Keep Raiding/Defending OUT of Commend/Condemn Resolutions!

[A mean old man]

Please read all of the following message before you reply.
The following message is constantly being edited to supply more information for the debate that would be helpful to see in the first post. My other posts in the thread, however, are not.





The following list is of definite supporters and those against my point. This list is taken directly from posters in the thread.

SUPPORTERS:
Zoldorstan - WA
Todd McCloud - WA Delegate
Reseda Island - WA Delegate
Havensky - WA
Smigeggi - WA
United National Gamers - WA
Saurea - WA
Enn - WA
Lord Joyce
? - Neasmyrna

OPPOSITION:
Anime Daisuke
Topid - WA
New Dracora - WA
Sedgistan


The next list is of those of you in the thread who didn't say a single damn thing about the point stated at the beginning of the thread... wait a moment; that's just those freakin' Kennyites. Just kidding; I love you.





SIMPLE SUMMARY:
My point is that raiding/defending is a political battle too complicated to be simplified and watered down to a few words in a WA Resolution like the supporters of 10000 Islands and 10000 Islands' opponents are doing, and should be kept out of the WA. The argument has nothing to do with anyone's standpoint on raiding.

I do not believe that these raider/defender battles belong in the Condemn/Commend aspect of the WA Security Council, and think it's time that both the defenders and their opposition lay off. None of the evidence that either side uses holds enough water to be totally undebatable, and these fights are growing terribly annoying and wasteful of the WA's time.

My region, Corporate, in fact, is strongly against raiders and raiding organizations. However, we are only concerned with defending our allies with the limited military power that we have to donate. Give the large population of us who would like to remain neutral a break.

The raiders and defenders need to stop bothering the WA with resolutions that are inaccurate and achieve absolutely nothing.

In fact, the only thing that these resolutions are doing are making the divide between raiders and defenders stronger and causing more tension and hostility. It is wasting the time of those of us who would rather not take sides and don't care about these private feuds. Leave them out of the WA Security Council.




RELEVANT POSTS FROM OUTSIDE OF THIS THREAD:
The following posts are by me taken from the NationStates forum, in topics related to condemning or commending 10000 Islands and/or Grub.

AT VOTE: Condemn Grub [Official Topic]

I somehow see this whole "Empire of Power" issue as a load of hokey. I honestly do not believe that 10000 Islands led an orchestration of defense organizations to halt EoP in all of their "conquests" as a region of 12 nations or so Grub says. Perhaps someone did defeat EoP and EoP was all that Grub is making it out to be, but 10000 Isles seems to be glorifying themselves a bit too much recently, and I hardly trust the veracity of anything they say any more.

However, your argument in the resolution is wrong.

EoP was supposedly a vastly powerful raider region themselves, and Grub's supposed valiant efforts stopped them from invading anyone and caused them to collapse. Grub then supposedly refounded their region and locked it down. This does not show Grub's involvement in raider activities, however it show's his supposed actions against them.

I'm not saying that I believe this, but I'm just showing how your resolution is inaccurate.

I believe that it was silly and conceited of Grub to found this region again and hold it as a "reminder to invaders" or whatever the hell he thinks it is. It just looks ridiculous now. As far as anyone who is just giving a quick glance to the situation knows, Grub made the region himself to begin with and is making the entire situation up in order to promote his own agenda. If he was truly confident with his influence and ability, he wouldn't have to do something silly and self-absorbed like re-found the raider region and boast of its defeat.

I think it's time people dropped the whole "condemn" or "commend" 10000 Isles issue. It's wasting time, and these constant back-and-forth proposals and resolutions are annoying.
...and Grub should delete the factbook entry and clear the HQ of that region if he ever wants to be left alone about it. It isn't saying anything good about him any more, and just looks foolish.

Overall, I'm AGAINST condemning Grub or 10000 Islands. However, I'm also AGAINST commending them. I think it's time that they accepted that they can't get commended through their arguments and overabundant self-promotion, and need to step down a bit. The WA has more pressing matters to attend to than a catfight between raiders, defenders, and possible double-agents.

...and, for the record, my region is against raider organizations. I just think the whole WA issue here between 10000 Islands and raiders is getting totally out of hand, and is no longer a valid basis on which to base WA Resolutions. Both parties, the raiders and defenders, need to calm down and keep their vicious opposition out of the WA.

by Vatiel: OOC: On an entirely different note, if this is really such a problem to the former Empire of Power natives, what's stopping them from founding a new Region called the 'New Empire of Power', 'Empire of Power, Take Two', or my personal favorite 'The REAL Empire of Power'? No need to get the WA involved. Get revenge by living well, I say. *shrug*

There's another good point. Empire of Power is probably dead by now, since no one seems to be making any attempt to get it back (besides fakers whose sole purpose is to try and bring down 10000 Islands' reputation).

That's yet another reason why this resolution is inaccurate.

Those are my beliefs. Of course, anyone can say "how do YOU know that they're fakers!?"
Well, this issue only appeared recently, like, say, in the past couple weeks, whereas EoP was refounded AT LEAST 1841 DAYS AGO. Enough said.

Frankly, there's not enough evidence to either condemn or commend 10000 Isles or Grub based on either of their arguments. I repeat my point for the third time: Keep the shaky politics of raiding and defending OUT of the WA, and do NOT make it a basis for condemn/commend resolutions.

DRAFT: Commend 10000 Islands

Stop making raiding/defending a basis on commend/condemn WA resolutions!

The politics related to this issue is too unstable and insecure, and it's causing a constant back-and-forth argument between 10000 Islands and their opposition. No one can be absolutely positive of 10000 Isles' contributions being helpful, detrimental, or deceitful (or even all three), and that their opposition is made up of raiders, deceived defenders, or raiders disguised as defenders (or even all three!).

I'm not against or for 10000 Islands, I'm just getting sick of this unnecessary foolishness. Fight your battles without bothering the entire world about it.

This fight does NOT belong in the WA! It's wasting time and it has become a nuisance.

Thank you,
aMoM

SUMMARY #1 - November 6, 2009

This edit includes an enormous, extremely detailed summary I have written, found on page 2, that I believes supports my argument well enough to be re-posted on the first page within the main post of the topic.

<<The following post is absolutely massive; you all have my sincere apologies for the incredible size and length of this argument. However, it should be extremely effective at supporting my debate, if you actually take the time to read the whole thing and consider it.

---

---

INTRO

Okay. Let's clear a few things up.

Now that I'm not falling asleep in my chair like I was yesterday and have kept myself wide awake for a long day through the amazing powers of an artificial stimulant known widely as "caffeine," allow me to elaborate on the points I was trying to make last night but wound up muddling a bit.

---

---

10000 Islands, Grub, and TITO

I think it's time again that we reminded ourselves that my argument is not about 10000 Islands, Grub or TITO.

EDIT: It is about the creation of C&C resolutions with biased opinions towards/against raiding/defending and the massive distraction and confusion they cause in the WA Security Council.

Yes, this entire topic's argument is based partially off of the recent events related to 10k Isles' commendation/condemnation, but does not argue for or against 10k Isles as a region and TITO as an organization. It is simply making a point using current events as an example.

---

---

"CONDEMN MACEDON"

Also take into consideration that that was the first SC resolution ever passed and people were new to the system then. Since that time, C&Cs and liberation has evolved quite a bit. Condemn Macedon seemed more like a joke than a serious condemnation.

Allow me to enrich that final point I mentioned:

I am a supporter of the use of fact that is deeply set in stone, outlined with permanent marker, then illuminated from every angle for the entire world to see. If you can't understand my rambling metaphor, it means that I like to use and see totally credible evidence in legal affairs. Note that I use the term "evidence," not "opinions." Opinions are meant to be debatable, evidence, however, should always be completely solid and based on fact.

From the WA Security Council resolution “Condemn Macedon:”

BELIEVING the bold orange text with blue accents on every colony's world factbook entry is distasteful and grotesque, furthermore removing the nation-region's right to support their own colors on the world factbook entry.

Also, the resolution "Condemn Macedon" never, in fact, did bring up Macedon's raiding involvement, since this would've jeopardized its foundation on truth and would've displayed an opinion that could be debated.

From the WA Security Council resolution “Condemn Macedon:”

ACCEPTING the fact that Macedon has prevented natives of a particular nation (such as Lithuania, Belarus, France, Pakistan, Finland, etc) from running their own region and celebrating the nation's culture.

Causing distress to other regions through holding onto the other region's original territory with a founder can be proven through the evidence taken directly from the regional pages themselves on NationStates.net:

Quote taken from “Solyhniya” in the page of Belarus:

Dear Macedonia,

There are Belarusians in this game who would like their region back. Is there anything I can offer you for this region, or what?

- 449 days ago in the Belarus Civil HQ as of November 5, 2009.

Even though this evidence seems highly legitimate, there is still the possibility that someone totally unrelated to Belarus' original affairs or someone from Macedon is creating some sort of ruse; however, the persistence of this character and the fact that they spoke out over a year before the resolution's initiation serves well enough in proving that suspicion wrong. The fact that this is still not entirely provable unless quite a few people can state that they witnessed it and saw this nation in Belarus before Macedon re-founded it still makes me squirm a little, but the almost complete improbability of the chance that Macedon would be doing this randomly over a year ago seems to make the argument stable enough for the majority of the WA.

---

---

RAIDING/DEFENDING AND THE LEGITIMACY OF THE EVIDENCE RELATED

However, the vast, infinite questionability of defenders' and raiders' intentions through their actions being truly what they say they are makes me crazy. My lawyer's mind absolutely EXPLODES with flashing lights and sirens when I see this point being made and the statistics being created by the regions that partake in these activities.

You can't PROVE this! I mean, of course you can show us the occasional example of a region you helped out and have them support it themselves, but there’s absolutely NO way to prove that you helped save 1050 regions from being destroyed! It'd take months of collaborative writing (which I doubt many of the regions would be willing to participate in), and many of the regions involved in your statistic have probably died out anyway over all these years!

Opinion alert:
How can we be sure that 100 of those 1050 didn't want your intervention? What if you actually invaded some of those regions? Maybe that statistic isn't even accurate! My gut feeling tells me that at least a few of those were tiny, two-nation communities (or something of the same breed). Shouldn't quality also exist among quantity?

This is exactly the sort of argument over the quality of your evidence that your opposition will continue to use to keep this C&C battle going!

You can tell us all you want about your list in your private forums, but, to tell the truth, lists in private forums have NO place among truly provable evidence. Administrators can edit all they want without a legend and anyone can pretend to be anyone else. Especially with all these deceased nations/regions being in your statistics, there's no way to get any evidence from them either.
If you had been posting all of your evidence in the Jolt forums (and now the NationStates forums) and had gotten posts from the members of the regions that you had protected in there confirming that your actions were legitimate, your evidence would be substantial!
However, as you have mentioned:

In the past there have been a debate about whether records should be made public, but we decided against it since many of those regions are founderless and disclosing their names would increase the risk of them being re-invaded. Several non-TITO but allied defenders, have also seen these records.

...obviously, it is necessary to utilize secrecy while in the business of defending and raiding. Therefore, much of the evidence is highly questionable and therefore unusable. This brings me back to my original point: Keep Raiding/Defending OUT of Commend/Condemn Resolutions!

---

---

WHAT SHALL WE COMMEND/CONDEMN, THEN?

And we should commend and condemn based on... what?

RPers haven't exactly been lining up to use it... In fact, the only proposals I've seen attempted that aren't in some way about raiding/defending are those about resolution writing, which I think is a waste of time, or are simply regional ads/self promotion. I'd need an alternative option before this arguement is anywhere near acceptable.

Decent argument, Topid, however I have already addressed this. Take, for example, the commendation of Delegate Kandarin:

From the WA Security Council resolution “Commend Kandarin:”

OBSERVING his tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in a "collecting" region without means of ejecting or banning the competition

Just take a look at his massive region; He has amassed enough support from them to keep him strongly settled in the position of delegate for many years. Obviously this is saying something positive about his leadership skills.

From the WA Security Council resolution “Commend Kandarin:”

VIEWING his knowledge, teaching, and leadership in NationStates roleplay, in both in character and out of character aspects, for off-site and on-site forums.

Look in the Jolt and NationStates forums for obvious evidence of this.

You say RPers aren't exactly lining up to use it, eh? Well, the SC certainly has been evolving since its initiation, and people could definitely begin using it to commend people for their writing ability and professionalism. It's a new idea for NationStates, and NationStates could always use a few more new ideas.

People need to get more creative! A commendation is "A resolution to recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region."
Contribution isn't limited to defending or raiding! Think about it! There are all sorts of possibilities!

ALL of the following commendation ideas can be supported by evidence from NationStates.net itself.

----- Displaying strong knowledge of effective politics and debate
Evidence: Jolt(past)/NationStates forums, especially related to the WA or Roleplaying

Note: I believe a few of the nations who we always see on the top and bottom of the current World Census Reports could receive a few commendations based on this idea; They've definitely mastered the art of NS politics and have managed to support certain specific aspects of their nation's economy and beliefs well enough, long enough, and consistently enough to be the strongest among the world in their categories. They also often represent NationStates itself, after being around for so long and being so commonly seen in the World's pages.
I know that this opens up quite a few nations to commendation, which is why I’m only proposing it as an idea.

----- Making positive, fun, and progressive contributions to NS role-playing
Evidence: Jolt(past)/NationStates role-playing forums

----- Displaying outstanding achievements in leadership and community-building, whether in extra-regional affairs or within the limits of one's own region
Evidence: Regional size and stability

----- Being an active and highly progressive influence in the WA
Evidence: Past passed resolutions that have been widely supported, outstanding contribution in Jolt (past)/ NationStates forums

Condemnations could also be based off of a nation's negative actions in the forum (NOT INCLUDING illegal actions that call for moderator intervention), poor writing and political skills, fiery and unpredictable temper or poor attitude, and other ideas that can be supported with evidence from the forum or other in-game sources.

There are SO many possibilities!

Hell, the entire C&C system could be reformulated around these ideas! However, I don't think we're ready to go that far yet. I'm just trying to say that we should base C&Cs off of opinions based off of hard facts instead of opinions with insufficient/questionable evidence.

10000 Islands:
10000 Islands, if you're still intent on getting commended, try basing it on something I've stated above. You've been together since 2004 and seem to be quite organized; I'm positive you could engineer something substantial. I'm not fighting you; I'm fighting the basis of your arguments in C&Cs.

For those of you who have been swayed by my argument, I would encourage you to scroll back up and change your vote in the poll. My logic is not unreasonable.

I deeply thank all of you who have voted and posted for your helpful feedback. Without it I would never have had so many opinions to create my debate off of. Hopefully this clears many things up for you and you can agree with me.
Your friend and WA activist,
aMoM>>





NOTE:
I'd also just like to say that condemning or commending someone for condemning or commending someone else is absolutely ridiculous, and there's no debate as to whether this is acceptable or not.

Examples:

"Condemn Grays Harbor" - APALLED that this nation would submit a condemnation to a nation for no apparent reason - DISTURBED that Grays Harbor took things far too seriously - HEREBY condemns Grays Harbor for needlessy condemning a nation
"Condemn Daynor" - Accepting: Daynor's want to Condemn Grub was understandable but not agreeable, because Grub is an honorable nation. - Preposing: Daynor the WA condemns Daynor because he was whining about Grub because a nation could not take the crap it was dishing out.
"Condemn Jordanda" - Jordanda should be condemned for being a selfish player and trying to condemn someone for the recently failed condemnation of grub.

[A mean old man]

I'm interested in the overall opinion of the WA Members of the world.

I don't think there'd be any way to enforce this, even if it receives the overall support of most of the WA Security Council members, unless some administrative change was made in order to allow someone to base a proposal on this argument.

I do, however, think it would send a message to all of these nations trying to use Raiding/Defending in C&C Resolutions proving that their attempts at self-promotion are not proveable enough and are not supported by the general public.

[Zoldorstan]

I have attempted to use this argument but I am often ignored, I have spoken to a few people about writing a commendation for someone that commends them for being neutral as to start a precedent for WA neutrality in the raider/defender conflict.

[Quintessence of Dust]

The SC was created precisely for players who engage in raiding/defending.

The raiders and defenders need to stop bothering the WA with resolutions that are inaccurate and achieve absolutely nothing.

Suggesting, perhaps, the issue is not subject, but quality.

[Neasmyrna]

The SC was created precisely for players who engage in raiding/defending.

The raiders and defenders need to stop bothering the WA with resolutions that are inaccurate and achieve absolutely nothing.

Suggesting, perhaps, the issue is not subject, but quality.

Exactly.

This last round has been rather sickening.

[A mean old man]

The SC was created precisely for players who engage in raiding/defending.

The raiders and defenders need to stop bothering the WA with resolutions that are inaccurate and achieve absolutely nothing.

Suggesting, perhaps, the issue is not subject, but quality.

...the quality often being very poor and containing numerous loopholes. If the resolution is based around raiding, there's usually something someone can say to shoot it down or attack its legitimacy, which will usually result in a repeal and a see-saw situation like the one we are in now.

I say leave raiding issues to Liberation proposals, and let C&C's concern substantial matters such as WA contribution, regional governmental contributions, and other more stable forms of contribution to the NS community.

[Reseda Island]

if the Security council was created for Defenders vs Invaders, that's unfair because all defenders will want other defenders to be commended and all invaders to be condemned, and the invaders will want vice-versa and if this is continued to be allowed as such then go ahead condemn me I'd love to see what the charges would be for it.

now I personally believe the commendations should be for people who have made lots of issues, and passed alot of WA Laws, and the Condemns should be for nations who are extra annoying who go around into regions spamming, and trying to make lives in regions miserable.

[Naivetry]

We haven't had a feeder coup for almost a year (though TSP had a bit of a close call last month). Wait for one of those, and then we'll be able to talk about some actual political gameplay, rather than just the military side. Hehe. Heh.

[A mean old man]

Here is another of my posts taken from the official topic for the "Condemn Grub" resolution.

I am sorry, Mean Old Man, but any topic brought up by the member states belongs to the WA. I can share your view though, those C&C resolutions concerned with raiders/defenders are probably boring to anyone not involved in these matters. However, if I am not mistaken the "Condemn Macedon" resolution did let the cat out of the box, causing C&C resolutions to take over the WASC completely. However, it would help a lot if defenders did constrain themselves a bit. The "Commend 10000 Islands" and "Commend Grub" was proposed on their merits as defenders only (can't really see it's an criteria for being commended at all). Such machinations in favour of one part will consequently activate responses from the other side.

Although I currently participate in neither, I don't find raiding and defending to be boring; the politics and agendas involved are quite intriguing and complicated.

The fact that many of the WA members fail to actually enter the forums and consider the situation before they vote is also be a factor in my argument. The defenders will make a commendation based entirely on their "glorious" defending achievements, which will then be PASSED (mainly because the majority of WA Members will skim over it and say, "oh, this looks like a good thing," and vote FOR) and the opposition (raiders, other defenders suspicious of the group submitting the commendation, or anyone who is jealous of this other person being commended) will find numerous loopholes in the integrity of the defenders issuing the commendation. The opposition will then fabricate some sort of repeal and then condemnation using any material that they can scrape together (such as regions not wanting to be defended, the defender organization actually being raiders in disguise, or the defenders supposedly actually engaging in raiding activity).

Then, the abundant, unobservant WA population will skim over this repeal and think "Hey, they must be bad guys now; look at what they've been hiding!" and vote FOR the repeal.

Next thing you know, all hell breaks loose as it did just now with this 10000 Islands madness. No one knows who is who any more, the defenders wind up arguing with other defenders over who is legitimate, the raiders chime in and mask themselves and create more chaos, and those who are mostly uninvolved get pissed with the unnecessary disturbance that is hindering real international progress.

...and it is the actual possibility of the defenders abusing their abilities that is what damages the legitimacy of their commendation proposals. I'm not saying that I believe that these defenders are raiders in disguise or have secret agendas, but just the fact that it is possible is what keeps fueling this battle. The defenders sometimes have to use secrecy in order for their plans to be effective, which causes confusion as to whether they are hiding things from the general public.

These mosh pits are wasteful and confusing, and C&C's should be limited to substantial arguments, like WA Contribution (strong, beneficial, passed resolutions) or regional contributions (achievements in regional design, being a powerful, supportive member of the community, or unifying numerous regions in inter-regional alliances to create a better, more helpful NationStates community).

The commendation of Kandarin is a perfect example of this.

Raiding/Defending is too unstable to be used as a basis for C&C's.

[A mean old man]

Another relative post by myself.

Reply to A Mean Old Man: All the maneuvering & campaigning you've described is why a lot of people would say that defender/invader politics are perfectly suited to the WA Commend/Condemn system.

The secrecy of this campaigning makes it perfectly unsuitable, since the abuse of all the loopholes creates an endless C&C fight that, like now, just becomes incredibly annoying and makes both sides loook bad.

Plus I think 10000 Islands is exaggerating their achievements. The Empire of Power slowly died out; it wasn't valiantly defeated by 10k Isles like Grub claims. It was also around 50 to 60 nations smaller than he said it was.

...and the amount of regions doesn't necessarily mean it has large WA influence. 80% of them could've been puppets, for all we know.

There is an incredible amount of lies and fibs involved in C&C's based on this subject, not to mention all the possible loopholes that are taken advantage of (like right now). It's just not defined enough to base an accurate C&C on.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

We haven't had a feeder coup for almost a year (though TSP had a bit of a close call last month). Wait for one of those, and then we'll be able to talk about some actual political gameplay, rather than just the military side. Hehe. Heh.

ooooh... WASC goodeness

[Vrolondia]

Well, TITO(Ten Thousand Islands Treaty Organization) Originated from EoP Invading 10K Islands when 10K islands had only 15 people... They barely managed to survive.They then evolved into a defender organization and invaded EoP for Trying to Invade them.

[A mean old man]

Well, TITO(Ten Thousand Islands Treaty Organization) Originated from EoP Invading 10K Islands when 10K islands had only 15 people... They then evolved into a defender organization and invaded EoP for Trying to Invade them.

You're not getting the point of the topic.

I'm not against TITO and 10000 Islands, I'm against the usage of raiding/defending in C&C resolutuions. I've repeated that phrase countless times, and will keep repeating it until the message is received.

There are so many ways I could twist what you have just said and make it mean something other than what you intended it to mean, which is exactly my point in arguing against using R/D in C&C.

Examples:

The raider viewpoint:
- So TITO resorts to exactly the thing they stand so strongly against in order to achieve their agenda? That's a bit ironic.

The suspicious defender viewpoint, or the masked raider viewpoint:
- At this point in time, how can we even be sure that EoP was what it was? We have next to no evidence of its raider involvement, only what Grub and 10000 Islands claims. These claims are hard to believe, especially considering that 10000 Islands is chomping at the bit to get themselves commended by the Security Council. How do we know that EoP was a raider region? TITO might be hiding a dirty secret of their past (or even their current agenda) from us all and and may be trying to cover it up.

The practical viewpoint:
- Where's your evidence? EoP existed so long ago that few of us here today even know its history, and very, very few records of its activity remain. Plus, you yourself were founded on March 30, 2009, which definitely rules out the accuracy of your knowledge on Empire of Power. The legitimacy of the entire situation is extremely questionable, and TITO's achievements are most likely exaggerated. I wouldn't even be surprised if they fibbed about the number of regions they have defended, either, since accurate evidence of that is also impossible to find.


These are exactly the kinds of things that are being created to fuel this constant battle, and ALL of them are credible.

The situation is wasting the WA's time and is getting out of hand. If someone has contributions to be commended for, let the contributions be provable and substantial.

Enough madness.

[A mean old man]

Even more practical viewpoints that can be pulled from the recent Empire of Power related resolution:

- How can you "invade" a raider region? Raiders would move around enough to not need an organized region to stay together, and probably worked through a forum. A very poorly orchestrated group of raiders might not have a forum and messing around with their region could potentially damage their organization. Although, if EoP was as immensely powerful as Grub says it was, I'm sure it would've been very well organized. I smell exaggeration on Grub's part.

- If Empire of Power was really as powerful as Grub claims it was, I also doubt a "region of 15 nations" would have enough manpower to lead a retaliation against it. If this retaliation actually happened, it was probably led by a larger, more well-developed defense organization. It is next to impossible for a region of 15 nations to be dominant over any organization with enough manpower to halt a raiding force of "over 170 nations," as Grub claims (or used to claim). If EoP's raiding efforts were thwarted and this caused its demise, I doubt that 10000 Islands was a leading cause.

Also, remember that Grub has edited the factbook entry since this resolution began. He used to have his bogus statistics listed in EoP's factbook entry, then took them out because he knew that they were inaccurate and were hurting him.

We are also unsure of whether EoP even existed, or was even as powerful as it is made to look by Grub's boasting. We'd need an unbiased NS ancient to prove that, and "unbiased" is something that is next to impossible to find, what with the secrecy of telegrams and forums.

See how much material used in these C&Cs is debatable?

[Sedgistan]

Whats wrong with things being debatable? As before, that seems perfect for the WA.

[Todd McCloud]

I like the mean old man. Enough to maybe draw up a commendation for his efforts, perhaps.

[A mean old man]

I like the mean old man. Enough to maybe draw up a commendation for his efforts, perhaps.

I'm flattered. Thank you for your support.

[Todd McCloud]

I like the mean old man. Enough to maybe draw up a commendation for his efforts, perhaps.

I'm flattered. Thank you for your support.

I do not mind giving credit where credit is due. I've read your posts, and they are very well thought-out and the stances, while perhaps unpopular with few, haven't swayed from their initial intents. In short, your arguments are a pleasure to read.

[A mean old man]

Whats wrong with things being debatable? As before, that seems perfect for the WA.

There's reasonably debatable, and then there's just full-blown "no one knows what the hell the truth is" debatable. I understand your argument and will say that you have a good point, but some subjects are just so infinitely questionable and impossible to provide enough plausible evidence for any one person to be right that they shouldn't be debated in the first place.

...at least, they shouldn't be debated through C&C resolutions. The integrity of defenders is a popular subject within the Security Council forum and has much relevance to the Security Council's duties, but constantly flinging C&Cs back and forth is NOT the way to debate it.

[Sedgistan]

But thats a reason to encourage people to stop the tit-for-tat resolutions, rather than to get rid of the entirely justified ones. I agree that things have been rather messy, but I think they'll get better.

[A mean old man]

I do not mind giving credit where credit is due. I've read your posts, and they are very well thought-out and the stances, while perhaps unpopular with few, haven't swayed from their initial intents. In short, your arguments are a pleasure to read.

Thank you. My arguments are designed to strongly support my practical opinion, which they have succeeded in doing, according to your commentary. I knew I would receive opposition (especially from the leading parties on both sides of this wacky C&C pissing contest) when I decided to campaign so actively like this. Hopefully the majority of the Security Council isn't biased by allegiance to these parties and will see the practicality that we can see in my points.

Perhaps even those with allegience to 10000 Islands and 10k Isles' opposition will recognize their folly as well and will agree to stop their unnecessary C&C battle and concentrate on their actual battle without having to bother us all with their private, biased opinions in C&Cs. If they really want to achieve progress with their ambitions, they should work on it without trying to turn their goals into a popularity contest. It's childish and, no matter what they may think, it's making them look bad.

Maybe my efforts will set a precedent for all those involved in raiding/defending to follow in the future so that the WA's time isn't consumed by contests between groups with private interests.

[Havensky]

These arguments have merit in my opinion

[A mean old man]

But thats a reason to encourage people to stop the tit-for-tat resolutions, rather than to get rid of the entirely justified ones. I agree that things have been rather messy, but I think they'll get better.

It's possible, however I haven't seen one perfectly flawless C&C based on raiding/defending so far. All of them have been constantly attacked by the other side and have been, in general, a source of confusion for the WA.

This is just the way that raiding/defending IS. The liberate/repeal liberation proposals that we have all witnessed so far are loaded with possible conspiracy theories, lies, and all sorts of potential raider tricks, however this sort of politics actually is relevant to liberate proposals. Plus we have a bit more evidence of raider activity in liberate proposals, since the raiders usually leave their mark and lock on regions that they capture. However, C&Cs don't actually DO anything like liberate proposals do, and the raiders and defenders using them as weapons against each other is absolutely ridiculous.

[Sedgistan]

But thats a reason to encourage people to stop the tit-for-tat resolutions, rather than to get rid of the entirely justified ones. I agree that things have been rather messy, but I think they'll get better.

It's possible, however I haven't seen one perfectly flawless C&C based on raiding/defending so far. All of them have been constantly attacked by the other side and have been, in general, a source of confusion for the WA.

Condemn Macedon was a pretty good condemnation based on their region griefing.

I don't see why you're objecting to a system which leads to attacks from the other side. Surely we want debate here? As for it being a source of confusion - yes, its annoying having the dishonest resolutions like the one currently at vote, but its not that big a deal.

[A mean old man]

Condemn Macedon was a pretty good condemnation based on their region griefing.

I don't see why you're objecting to a system which leads to attacks from the other side. Surely we want debate here? As for it being a source of confusion - yes, its annoying having the dishonest resolutions like the one currently at vote, but its not that big a deal.

You sure are persistent, aren't you? (angry old man face)

Actually, I'm enjoying this debate.

Also take into consideration that that was the first SC resolution ever passed and people were new to the system then. Since that time, C&Cs and liberation has evolved quite a bit. Condemn Macedon seemed more like a joke than a serious condemnation.

I also don't think the raiders had mustered up the balls and the unity to retaliate after that happened. Raider regions have always been quite divided, and this was just one raider region among many. I'm sure a lot of them were happy to see a competitor get slapped in the face like that.

However, raiders are teaming up now what with attacks on their entire system like the ones we are seeing recently. If anything, 10000 Islands is actually making raiders more unified, angry, and powerful by doing what it is doing.

---

EDIT:Condemn Macedon doesn't seem to contain as much material that could be debated in the way that 10000 Island's resolutions are being debated as I had first thought.

However, raiders have started to use the argument that there should be no bias shown towards/against raiding and defending in C&C resolutions, which has been successful in the case of "Repeal Commend 10000 Islands." That is what started all of this madness, and, if anyone actually cared enough to try to repeal "Condemn Macedon," I'm sure it would create chaos there as well. However, the residents of Macedon seemed to just take it, unlike the residents of 10000 Islands when their commendation was repealed.

---

EDIT 2: Of course we want debate, but I go back to my point earlier on the debate between raiders/defenders not going anywhere in the C&C section. Keep that limited to liberations.

"Edited 7 times..." I should go to sleep and get my thoughts back in order.