PASSED: Liberate belgium

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

You do realise that the whole point of a liberation resolution is to then get the region liberated by defenders?

And that's what's bothering me. Do we really want to set that precedent? Do we really want the World Assembly to officially go on record as supporting one group of players over another group of players? An analogy might be a boxing match which is being conducted entirely within the rules...then suddenly the referee hands a baseball bat to one the fighters and says "I like you better, go beat the hell out of him".

[Urgench]

You do realise that the whole point of a liberation resolution is to then get the region liberated by defenders? Why should it matter if the resolution enables it to be done while its still being voted upon - the same outcome has been achieved, just earlier, which benefits the natives. Also, I thought the mods were quite clear that its not the WA that liberates the region afterwards - there can be no WA army - its defenders who have to actually restore the delegacy to the natives. And if we were to ask for the resolution to be taken down, it would make our job harder, as there would be no pressure on the invader delegate to spread the pw around to acquire reinforcements, it would give a clear warning to the invaders that we're about to liberate (meaning the delegate would be online), and should we fail, the password would be changed, and we'd have to start all over again with getting a proposal through the WA.

Indeed and where did I suggest the WA should be involved post the passage of a liberation resolution?

Your question

" Why should it matter if the resolution enables it to be done while its still being voted upon "

is remarkable, what if the WA then voted not to Liberate ?

This category is being turned in to a tool of leverage and coercion and in my opinion not being used for its purpose therefore.

[Urgench]

You do realise that the whole point of a liberation resolution is to then get the region liberated by defenders?

And that's what's bothering me. Do we really want to set that precedent? Do we really want the World Assembly to officially go on record as supporting one group of players over another group of players? An analogy might be a boxing match which is being conducted entirely within the rules...then suddenly the referee hands a baseball bat to one the fighters and says "I like you better, go beat the hell out of him".

What Mad Sheep Rail Gun said. In effect Defenders become the "military" enforcers of a liberation under the presumptions of this precedent, in fact the WA co-opts itself an army of Defenders.

[New Galcia]

I will be glad with this resolution passes and the Belgium question ceases to be a WA matter and instead is left to the political players to figure out. Now that Chicago resolution.....there's a mess!

[West-Flanders]

You do realise that the whole point of a liberation resolution is to then get the region liberated by defenders?

And that's what's bothering me. Do we really want to set that precedent? Do we really want the World Assembly to officially go on record as supporting one group of players over another group of players? An analogy might be a boxing match which is being conducted entirely within the rules...then suddenly the referee hands a baseball bat to one the fighters and says "I like you better, go beat the hell out of him".

What Mad Sheep Rail Gun said. In effect Defenders become the "military" enforcers of a liberation under the presumptions of this precedent, in fact the WA co-opts itself an army of Defenders.

If you like analogies, here's another: Suppose you're at home, a burglar suddenly breaks into your home, says "this is my house now", locks the door so the police can't enter, and kicks all inhabitans out one by one. The liberation-proposal simply evens the balance, as it was waaaay to easy for raiders to lock the door waaay to fast. Liberation-resolution were introduced to unlock the door, to give back the possibility to fight back, so there can be a more fair fight between invaders and defenders.

And if we can't use liberation-resolutions to open up a region so defenders can try to liberate a region, then what's the point in having them?

[Tattoonie]

I think that liberating belgium is a good idea but i can say that the WA should have a limit on how many nations that they can liberate. Because they can't help everybody who needs to be liberated. Not being mean but they nations that get invaded it teaches them a lesson about safety and the wellbeing of the nation.

[Riemstagrad]

this type of resolutions has been discussed previously, everyone gave his/her opinion. most people agreed that it is indeed a tool that can be used to counter the total domination of griefer-organisations who just invade and lock a region until it dies.
that was a huge imbalance wich existed since the implementation of the influence-rules. and that imbalance has been discussed allready before the influence system was implemented. it isn't something new.
liberation resolutions don't take care of the underlying-problems, but they can shift the balance in such a way that griefers won't be able to destroy a region that easy. i'm sure they won't be used in the normal invader/defender game, because decent invaders never destroy regions and are always up for a nice battle with the defenders.


maybe some people don't like it that the WA gets involved with gameplay. but honestly, this is the first time in 6 and a half years of playing nationstates, that i'm actually interested in the outcome of a WA-resolution...

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

If you like analogies, here's another: Suppose you're at home, a burglar suddenly breaks into your home, says "this is my house now", locks the door so the police can't enter, and kicks all inhabitans out one by one.

OK, but let's also assume that in the town you live in, burglary is not a crime and the burglars actions are perfectly legal.

The liberation-proposal simply evens the balance, as it was waaaay to easy for raiders to lock the door waaay to fast. Liberation-resolution were introduced to unlock the door, to give back the possibility to fight back, so there can be a more fair fight between invaders and defenders.

I think the WA should remain neutral though, instead of openly favoring one group of players over another.

It should be:

We're removing the password to ensure freedom of movement into the region.

Not:

We're removing the password so that defenders can seize the region from the raiders.

The category shouldn't even have been called "Liberation". The name itself implies a bias in favor of defender forces. It should have been called something more neutral like "Password Removal" or "Free Passage".

And if we can't use liberation-resolutions to open up a region so defenders can try to liberate a region, then what's the point in having them?

So you admit that an entire World Assembly Resolution Category has been put in place, along with all the necessary re-coding of the game, in order to benefit one group of players at the expense of another group of players? And you don't see anything wrong with that?

[Ellezelles]

it has been put in place so 90% of players can still play the game the way they want it, and 10% that causes havoc can't do that anymore

[Urgench]

If you like analogies, here's another: Suppose you're at home, a burglar suddenly breaks into your home, says "this is my house now", locks the door so the police can't enter, and kicks all inhabitans out one by one. The liberation-proposal simply evens the balance, as it was waaaay to easy for raiders to lock the door waaay to fast. Liberation-resolution were introduced to unlock the door, to give back the possibility to fight back, so there can be a more fair fight between invaders and defenders.

And if we can't use liberation-resolutions to open up a region so defenders can try to liberate a region, then what's the point in having them?

A region in NS is not like one's own house, therefore the analogy is false.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a region is terminably disorganised and incapable of defending itself, bearing in mind that it is part of an aspect of the game which takes invasion for granted as part of play, that at some point it will be invaded and taken over in by a better orgainsed and more capable group who then do what they wish with the region.

I can take your word that Belgians love their region and are upset at the loss of it, and I can accept that you have a reason to ask the WA to intervene to make it possible for you to reclaim your region.

But I can't accept that the WA has an interest in having its legal interventions be used as leverage and coercion which disadvantage a whole group of players. Have the intervention of the WA on a neutral basis, but why turn the WA in to a stick to beat other players ?

[West-Flanders]

If you like analogies, here's another: Suppose you're at home, a burglar suddenly breaks into your home, says "this is my house now", locks the door so the police can't enter, and kicks all inhabitans out one by one.

OK, but let's also assume that in the town you live in, burglary is not a crime and the burglars actions are perfectly legal.

It doesn't make it less morally wrong. The WA has a moral power to interfere. Not by force as it doesn't have an army. But by creating a liberation-resolution it is issueing a statement that it cannot allow such practices to exist, creating a possibility to free the region under siege. Apparantly many WA-members agree with this. At the moment the Liberate-Belgium stands Votes For: 4,169, Votes Against 613, with still 19 hours to go.

The liberation-proposal simply evens the balance, as it was waaaay to easy for raiders to lock the door waaay to fast. Liberation-resolution were introduced to unlock the door, to give back the possibility to fight back, so there can be a more fair fight between invaders and defenders.

I think the WA should remain neutral though, instead of openly favoring one group of players over another.

It should be:

We're removing the password to ensure freedom of movement into the region.

Not:

We're removing the password so that defenders can seize the region from the raiders.

The category shouldn't even have been called "Liberation". The name itself implies a bias in favor of defender forces. It should have been called something more neutral like "Password Removal" or "Free Passage".

That's semantics, but you're making some points though, so I won't argue with you there.

And if we can't use liberation-resolutions to open up a region so defenders can try to liberate a region, then what's the point in having them?

So you admit that an entire World Assembly Resolution Category has been put in place, along with all the necessary re-coding of the game, in order to benefit one group of players at the expense of another group of players? And you don't see anything wrong with that?

Well, it benefits us poor victims in the sence that our region is not being destroyed. I said it before, personally I've not been too fond of the liberation-resolution, I had rather seen an alternative, but since the liberation-resolution is here, we might as well use it.

[Ananke]

Therefore whether it passed of not, the resolution completed its purpose

Can you see any circumstances in which raiders would make use of this new category, or is it intended only for defender use?

Actually some invaders tried to use the Liberation category to get an old invader region, which had gotten refounded, unlocked. Wouldn't have done much, since the region had an founder, but that particular proposal managed to gather around 15 delegate approvals or so.

[Flower Power Nation]

Therefore whether it passed of not, the resolution completed its purpose

Can you see any circumstances in which raiders would make use of this new category, or is it intended only for defender use?

Actually some invaders tried to use the Liberation category to get an old invader region, which had gotten refounded, unlocked. Wouldn't have done much, since the region had an founder, but that particular proposal managed to gather around 15 delegate approvals or so.

If it has a founder it would have been deleted, I think any Liberation proposal toward a region with a founder is illegal. Although, I suppose there are regions whose founder could be reborn in Lazarus while the resolution is at vote, which would make for a cute little mod scurry.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

If it has a founder it would have been deleted, I think any Liberation proposal toward a region with a founder is illegal.

Do you have a link to that ruling?

[Naivetry]

Indeed, I'd argue it's more than tipped the balance. It's completely shattered it.

Au contraire; there was no balance previously. If you'd like, I can explain to you at great length why raiding other regions is a hundred times easier than defending them, and why griefing destroying other regions is easier still. NS has been dramatically out of balance for the last three years, since the mods went hands-off with the introduction of Influence, and not only raiders, defenders, and political Gameplayers, but an untold number of casual players have suffered as a result.

Well that "official statement" is appalling. The idea that the SC's processes should be abused and circumvented as a subterfuge to achieve the aims of specific player groups with axes to grind against other groups is just the sort of obnoxious partiality and sneaky corruption that this resolution should not be used for.

I would also like the Liberation category to be renamed, not only for the sake of 'impartiality,' but also because defenders already use the term and it gets confusing.

With that said, a few comments.

1) The SC's processes have not been abused, nor have they been circumvented. While there is still currently a password on the region, once this resolution passes, it will go away. I continue to see that as a desirable outcome, as do the residents of Belgium and an overwhelming majority of NS voters.

2) If you believe that Liberation resolutions should not be passed in militarily occupied regions, then you are restricting their use to regions occupied by natives who would prefer to have the password in place, or to regions occupied by a single native who does not know the password and is afraid of refounding. I fail to see the purpose of any such resolution.

3) If you permit Liberation resolutions to be passed in militarily occupied regions, then you cannot avoid the maelstrom of interregional politics that will surround the passage of any one of these. Because the Security Council is dealing with issues of in-game power, its operations will continue to collide with Gameplay politics and military strategy, for in-game power is our predominant area of concern... the one aspect of NS that we cannot duplicate or survive without.

4) Yes, politics are appalling, aren't they? *tips hat* Welcome to my world.

[Urgench]

4) Yes, politics are appalling, aren't they? *tips hat* Welcome to my world.

This has nothing to do with politics, though we remain in agreement with one another on it being appalling. I am rather worried by your complete disregard of the idea that the WA should maintain an impartiality in order to be able to justify its actions as moral though.


Edit : Oh and currently the majority is under 4500, that is not "an overwhelming majority of WA voters", it might be an substantial majority of those who voted, the two are not synonymous.

[Community Property]

This has nothing to do with politics, though we remain in agreement with one another on it being appalling. I am rather worried by your complete disregard of the idea that the WA should maintain an impartiality in order to be able to justify its actions as moral though.

Why should we remain impartial? Simply put, invading sucks. It harms many more players than it helps. Most people find it annoying at the least, and horrifying at the worst. We can't ban it, but we can certainly take a great big spanner and throw it in the works.

And should.

If that ruins the game for the 10% of NS players who are juvenile delinquents and love messing up other people's lives, well, too bad. That's not a group I care much for, nor one the WA should cater to. Their actions, if legal, are still immoral and should be stopped. Period.

Edit : Oh and currently the majority is under 4500, that is not "an overwhelming majority of WA voters", it might be an substantial majority of those who voted, the two are not synonymous.

Considering that a lot of us are switching votes to interfere with a Mercer/Macedon counterattack, I wouldn't take that as any kind of endorsement of your position, thank you.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

This has nothing to do with politics, though we remain in agreement with one another on it being appalling. I am rather worried by your complete disregard of the idea that the WA should maintain an impartiality in order to be able to justify its actions as moral though.

Why should we remain impartial? Simply put, invading sucks. It harms many more players than it helps. Most people find it annoying at the least, and horrifying at the worst. We can't ban it, but we can certainly take a great big spanner and throw it in the works.

And should.

If that ruins the game for the 10% of NS players who are juvenile delinquents and love messing up other people's lives, well, too bad. That's not a group I care much for, nor one the WA should cater to. Their actions, if legal, are still immoral and should be stopped. Period.

Yeah I'd much rather see thread after thread of people haggling over raids and passwords and founders than discussing things like poverty, hunger, trade or other such tomfoolery. Screw nation simulation, this is SERIOUS INTERNET BUSINESS!

[Community Property]

Yeah I'd much rather see thread after thread of people haggling over raids and passwords and founders than discussing things like poverty, hunger, trade or other such tomfoolery. Screw nation simulation, this is SERIOUS INTERNET BUSINESS!

But you're from Antarctica. You're going to vote against all that tomfoolery, anyway.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Yeah I'd much rather see thread after thread of people haggling over raids and passwords and founders than discussing things like poverty, hunger, trade or other such tomfoolery. Screw nation simulation, this is SERIOUS INTERNET BUSINESS!

But you're from Antarctica. You're going to vote against all that tomfoolery, anyway.

Well that's beside the point....

[Havensky]

A region in NS is not like one's own house, therefore the analogy is false.

That's your opinion - my region is my home. We invite people over, and serve breakfast every morning. More importantly, we have a strong sense of community.

Does anyone around here remember the Farkers? They were one of the earliest invaders and made a big mess of one of our neighboring regions. Seeing their home ransacked like that is how our region got involved in the defending business in the first place. Not for glory - not for honor - just for the simple fact that we didn't like invaders bullying other regions.

It's for this reason that the Skyan people will always support resolutions that help natives regain control of their region. If this means having the world community hit region-destroyers with an ugly stick till they get the point - so be it.

[Goobergunchia]

We suspect the invasion of the Heartland has faded from the consciousness of most members. However, it should not be overlooked in significance, as I was informed that it was the incident that directly led to the creation of Regional Founders.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Retired Officer, Nasicournia

[Omega Uliza]

Why are we still arguing when Belgium is already liberated?

...Seriously...

[Naivetry]

This has nothing to do with politics, though we remain in agreement with one another on it being appalling. I am rather worried by your complete disregard of the idea that the WA should maintain an impartiality in order to be able to justify its actions as moral though.

The problem isn't impartiality - the problem is one's definition of morality. Defenders have traditionally considered raiding to be immoral, or at least rather rude, which is why they defend. This would be Gameplay IC... and for those of us who haven't had the chance or had the inclination to develop the IC/OOC distinction, that's all that matters.

Now, according to game rules, raiding is legal, which all defenders accept. And if we're honest and think about it a bit, we recognize that without the existence of raiding, we wouldn't exist either, and neither would the fantastic political realm we have built on the foundations of that military conflict. This would be Gameplay OOC.

But not everyone is agreed, Gameplay OOC, on whether, despite its legality and its necessity for our game, raiding is immoral or not. We are bound to argue IC that it is, and it's a safe bet that most of us are defenders because we at least started out with a visceral reaction against the more... intrusive activities of raiders. But even if the inclination to moral disapproval is a given, the OOC moral judgment against raiding is not, and it can go either way depending on whom you're talking to amongst defenders, or in Gameplay at large.

So when you speak about morality and impartiality, the question is not whether we can maintain impartiality in order to justify our actions as moral... but whether to remain "impartial" towards a region-destroying group of players would be the correct moral choice, when examining a situation like Belgium. And that debate will throw you right into the heart of the bitterest political conflicts between Gameplayers.

Impartiality, in other words, is no such thing - it is itself a ideological position, and as such, it has everything to do with politics.

Edit : Oh and currently the majority is under 4500, that is not "an overwhelming majority of WA voters", it might be an substantial majority of those who voted, the two are not synonymous.

Granted. I'm just used to talking about voters as the people who showed up to give their opinion, rather than the whole of the electorate; apologies for the loose wording.

[Naivetry]

If it has a founder it would have been deleted, I think any Liberation proposal toward a region with a founder is illegal.

Do you have a link to that ruling?

That was my understanding of this post: viewtopic.php?p=72294#p72294

I took the matter as settled following that, since everyone agreed it was the best course.