[PASSED] Condemn DEN

[We Are Not the NSA]

To be fair, Condemn TRF was defeated by a fairly large margin, so it isn't exactly a role model of a proposal.

It was an example of my simplifying of proposals, sorry for the confusion.

While the regions mentioned may not mean anything to you, for those to whom they do mean something it will ensure their support. Some people prefer details in proposals.

[Phoenix Mountain]

While the regions mentioned may not mean anything to you, for those to whom they do mean something it will ensure their support. Some people prefer details in proposals.

As I also said, I understand the need for those details. If you read my posts: I understand why the proposals are written with such detail, and in the same style; I personally simplify the proposals for my own understanding of them; [insert example of simplification]; I don't entirely understand this proposal, because a) I am unfamiliar with any of the regions mentioned in it and b) it appears to be, put simply, "Commend DEN because it raids regions."

So you understanding what this proposal really entails is irrelevant to me or my understanding, nor to anyone else unfamiliar with the regions. Without any explanation either in the proposal or in this thread what it is about the raiding of those regions that is bad this proposal is needlessly throwing away votes from those outside the situation.

WHY is it worthy of condemnation for DEN to have raided those regions?

[Ramaeus]

A terrible Condemnation. Against.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

A terrible Condemnation. Against.

Agreed. Elegarth has voted against and I've just done a region wide tg to try and persuade TWP's WA members to vote against.

[We Are Not the NSA]

While the regions mentioned may not mean anything to you, for those to whom they do mean something it will ensure their support. Some people prefer details in proposals.

As I also said, I understand the need for those details. If you read my posts: I understand why the proposals are written with such detail, and in the same style; I personally simplify the proposals for my own understanding of them; [insert example of simplification]; I don't entirely understand this proposal, because a) I am unfamiliar with any of the regions mentioned in it and b) it appears to be, put simply, "Commend DEN because it raids regions."

So you understanding what this proposal really entails is irrelevant to me or my understanding, nor to anyone else unfamiliar with the regions. Without any explanation either in the proposal or in this thread what it is about the raiding of those regions that is bad this proposal is needlessly throwing away votes from those outside the situation.

WHY is it worthy of condemnation for DEN to have raided those regions?

I'm sorry, I'm just having a hard time thinking of a rebuttal to your point. Usually, all a proposal really needs is to say "they raided people, they bad" to get support. It's what most raider condemnations do. Look at TRF. People wanted to condemn them because they raid specific groups of nations based on ideology. DEN raids everybody, regardless of ideology or prior encounters. That is why condemnations of normal raiding groups are usually easier to pass: When the nominee only attacks certain regions others aren't going to be as interested because they are not affected. When the nominee just raids based on a randomized spreadsheet of regions, any region with an executive Delegate is in danger.

Of course, you aren't wrong, the proposal in its current state is not worthy of making quorum, let alone passing. There are so many grammatical, spelling and syntax errors throughout it, and it doesn't even mention tag raiding.

Also, something I've been meaning to point out:

The strategy of raiding defaces a region and leaves a barren region that destroys unique cultures and communities that exist on Nationstates

In NationStates, communities are like matter (kind of). It is impossible to destroy a community. Sure, regions can be refounded, but as the debate in Gameplay goes, a community does not need a region to exist. For example, look at The Atheist Empire. Their region was raided by TBR, and their community simply moved to Atheist Empire. Whether the raid was an annoyance or not, their community simply took a new form instead of spontaneously ceasing to exist. Hell, the same thing happened in TBR. I've always hated the "raiding destroys communities" argument because it is fundamentally flawed.

[Phoenix Mountain]

As I also said, I understand the need for those details. If you read my posts: I understand why the proposals are written with such detail, and in the same style; I personally simplify the proposals for my own understanding of them; [insert example of simplification]; I don't entirely understand this proposal, because a) I am unfamiliar with any of the regions mentioned in it and b) it appears to be, put simply, "Commend DEN because it raids regions."

So you understanding what this proposal really entails is irrelevant to me or my understanding, nor to anyone else unfamiliar with the regions. Without any explanation either in the proposal or in this thread what it is about the raiding of those regions that is bad this proposal is needlessly throwing away votes from those outside the situation.

WHY is it worthy of condemnation for DEN to have raided those regions?

I'm sorry, I'm just having a hard time thinking of a rebuttal to your point. Usually, all a proposal really needs is to say "they raided people, they bad" to get support. It's what most raider condemnations do. Look at TRF. People wanted to condemn them because they raid specific groups of nations based on ideology. DEN raids everybody, regardless of ideology or prior encounters. That is why condemnations of normal raiding groups are usually easier to pass: When the nominee only attacks certain regions others aren't going to be as interested because they are not affected. When the nominee just raids based on a randomized spreadsheet of regions, any region with an executive Delegate is in danger.

Of course, you aren't wrong, the proposal in its current state is not worthy of making quorum, let alone passing. There are so many grammatical, spelling and syntax errors throughout it, and it doesn't even mention tag raiding.

Also, something I've been meaning to point out:

The strategy of raiding defaces a region and leaves a barren region that destroys unique cultures and communities that exist on Nationstates

In NationStates, communities are like matter (kind of). It is impossible to destroy a community. Sure, regions can be refounded, but as the debate in Gameplay goes, a community does not need a region to exist. For example, look at The Atheist Empire. Their region was raided by TBR, and their community simply moved to Atheist Empire. Whether the raid was an annoyance or not, their community simply took a new form instead of spontaneously ceasing to exist. Hell, the same thing happened in TBR. I've always hated the "raiding destroys communities" argument because it is fundamentally flawed.

So, "Yes, it is as simple as 'because they raid'." rather than "well, I've heard of the regions so I voted for."

[We Are Not the NSA]

I'm sorry, I'm just having a hard time thinking of a rebuttal to your point. Usually, all a proposal really needs is to say "they raided people, they bad" to get support. It's what most raider condemnations do. Look at TRF. People wanted to condemn them because they raid specific groups of nations based on ideology. DEN raids everybody, regardless of ideology or prior encounters. That is why condemnations of normal raiding groups are usually easier to pass: When the nominee only attacks certain regions others aren't going to be as interested because they are not affected. When the nominee just raids based on a randomized spreadsheet of regions, any region with an executive Delegate is in danger.

Of course, you aren't wrong, the proposal in its current state is not worthy of making quorum, let alone passing. There are so many grammatical, spelling and syntax errors throughout it, and it doesn't even mention tag raiding.

Also, something I've been meaning to point out:

In NationStates, communities are like matter (kind of). It is impossible to destroy a community. Sure, regions can be refounded, but as the debate in Gameplay goes, a community does not need a region to exist. For example, look at The Atheist Empire. Their region was raided by TBR, and their community simply moved to Atheist Empire. Whether the raid was an annoyance or not, their community simply took a new form instead of spontaneously ceasing to exist. Hell, the same thing happened in TBR. I've always hated the "raiding destroys communities" argument because it is fundamentally flawed.

So, "Yes, it is as simple as 'because they raid'." rather than "well, I've heard of the regions so I voted for."

Raiders that engage in tag raiding tend be more recognized in smaller regions, as many 1-10 nation regions have been raided or have had an embassy raided. Many of them do not understand what happened, and become a) terrified of raiders, or b)really angry with them. So when a condemnation of the people that they view as their enemies goes to vote, many will vote for no matter the quality of the resolution. To please that crowd all one really has to do is say "They are raiders".

With delegates, it's a different story. A delegate's vote is worth the amount of endorsements they have, so certain people represent large percentages of the total vote count. If a resolution is garbage, many of the higher value delegates, who tend to be more experienced players, are unlikely to vote for it. Not gaining the support of one or two people can make or break a campaign.

So it's more like a combination of the two.

[The Stalker]

Against, this is way to premature. And the whole mixing of the current DEN with the former DEN's accomplishments doesn't make much sense to me.

[Topid]

O.o

Did the lemmings just rise up and overpower a stomp? The vote changed direction on this one without a big delegate being involved.

[Cormac Stark]

O.o

Did the lemmings just rise up and overpower a stomp? The vote changed direction on this one without a big delegate being involved.

It won't last, there are still several GCR Delegates not voting yet.

[Topid]

O.o

Did the lemmings just rise up and overpower a stomp? The vote changed direction on this one without a big delegate being involved.

It won't last, there are still several GCR Delegates not voting yet.

Probable, but still the lemming effect was overpowered on this one. First time I've seen that happen.

[Applebania]

Goddammit, why is my region making me vote for this? It's terrible!

[Phoenix Mountain]

Goddammit, why is my region making me vote for this? It's terrible!

Sucks that Asgard enforces votes :s

[Phoenix Mountain]

So, "Yes, it is as simple as 'because they raid'." rather than "well, I've heard of the regions so I voted for."

Raiders that engage in tag raiding tend be more recognized in smaller regions, as many 1-10 nation regions have been raided or have had an embassy raided. Many of them do not understand what happened, and become a) terrified of raiders, or b)really angry with them. So when a condemnation of the people that they view as their enemies goes to vote, many will vote for no matter the quality of the resolution. To please that crowd all one really has to do is say "They are raiders".

With delegates, it's a different story. A delegate's vote is worth the amount of endorsements they have, so certain people represent large percentages of the total vote count. If a resolution is garbage, many of the higher value delegates, who tend to be more experienced players, are unlikely to vote for it. Not gaining the support of one or two people can make or break a campaign.

So it's more like a combination of the two.

Yeah.... no. I was trying to understand the proposal, so you somewhat snarkily telling me that you know the regions mentioned so you are voting for doesn't help me understand the proposal at all. Especially as you managed to tell me afterwards that yes, the argument IS as simple as "because they raid", as I first thought it was.

[Applebania]

Goddammit, why is my region making me vote for this? It's terrible!

Sucks that Asgard enforces votes :s

Yeah, well, I promised to vote with the regional majority in my campaign to be elected Statsminister, and I'll stick by it.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Raiders that engage in tag raiding tend be more recognized in smaller regions, as many 1-10 nation regions have been raided or have had an embassy raided. Many of them do not understand what happened, and become a) terrified of raiders, or b)really angry with them. So when a condemnation of the people that they view as their enemies goes to vote, many will vote for no matter the quality of the resolution. To please that crowd all one really has to do is say "They are raiders".

With delegates, it's a different story. A delegate's vote is worth the amount of endorsements they have, so certain people represent large percentages of the total vote count. If a resolution is garbage, many of the higher value delegates, who tend to be more experienced players, are unlikely to vote for it. Not gaining the support of one or two people can make or break a campaign.

So it's more like a combination of the two.

Yeah.... no. I was trying to understand the proposal, so you somewhat snarkily telling me that you know the regions mentioned so you are voting for doesn't help me understand the proposal at all. Especially as you managed to tell me afterwards that yes, the argument IS as simple as "because they raid", as I first thought it was.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as snarky, although I have been very stressed irl this past week, so I may have been unconsciously blowing off steam on you. I said your assessment was partially correct.

[The Silver Sentinel]

O.o

Did the lemmings just rise up and overpower a stomp? The vote changed direction on this one without a big delegate being involved.

It won't last, there are still several GCR Delegates not voting yet.

The only two large delegates who haven't voted are Roger (who likely won't), and Paff. Even if they both vote against this still passes.

[We Are Not the NSA]

It won't last, there are still several GCR Delegates not voting yet.

The only two large delegates who haven't voted are Roger (who likely won't), and Paff. Even if they both vote against this still passes.

I already have a repeal written, but if anyone wants to write a better version of this and go for a repeal and replace, I'm game.

[Dark Commander]

I didn't think this resolution would do so well, props to Christmas.

[We Are Not the NSA]

I didn't think this resolution would do so well, props to Christmas.

Considering that he hasn't so much as posted regarding this matter in several days, and the distinctly negative reaction to this proposal's submission on the forum, I'm not sure anyone should be proud of this.

[Dark Commander]

I didn't think this resolution would do so well, props to Christmas.

Considering that he hasn't so much as posted regarding this matter in several days, and the distinctly negative reaction to this proposal's submission on the forum, I'm not sure anyone should be proud of this.

I thought the proposal was well-written, which is certainly a reason as to why it's performing well.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Considering that he hasn't so much as posted regarding this matter in several days, and the distinctly negative reaction to this proposal's submission on the forum, I'm not sure anyone should be proud of this.

I thought the proposal was well-written, which is certainly a reason as to why it's performing well.

I almost just died of laughter. While the proposal is not at all the worst one we've seen before it has numerous errors throughout it, which I would list here, but I do that in my yet to be posted repeal, so it can wait. If this version of the proposal had been posted, we could have at least pointed out the mistakes, but it wasn't. I don't even disagree with it on principle (why I would like to do a repeal and replace), but there are content issues that make this unacceptable to me. The drafting process was too short, and this could have turned out better.

[Dark Commander]

I thought the proposal was well-written, which is certainly a reason as to why it's performing well.

I almost just died of laughter. While the proposal is not at all the worst one we've seen before it has numerous errors throughout it, which I would list here, but I do that in my yet to be posted repeal, so it can wait. If this version of the proposal had been posted, we could have at least pointed out the mistakes, but it wasn't. I don't even disagree with it on principle (why I would like to do a repeal and replace), but there are content issues that make this unacceptable to me. The drafting process was too short, and this could have turned out better.

I understand, it was relatively well written when compared with many other commendations/condemnations. Notably, this actually included several specific examples.

[We Are Not the NSA]

I almost just died of laughter. While the proposal is not at all the worst one we've seen before it has numerous errors throughout it, which I would list here, but I do that in my yet to be posted repeal, so it can wait. If this version of the proposal had been posted, we could have at least pointed out the mistakes, but it wasn't. I don't even disagree with it on principle (why I would like to do a repeal and replace), but there are content issues that make this unacceptable to me. The drafting process was too short, and this could have turned out better.

I understand, it was relatively well written when compared with many other commendations/condemnations. Notably, this actually included several specific examples.

It was well written compared to many proposals, but it is a joke compared to other passed resolution. As a draft it has potential, but not as a resolution. I only partially blame the author for that though, because they could have posted this version before submitting it, so at least the grammar could have been corrected, or have it removed after the errors were pointed out here. I'm more pissed off at the number of people who voted for it, because I doubt half of the game even read it. I've seen a guy campaigning on some rmbs that it makes us give up our refounds, which is an outright lie.

[Naginii]

This awesome bit of blind crusader arrogance isn't going to achieve the results intended, but if you had been paying attention to NS history prior, you'd know that.

If this condemn finally passes, it'll have ZIP affect on DEN's behavior and operations on the gamemap. The effect on growth and recruitment, however, will be ENORMOUS. You WILL make these guys a bigger threat and pain than they currently are. We keep warning you, but it's clear that those voting for this are tone-deaf to historically-proven logic.

Having recruited raiders into various groups in NS since the GW Bush Administration, I can tell you from first hand experience that this condemn badge will work wonders for attracting players to the colors. It'll make new players considering raiding feel that they're joining a proven group with awesome NS street cred. Far, far better than a big raid, WASC acknowledgement of how good they are at what they do, is like a five-star rating.

Condemn them and you support them. It's that simple. Don't believe it, refuse to believe it, don't care? That's cool too, because pass or fail, all this attention is awesome to the raiding cause.

On behalf of raiders everywhere, including DEN, we thank you for your vote and your support.