PASSED: Liberate Feudal Japan

[The Sedge]

Against. More WA time wasted.

And why do you say that? How else would you have this situation solved, or would you rather leave Feudal Japan in the hands of gloating griefers, who find it amusing to boast about how many people they've driven out of NationStates?

[Inflatable Gandalfs]

If griefing is a problem, the admins could have handled it by simply junking the Influence system, instead of overly complicating things by appointing the WA referee over region-griefing. I maintain these "Liberations" are a waste of the WA's valuable time and resources, and thus vote against.

[The Sedge]

Griefing was a problem, and liberation proposals are the solution. I like the influence system - yes it did allow griefing to occur previously, but thats now a lot harder now. Anyone who wants to abandon influence has to come up with some credible alternative, which doesn't involved mods having to get involved and judge every invasion, and no-one has managed that yet. I don't see how the World Assembly taking the occasional time to vote on a liberation (remember this is only the second one, despite the prediction of a flood of Liberation resolutions) is a 'complication'. Moreover, allowing nations to return to the region which they have a moral right to is at least as important as any other action the WA does. Liberation resolutions are here to stay, and voting against them all won't get them to go away. Why not judge each one on its individual merits?

[Martyrdoom]

If griefing is a problem, the admins could have handled it by simply junking the Influence system, instead of overly complicating things by appointing the WA referee over region-griefing. I maintain these "Liberations" are a waste of the WA's valuable time and resources, and thus vote against.

Exactly. Either have influence or don't. The thing is the WA isn't exactly a referee in these circumstances. It's now a mechanism used by 'defenders' to legitimise their own invasions of regions.

[The Sedge]

If griefing is a problem, the admins could have handled it by simply junking the Influence system, instead of overly complicating things by appointing the WA referee over region-griefing. I maintain these "Liberations" are a waste of the WA's valuable time and resources, and thus vote against.

Exactly. Either have influence or don't. The thing is the WA isn't exactly a referee in these circumstances. It's now a mechanism used by 'defenders' to legitimise their own invasions of regions.

I don't see the argument there. Influence is a good system, and saves the mods from having to rule on every invasion, and the Liberation resolutions deal with its one flaw. Why should it be a straight choice between 'influence with no liberation resolutions' or 'no influence'? And defining liberations used to restore regions to native control as 'invasions'... come off it. Don't tell me you really can't see the difference between someone taking the delegacy of a region to kick out the natives, and someone taking the delegacy to kick out the invaders so that the region can be handed back to the natives.

[Cobdenia]

Against, because frankly, who gives a damn?

[Jey]

Against, because frankly, who gives a damn?

Agreed. Though I was tempted to vote for to give the region more to add to their more than decent NSwiki page.

[Cocodian]

Against, because frankly, who gives a damn?

The natives, who have been forcefully and wrongly removed from their region. Their only help, their only opportunity to return to their native region is the liberation proposal.

The influence protocol allows for excellent game mechanics, i.e raiding and defending. However griefing is unacceptable and crosses the line. The liberation proposal resolves this.

How would you like it if your region was destroyed in that way?

[Travancore-Cochin]

It's now a mechanism used by 'defenders' to legitimise their own invasions of regions.

At least it's much better than all that raider whining after a failed invasion to make the defenders look like the bad guys.

I vote FOR.

[Metania]

Region destroying is seen as cowardly and pathetic by the various hordes of unshaven maniacs with machineguns currently occupying Metania's government offices. We vote FOR this proposal so that more chaos and fighting can occur in what would otherwise be a boring region forever protected by invisible walls our technology office has yet to explain to us.

-Metal Man

[Braxil]

I'm against because no one even tried to enter the region feudal japan.

[The Sedge]

I'm against because no one even tried to enter the region feudal japan.

I don't understand your point there. The region is passworded, there's no way that anyone can get hold of it. Therefore, it would be futile to try and enter.

[Todd McCloud]

I suppose I should say something seeing as Shell has retired from the game entirely, so it seems.

This was a real raid at the time, which was about two years ago. Back then, raiding was a lot more active, and there were issues between CLT and feudal japan, notably Aeazer and Gov. The reasons were not totally important, but again, raiding was a different game two years ago. The raid itself was legal - four groups participated (at least), notably Catlandatopia, Fox Rite, Blades of Conquest and (I think) Marijuana Militia. A password wasn't put into place until only a few nations were left, because the influence changes were happening unusually slow, to the point where I believe Shell questioned about Moderator intervention. After all, spending nearly two years to kick out about fifteen nations is quite unusual. But that is beside the point.

But the point remains: this was a legal raid. Defenders and natives alike had over a year to kick out the raiders, but did nothing. They did nothing. Now they suddenly care, because the WA allows them to use this loophole to make life easier. I was for the Belgium liberation because of the password-grabbing nature of that raid, but not this one. This was a justifiable raid, and yet now, with the WA liberation proposal, Defenders suddenly care about the region. I encourage everyone who can to vote against this, as this is a clear indicator the scales have been tipped: the game now accommodates defenders, and no longer holds a neutral stance. This is indeed a dark day.

[The Sedge]

I encourage everyone who can to vote against this, as this is a clear indicator the scales have been tipped: the game now accommodates defenders, and no longer holds a neutral stance. This is indeed a dark day.

Its not a case of 'accommadating defenders', its favouring the natives of regions - which happens to be the stance that defenders take. It would be wrong to think that the game admins have suddenly got a defender bias, they're simply helping natives to keep hold of their regions when they're targetted by griefers.
I don't agree with your distinction between 'password grabs' and 'legitimate raids'. Whether defenders were given a chance to liberate a region, or whether it was passworded straight away is not relevant. If a region is invaded for the purpose of destroying it, then it is wrong.

[Cocodian]

I suppose I should say something seeing as Shell has retired from the game entirely, so it seems.

Defenders and natives alike had over a year to kick out the raiders, but did nothing. They did nothing. Now they suddenly care, because the WA allows them to use this loophole to make life easier. I was for the Belgium liberation because of the password-grabbing nature of that raid, but not this one.

It was wrong that no one tried to liberate the region, however the liberation proposal will allow us to right this wrong. This was not a "legal raid" as you argued. We see it an occupation, an invasion and ultimately a terrible griefing operation on the region.

[Todd McCloud]

I encourage everyone who can to vote against this, as this is a clear indicator the scales have been tipped: the game now accommodates defenders, and no longer holds a neutral stance. This is indeed a dark day.

Its not a case of 'accommadating defenders', its favouring the natives of regions - which happens to be the stance that defenders take. It would be wrong to think that the game admins have suddenly got a defender bias, they're simply helping natives to keep hold of their regions when they're targetted by griefers.
I don't agree with your distinction between 'password grabs' and 'legitimate raids'. If a region is invaded for the purpose of destroying it, then it is wrong.

It is a part of the game and has never been publically condemned by moderators or admin. So the ability to call it wrong is off the table: it is legal, and a part of the game. After all, without raiding, defenders such as yourself would be out of a job.

That aside, I haven't really noticed natives putting up much of a fight. If I do recall, many left to other regions like Tokugawa Japan or simply CTE'd. There wasn't too much of a fight, just a lot of influence, if I remember correctly. No, this is quite different. I believe the resolution is quite destructive and discouraging to the raider aspect of the game. Mark my words, though, many good raiders and good defenders understand that one must never kill off the other side: doing so would be effectively killing themselves as well.

[Kandarin]

If griefing is a problem, the admins could have handled it by simply junking the Influence system, instead of overly complicating things by appointing the WA referee over region-griefing. I maintain these "Liberations" are a waste of the WA's valuable time and resources, and thus vote against.

Any overcomplication caused by the Security Council is scant in comparison to the overcomplication created by reverting to the pre-influence griefing rules. Ask any game mod who was around then, and listen to their tales of woe. To make that long and dreadful story short, the possibility of just junking Influence is not on the table and never was.

[Cocodian]

It is a part of the game and has never been publically condemned by moderators or admin. So the ability to call it wrong is off the table: it is legal, and a part of the game. After all, without raiding, defenders such as yourself would be out of a job.

No, this is quite different. I believe the resolution is quite destructive and discouraging to the raider aspect of the game. Mark my words, though, many good raiders and good defenders understand that one must never kill off the other side: doing so would be effectively killing themselves as well.

Resolutions like this is not stopping raiding, where alliances or regions take over a region and hold it for a period of time to banject defenders. It does help to quell the aspect of griefing where regions are destroyed for no good reason.

The fact that a resolution is needed for each liberation, means that it cannot be overused to a point where the raiding side of the game is left disallusioned or destroyed.

[Todd McCloud]

It is a part of the game and has never been publically condemned by moderators or admin. So the ability to call it wrong is off the table: it is legal, and a part of the game. After all, without raiding, defenders such as yourself would be out of a job.

No, this is quite different. I believe the resolution is quite destructive and discouraging to the raider aspect of the game. Mark my words, though, many good raiders and good defenders understand that one must never kill off the other side: doing so would be effectively killing themselves as well.

Resolutions like this is not stopping raiding, where alliances or regions take over a region and hold it for a period of time to banject defenders. It does help to quell the aspect of griefing where regions are destroyed for no good reason.

The fact that a resolution is needed for each liberation, means that it cannot be overused to a point where the raiding side of the game is left disallusioned or destroyed.

They do not stop raiding, but they discourage raiding. When a region is refounded, the general course most raiders follow is to password when pretty much all defenders have had their chance to re-take the region and all but 0-2 natives are left. This raid was no different - it followed that path - this was not a password-grab. Now, defenders get a second chance, like an extra life, but soon they will be invincible - once a password is gone, a password cannot be placed back onto the region until the resolution is repealed. So they can keep trying, without end, running through the region like ravenous wolves. Given enough time, they will win and implement their own form of imperialism upon that region. But, of course, that is perfectly okay. This is an unfair advantage, in that it has now tipped the scales in favor of defenders. I am equally against tipping the scales to raiders, because I believe the two groups need each other to survive.

Inform me as to how this cannot be overused. This resolution was passed, reached quorum, and is being voted on in the span of about four days, give or take a day. It is my belief that stricter rulings must be determined. If all it takes is one week for someone to liberate a legally-raided region, something must change.

[New Leicestershire]

We still have not forgiven the Imperial Japanese Navy for the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, nor for the mistreatment of prisoners of war from Commonwealth nations by Japanese forces in the period 1941-45. Our WA proxy shall vote against.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Cocodian]

It is a part of the game and has never been publically condemned by moderators or admin. So the ability to call it wrong is off the table: it is legal, and a part of the game. After all, without raiding, defenders such as yourself would be out of a job.

No, this is quite different. I believe the resolution is quite destructive and discouraging to the raider aspect of the game. Mark my words, though, many good raiders and good defenders understand that one must never kill off the other side: doing so would be effectively killing themselves as well.

Resolutions like this is not stopping raiding, where alliances or regions take over a region and hold it for a period of time to banject defenders. It does help to quell the aspect of griefing where regions are destroyed for no good reason.

The fact that a resolution is needed for each liberation, means that it cannot be overused to a point where the raiding side of the game is left disallusioned or destroyed.

They do not stop raiding, but they discourage raiding. When a region is refounded, the general course most raiders follow is to password when pretty much all defenders have had their chance to re-take the region and all but 0-2 natives are left. This raid was no different - it followed that path - this was not a password-grab. Now, defenders get a second chance, like an extra life, but soon they will be invincible - once a password is gone, a password cannot be placed back onto the region until the resolution is repealed. So they can keep trying, without end, running through the region like ravenous wolves. Given enough time, they will win and implement their own form of imperialism upon that region. But, of course, that is perfectly okay. This is an unfair advantage, in that it has now tipped the scales in favor of defenders. I am equally against tipping the scales to raiders, because I believe the two groups need each other to survive.

Inform me as to how this cannot be overused. This resolution was passed, reached quorum, and is being voted on in the span of about four days, give or take a day. It is my belief that stricter rulings must be determined. If all it takes is one week for someone to liberate a legally-raided region, something must change.

The act on this region though was not raiding, it is griefing and we feel that this distinction is critical. I too would be against something that tipped the balance too much against raiding, but the very nature of this proposal; i.e. the time it takes to draft, reach qoutrum and pass, means it can't target raiders, but griefers.

[Todd McCloud]

I believe the distinction comes in the definitions of griefing and raiding. There was ample time for the natives and defenders to work in the region - over a year to be precise. Yet nothing happened. In the past year, only 3-4 have been in that region: two CTE'd, one was banned, and the fourth person I am unsure of. But there was time. And the raiders have 'played nice', no one was breaking any rules, etc. This is just giving the defenders a 'second chance', but more precise, an unlimited amount of chances. It is very troubling.

[The Sedge]

It is a part of the game and has never been publically condemned by moderators or admin. So the ability to call it wrong is off the table: it is legal, and a part of the game. After all, without raiding, defenders such as yourself would be out of a job.

Something doesn't have to be condemned by the moderators/admin or to be illegal for it to be immoral.

That aside, I haven't really noticed natives putting up much of a fight. If I do recall, many left to other regions like Tokugawa Japan or simply CTE'd. There wasn't too much of a fight, just a lot of influence, if I remember correctly.

The natives probably thought that they didn't have a chance. After all, there was an extremely high number of invader nations in the region.

No, this is quite different. I believe the resolution is quite destructive and discouraging to the raider aspect of the game. Mark my words, though, many good raiders and good defenders understand that one must never kill off the other side: doing so would be effectively killing themselves as well.

But you don't understand that killing off neutral regions is bad? I'm not trying to kill off raiding, nor are these liberation proposals. Go and ask Evil Wolf about Scardinoism if you want to know how honourable invaders work. Its griefers that are wrong, and who should be stopped.

They do not stop raiding, but they discourage raiding. When a region is refounded, the general course most raiders follow is to password when pretty much all defenders have had their chance to re-take the region and all but 0-2 natives are left. This raid was no different - it followed that path - this was not a password-grab. Now, defenders get a second chance, like an extra life, but soon they will be invincible - once a password is gone, a password cannot be placed back onto the region until the resolution is repealed. So they can keep trying, without end, running through the region like ravenous wolves. Given enough time, they will win and implement their own form of imperialism upon that region. But, of course, that is perfectly okay. This is an unfair advantage, in that it has now tipped the scales in favor of defenders. I am equally against tipping the scales to raiders, because I believe the two groups need each other to survive.

Amusing quote about ravenous wolves, but we're not the carnivores here who need their pound of flesh to survive. Defenders don't practice imperialism, because they keep regions in the hands of their natives, rather than keeping control of regions. And again, the scales are tipped in favour of natives, not defenders - defenders just happen to be aligned with the natives of regions.

Inform me as to how this cannot be overused. This resolution was passed, reached quorum, and is being voted on in the span of about four days, give or take a day. It is my belief that stricter rulings must be determined. If all it takes is one week for someone to liberate a legally-raided region, something must change.

I timed this proposal so that it could be done as quickly as possible. We're all aware of the risk of re-founding, something which I wish to avoid.

I believe the distinction comes in the definitions of griefing and raiding. There was ample time for the natives and defenders to work in the region - over a year to be precise. Yet nothing happened. In the past year, only 3-4 have been in that region: two CTE'd, one was banned, and the fourth person I am unsure of. But there was time. And the raiders have 'played nice', no one was breaking any rules, etc. This is just giving the defenders a 'second chance', but more precise, an unlimited amount of chances. It is very troubling.

I hardly see the fact that the invaders didn't break any rules (unlike say Fox Rites invasion of San Francisco Bay Area where UN multis were used), for once, as being a reason for this invasion having been morally sound.

[Unibot]

Todd, I don't see what good the region is doing for the Raiding community - its just sitting there, collecting dust as a trophy from 2 or so odd years ago.

I'd prefer to see it in the hands of some people who are going to establish a community there, if that be 'natives' or someone else entirely, thats up to fate.

I don't have a problem with Raiding, I don't want to discourage raiding. But I am pro-community.

[The Sedge]

We still have not forgiven the Imperial Japanese Navy for the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, nor for the mistreatment of prisoners of war from Commonwealth nations by Japanese forces in the period 1941-45. Our WA proxy shall vote against.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

This being Feudal Japan, its rather before any of the Real-World (and hence irrelevant anyway) events which you're talking about.