping the draft to condemn DEN will go to vote reasonably soon, so that we can at least have something reasonable to keep on the books.

I agree. I would be profoundly grateful if you were to remove the section about their prior antics so they are not once again yet immortalized in yet another resolution, and I can probably support this.

[Wallenburg]

Well, I can understand that. I myself am getting a little tired of the back-and-forth, which is why I'm hoping the draft to condemn DEN will go to vote reasonably soon, so that we can at least have something reasonable to keep on the books.

I agree. I would be profoundly grateful if you were to remove the section about their prior antics so they are not once again yet immortalized in yet another resolution, and I can probably support this.

Would removing the list and preserving the clause it is attached to suffice, in your opinion?

[John Turner]

I agree. I would be profoundly grateful if you were to remove the section about their prior antics so they are not once again yet immortalized in yet another resolution, and I can probably support this.

Would removing the list and preserving the clause it is attached to suffice, in your opinion?

That could work.

[Wallenburg]

Would removing the list and preserving the clause it is attached to suffice, in your opinion?

That could work.

Done.

[John Turner]

That could work.

Done.

Danke.

[The Bruce]

It should note that the name "DEN" is zombie branding.

There should also be a short pause before putting this repeal forward, on the grounds that the use of the Predator script and fallout from that use isn't completely known yet. Once that can be properly evaluated it could be included in words such as:

"Ashamed, by DEN's unconscionable conduct of cyber warfare, such as the use of the Predator script, in gaining an unfair advantage against their victims."

That or something similar would probably work.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

May I suggest a small addition?

Amused by the ridiculous and inaccurate claim that they conquered The West Pacific

They didn't? Well, I'll take an officer's word for it. Editing.

Many thanks, much appreciated.

[Wallenburg]

It should note that the name "DEN" is zombie branding.

As I understand, the region was refounded or saw a regime change, leading to an essentially different group from the old DEN simply going by the same name? I'll see if I can word that in a way fitting with the perspective of the draft, though.

There should also be a short pause before putting this repeal forward, on the grounds that the use of the Predator script and fallout from that use isn't completely known yet.

I'm not finding much about this "Predator" script. Could you elaborate?

Once that can be properly evaluated it could be included in words such as:

"Ashamed, by DEN's unconscionable conduct of cyber warfare, such as the use of the Predator script, in gaining an unfair advantage against their victims."

That or something similar would probably work.

I'm pretty sure that would be a R4.c violation.

[Wrapper]

Once that can be properly evaluated it could be included in words such as:

"Ashamed, by DEN's unconscionable conduct of cyber warfare, such as the use of the Predator script, in gaining an unfair advantage against their victims."

That or something similar would probably work.

I'm pretty sure that would be a R4.c violation.

That's a tough one. Because it's couched as "cyber warfare", one might be able to read it as if it were not referring to the game as a game.

I would normally flag Sedge on that one, but in this instance I don't have to. It is most definitely, most certainly an R2c violation. The script violated the game rules. Can't condemn for that.

[Wallenburg]

I'm pretty sure that would be a R4.c violation.

That's a tough one. Because it's couched as "cyber warfare", one might be able to read it as if it were not referring to the game as a game.

I would normally flag Sedge on that one, but in this instance I don't have to. It is most definitely, most certainly an R2c violation. The script violated the game rules. Can't condemn for that.

Thank you for the clarification, Wad Moderator.

[The Bruce]

I'm pretty sure that would be a R4.c violation.

That's a tough one. Because it's couched as "cyber warfare", one might be able to read it as if it were not referring to the game as a game.

I would normally flag Sedge on that one, but in this instance I don't have to. It is most definitely, most certainly an R2c violation. The script violated the game rules. Can't condemn for that.

It just seems like there should be a way to include the most condemning thing an organization was a part of when talking about condemning them or why a previous condemnation was lacking.

Couching the terms 'cyber warfare', if worded correctly, should be able to bridge that problem.

[Wallenburg]

After doing my best to familiarize myself with the Predator controversy, I have decided that subject is too sensitive to include in this proposal, and is probably too sensitive material for any resolution. Emotions are clearly raw in the R&D community, and I don't see much benefit in carrying such a heated topic into my legislation. Anyone who wants to write a condemnation referencing the use of Predator or other illegal activity is welcome to try to do so without breaking Security Council rules. I will not be taking that chance.

[Scanzian Freehold]

Sooo... Recursive Metagaming for metagaming's sake? Is this repeal to repeal because folks really feel there should be a repeal, or to deprive DEN of a badge of honor? Since their members are on record all over the site saying "We do this to make people uncomfortable, Because We Can," and the most egregious offenders are not even apparently playing against other players anymore, but against the staff/NS itself, (E.g.: Cora, Predator incident, et.al.,) I seriously doubt that the merits of depriving them of Condemnatory notoriety outweigh the psychological benefits to their victims of having some sense of UNITY against these raiders.
(Sorry about the run on sentence.)

As someone who was raided by DEN within a very short time of joining the game, after having invested quite a lot of effort in our region along with my friends, to find out that could be thrown so completely into disarray was such a shock, that I almost left forever right then. While we have taken the steps necessary to prevent further shenanigans, I empathize with the thousands upon thousands of other victims of their frequent raids, and would very much like to see the original condemnation stick around for a while.

Might you consider abandoning this for now? For us casuals and creatives and other users here who don't wish to be involved in the metagame any more than absolutely necessary?

[Wallenburg]

...I'm not sure you are using the term "metagaming" correctly. In any case, the current condemnation of DEN is pretty damn close to the shoddiest resolution that doesn't violate the rules, and condemning DEN won't help at all to weaken them. In fact, they will almost certainly grow stronger with a condemnation behind their actions.

I'm not sure what you think could be achieved by postponing submission of this proposal, or how my submitting it would involve you in the "metagame" in any way. As to the damage DEN has dealt on innocent regions, I encourage you to join a defender group if you really want to fight raiders. Condemnations simply give them a light slap on the wrist at best, and a shiny gold medal at worst.

[Scanzian Freehold]

As I said, or at least tried to say, it isn't about hurting DEN. It is about letting their victims know that they're not alone and no one cares what DEN and their ilk does. It's a game first and foremost, right? Why take away the one in-game thing victims get out of it?

Wikipedia intro to Metagaming: "Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."

Taking away DEN's 'Reward' is a metagame tactic; just like DEN's (alleged) use of performance enhancing scripts and other grey tactics is metagaming, as well. Us little folks are here for other reasons. Y'all bigguns throwing your PEE-Sy-chol-EE-gees around just confuse us simple backwoods states (and players) something crazy. We don't care if they get some additional jollies from it. They already raped us. We at least get to see them condemned for it, instead of just the usual "You Must've Wanted It," attitude from the gameplay forum.

[Wallenburg]

As I said, or at least tried to say, it isn't about hurting DEN. It is about letting their victims know that they're not alone and no one cares what DEN and their ilk does. It's a game first and foremost, right? Why take away the one in-game thing victims get out of it?

I don't see how spending several days voting on and debating a resolution to condemn one region, in a community of over 20,000 people, shows that we don't care what DEN does. Such behavior suggests quite the opposite, actually. And victims can get more out of the game than awarding a trophy to their abusers.

Wikipedia intro to Metagaming: "Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."

Exactly. You're using that word incorrectly.

Taking away DEN's 'Reward' is a metagame tactic; just like DEN's (alleged) use of performance enhancing scripts and other grey tactics is metagaming, as well.

No, it isn't. The World Assembly is part of the game, not outside of it.

Us little folks are here for other reasons. Y'all bigguns throwing your PEE-Sy-chol-EE-gees around just confuse us simple backwoods states (and players) something crazy.

Umm...what?

We don't care if they get some additional jollies from it. They already raped us.

It's very unusual for a victim to want to further satisfy their assailant.

We at least get to see them condemned for it, instead of just the usual "You Must've Wanted It," attitude from the gameplay forum.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. It would be completely idiotic for anyone to claim that regions want to be raided.

[Scanzian Freehold]

As I said, or at least tried to say, it isn't about hurting DEN. It is about letting their victims know that they're not alone and no one cares what DEN and their ilk does. It's a game first and foremost, right? Why take away the one in-game thing victims get out of it?

I don't see how spending several days voting on and debating a resolution to condemn one region, in a community of over 20,000 people, shows that we don't care what DEN does. Such behavior suggests quite the opposite, actually. And victims can get more out of the game than awarding a trophy to their abusers.

Wikipedia intro to Metagaming: "Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."

Exactly. You're using that word incorrectly.

Taking away DEN's 'Reward' is a metagame tactic; just like DEN's (alleged) use of performance enhancing scripts and other grey tactics is metagaming, as well.

No, it isn't. The World Assembly is part of the game, not outside of it.

Not the 'how,' but the 'why...' Taking away the condemnation isn't something you're doing as a direct gameplay element.

Us little folks are here for other reasons. Y'all bigguns throwing your PEE-Sy-chol-EE-gees around just confuse us simple backwoods states (and players) something crazy.

Umm...what?

Sorry, I Matlocked. What I'm saying is, a lot of us don't give a damn about this bigger picture you folks apparently see, because we're here for other reasons. For example, I came here on the assurance that I wouldn't be "Farmed" like I perpetually was in other webMMUs. This turned out to be not entirely accurate, in very short order. I felt lied to, isolated, and without recourse. I have no fucking interest in that kind of gaming, and the truncated sentence warning about it in the pre-agreement was not an adequate warning.

We don't care if they get some additional jollies from it. They already raped us.

It's very unusual for a victim to want to further satisfy their assailant.

With all due respect, tread lightly there. That is a very flippant reply to my earnest statement of first-hand equivalence of the two experiences. The feelings of isolation, betrayal, and helplessness are quite similar, albeit to a much lesser degree in the NS case.

We at least get to see them condemned for it, instead of just the usual "You Must've Wanted It," attitude from the gameplay forum.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. It would be completely idiotic for anyone to claim that regions want to be raided.

And yet, that is the impression I was left with when I asked how to opt out of being raided, back on the 12th of November last in "Complete Guide to Military Gameplay," after unsuccessfully trying to find answers elsewhere.

Oh wow... Just looked back then, and the person who most strongly left me with that impression was the previously mentioned (now DoS) Cora... *edit* So I guess this is what 'catharsis' feels like... Never mind me, it all seems kind of moot now. I guess I owe it to you, Wallenburg, for having to look that up. Thanks, I guess?

*Additional additional edit* Should probably add that Ever-Wandering Souls straightforward advice at that time was the deciding factor in my choosing to stay, so of course not everyone was a jerk about it. (I'll shut up now and leave you to your repeal editing.)

[The Bruce]

I'm not sure what you think could be achieved by postponing submission of this proposal, or how my submitting it would involve you in the "metagame" in any way. As to the damage DEN has dealt on innocent regions, I encourage you to join a defender group if you really want to fight raiders. Condemnations simply give them a light slap on the wrist at best, and a shiny gold medal at worst.

Are defenders supposed to take invader's word for it that they'll never cheat again, after getting caught cheating on a large scale again and again? It's bad enough that the update gameplay rules are slanted towards invaders. There is zero trust for a lot of people to invest a lot of update time out of their life on the likelihood that it won't happen repeatedly over the next few years. Telling people to become defenders if they don't like what invaders are doing is just trying to get more people to be involved in invader's update dramas, to give them more people to torment, until the next cheating scandal. The fact that there have been occurrences of large scale cheating for as long as there have been invaders doesn't exactly bode well for the future.

That's why any repeal or condemn should have a reference to the use of the illegal Predator script. Because it's a sensitive issue is the main reason for it to be included in a condemn. They should be condemned for that and not just get another puff piece about unearned victories they got using illegal scripts. That would make an effective condemnation because it shames players from doing things like this instead of giving them shiny badges for cheating, without mentioning they made long term use of an illegal script to accomplish the things they're being condemned for. Otherwise the condemnation of groups like this have no meaning, when it's in reaction to this sort of behavior.

It's a little like condemning someone for knocking you down without mention they were driving a car to do it.

[Sedgistan]

I'm pretty sure that would be a R4.c violation.

That's a tough one. Because it's couched as "cyber warfare", one might be able to read it as if it were not referring to the game as a game.

I would normally flag Sedge on that one, but in this instance I don't have to. It is most definitely, most certainly an R2c violation. The script violated the game rules. Can't condemn for that.

I have to correct you on this, actually. Rule 2(c) is in place to prevent people attempting to address rules violations via the SC instead of reporting them. However, if a rules violation has already been reported and addressed by the moderation team, it can potentially be cited in a proposal. This is tricky, as you have to make it Rule 4 compliant - while this is fairly simple for matters such as WA multying, other violations can be trickier to cite. Also, the ability to cite illegal actions is purely at Moderation discretion. If we say you can't cite some illegalities, that's it. You're recommended to ask for a ruling before attempting to do so.

While I know I've said this before, it seems I haven't updated the Compendium to make this sufficiently clear, so I'll do that now.

[Gnejs]

I'm pretty sure that would be a R4.c violation.

That's a tough one. Because it's couched as "cyber warfare", one might be able to read it as if it were not referring to the game as a game.

I would normally flag Sedge on that one, but in this instance I don't have to. It is most definitely, most certainly an R2c violation. The script violated the game rules. Can't condemn for that.

Wouldn't be possible to get around that rule by phrasing it the "right way"? What if you wrote something like (phrased as if it was a part of a condemnation, and not necessarily this repeal):

"AFFRONTED by recent revelations that the nominee has wilfully sought to, and succeeded in, circumventing both the written and unwritten laws governing the conduct of engagement in interregional conflicts, for all intents and purposes cheating the entire NationStates universe,"

Would that be kosher?

EDIT: Looks like Sedge answered that already, that's what you get for not revisiting the thread once more before posting

[Wrapper]

I have to correct you on this, actually. Rule 2(c) is in place to prevent people attempting to address rules violations via the SC instead of reporting them. However, if a rules violation has already been reported and addressed by the moderation team, it can potentially be cited in a proposal. This is tricky, as you have to make it Rule 4 compliant - while this is fairly simple for matters such as WA multying, other violations can be trickier to cite. Also, the ability to cite illegal actions is purely at Moderation discretion. If we say you can't cite some illegalities, that's it. You're recommended to ask for a ruling before attempting to do so.

While I know I've said this before, it seems I haven't updated the Compendium to make this sufficiently clear, so I'll do that now.

"I am but an egg."

And this egg needs to not use words like "most definitely, most certainly".