[PASSED] Liberate The United Kingdom of Britain

[Sacred Yggdrasil]

Do you want to save the region or not? Yes or no please.

It is a core component of Asgard's foreign policy to either vote against or abstain from voting on defender-authored liberation proposals. Although we very much understand why LKE and others are supporting this liberation resolution as the fastest way to liberate TUKB, we see ending the hyper-politicized manipulation of the Security Council by defenders -- and by the UDL specifically -- as a top foreign policy priority. One cannot end an addiction by continuing to supply the addict. We are therefore abstaining from voting on Liberate TUKB so long as the liberation resolution is defender-authored.

I also find it hilarious that the person who pulled Liberate TUKB from the queue to make way for another liberation resolution that is a) less badly needed; and b) directed toward liberating a region with a history of virulent bigotry is actually asking us if we want TUKB liberated. Do you want TUKB liberated, or will another region come along that will be a higher priority than one being griefed by Nazis?

[Campinia]

Do you want to save the region or not? Yes or no please.

It is a core component of Asgard's foreign policy to either vote against or abstain from voting on defender-authored liberation proposals. Although we very much understand why LKE and others are supporting this liberation resolution as the fastest way to liberate TUKB, we see ending the hyper-politicized manipulation of the Security Council by defenders -- and by the UDL specifically -- as a top foreign policy priority. One cannot end an addiction by continuing to supply the addict. We are therefore abstaining from voting on Liberate TUKB.

I also find it hilarious that the person who pulled Liberate TUKB from the queue to make way for another liberation resolution that is a) less badly needed; and b) directed toward liberating a region with a history of virulent bigotry is actually asking us if we want TUKB liberated. Do you want TUKB liberated, or will another region come along that will be a higher priority than one being griefed by Nazis?

The bolded part has been refuted time and again. It is only your raider anti-defender bias that keeps you from seeing that.

[Sacred Yggdrasil]

The bolded part has been refuted time and again. It is only your raider anti-defender bias that keeps you from seeing that.

It hasn't been refuted to my satisfaction, but I'm not going to hijack this thread for a debate over Liberate RORMS. My point was simply that the UDL prioritized the liberation of RORMS over the liberation of TUKB, even though the latter is being griefed by Nazis and on the verge of complete destruction.

I do indeed have a raider bias, and I'm quite proud of it. No need to strike it out.

[The Jahistic Unified Republic]

It uses OOC time. Otherwise I like it, and will vote for it, should the delegates pass it.

[Drop Your Pants]

Do you want to save the region or not? Yes or no please.

It is a core component of Asgard's foreign policy to either vote against or abstain from voting on defender-authored liberation proposals. Although we very much understand why LKE and others are supporting this liberation resolution as the fastest way to liberate TUKB, we see ending the hyper-politicized manipulation of the Security Council by defenders -- and by the UDL specifically -- as a top foreign policy priority. One cannot end an addiction by continuing to supply the addict. We are therefore abstaining from voting on Liberate TUKB so long as the liberation resolution is defender-authored.

I also find it hilarious that the person who pulled Liberate TUKB from the queue to make way for another liberation resolution that is a) less badly needed; and b) directed toward liberating a region with a history of virulent bigotry is actually asking us if we want TUKB liberated. Do you want TUKB liberated, or will another region come along that will be a higher priority than one being griefed by Nazis?

So thats a no then, its easier to post short

202 approvals, nice.

[Cinistra]

You've got the 200 mark. Now, let's reduce it to 0, shall we?

[Cromarty]

You've got the 200 mark. Now, let's reduce it to 0, shall we?

Would be a fantastic troll.

[Hesse]

You've got the 200 mark. Now, let's reduce it to 0, shall we?

Would be a fantastic troll.

It certainly would be.

[Fischistan]

Do you want to save the region or not? Yes or no please.

It is a core component of Asgard's foreign policy to either vote against or abstain from voting on defender-authored liberation proposals. Although we very much understand why LKE and others are supporting this liberation resolution as the fastest way to liberate TUKB, we see ending the hyper-politicized manipulation of the Security Council by defenders -- and by the UDL specifically -- as a top foreign policy priority. One cannot end an addiction by continuing to supply the addict. We are therefore abstaining from voting on Liberate TUKB so long as the liberation resolution is defender-authored.

I also find it hilarious that the person who pulled Liberate TUKB from the queue to make way for another liberation resolution that is a) less badly needed; and b) directed toward liberating a region with a history of virulent bigotry is actually asking us if we want TUKB liberated. Do you want TUKB liberated, or will another region come along that will be a higher priority than one being griefed by Nazis?

Do you want to save the region or not? Yes or no please.

[New Heathera]

Do you want to save the region or not? Yes or no please.

It is a core component of Asgard's foreign policy to either vote against or abstain from voting on defender-authored liberation proposals. Although we very much understand why LKE and others are supporting this liberation resolution as the fastest way to liberate TUKB, we see ending the hyper-politicized manipulation of the Security Council by defenders -- and by the UDL specifically -- as a top foreign policy priority. One cannot end an addiction by continuing to supply the addict. We are therefore abstaining from voting on Liberate TUKB so long as the liberation resolution is defender-authored.

I also find it hilarious that the person who pulled Liberate TUKB from the queue to make way for another liberation resolution that is a) less badly needed; and b) directed toward liberating a region with a history of virulent bigotry is actually asking us if we want TUKB liberated. Do you want TUKB liberated, or will another region come along that will be a higher priority than one being griefed by Nazis?

So... you're leaving a region for dead because of your anti-defender bias?

[Sacred Yggdrasil]

So... you're leaving a region for dead because of your anti-defender bias?

We are abstaining from voting on this resolution because we do not vote in favor of defender manipulation of the Security Council. Abstention is not the same thing as voting nay. We would have enthusiastically voted for the LKE-authored liberation resolution had the UDL not felt it necessary to resubmit this one.

[Cromarty]

So... you're leaving a region for dead because of your anti-defender bias?

We are abstaining from voting on this resolution because we do not vote in favor of defender manipulation of the Security Council. Abstention is not the same thing as voting nay. We would have enthusiastically voted for the LKE-authored liberation resolution had the UDL not felt it necessary to resubmit this one.

Translation: defenders submitting liberations = bad.
raiders submitting liberations = good.

The stance is remarkable in it's idiocy.

[New Heathera]

So... you're leaving a region for dead because of your anti-defender bias?

We are abstaining from voting on this resolution because we do not vote in favor of defender manipulation of the Security Council. Abstention is not the same thing as voting nay. We would have enthusiastically voted for the LKE-authored liberation resolution had the UDL not felt it necessary to resubmit this one.

Allow me to translate that entire response into one word: Yes

[Cerian Quilor]

So... you're leaving a region for dead because of your anti-defender bias?

We are abstaining from voting on this resolution because we do not vote in favor of defender manipulation of the Security Council. Abstention is not the same thing as voting nay. We would have enthusiastically voted for the LKE-authored liberation resolution had the UDL not felt it necessary to resubmit this one.

That's insanely short-sighted and counter-productive of Asgard.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

We are abstaining from voting on this resolution because we do not vote in favor of defender manipulation of the Security Council. Abstention is not the same thing as voting nay. We would have enthusiastically voted for the LKE-authored liberation resolution had the UDL not felt it necessary to resubmit this one.

That's insanely short-sighted and counter-productive of Asgard.

Agreed.

[Kajstan]

We are abstaining from voting on this resolution because we do not vote in favor of defender manipulation of the Security Council. Abstention is not the same thing as voting nay. We would have enthusiastically voted for the LKE-authored liberation resolution had the UDL not felt it necessary to resubmit this one.

Translation: defenders submitting liberations = bad.
raiders submitting liberations = good.

The stance is remarkable in it's idiocy.

Dude, the mafia of the SC is controlled by the UDL.

[Sacred Yggdrasil]

Translation: defenders submitting liberations = bad.
raiders submitting liberations = good.

The stance is remarkable in it's idiocy.

That's actually not our position. We would also have considered voting for a liberation resolution authored by a neutral or independent region, or someone from such a region. We refuse to vote for defender-authored liberation resolutions because, again, we believe that defenders have for too long manipulated the Security Council to their own ends. There's no way to stop this except by refusing to vote for their Security Council resolutions. Some may find this "short-sighted and counter-productive," but we find it a necessity if the Security Council is ever to be anything but a rubber stamp for UDL policy.

[New Heathera]

Translation: defenders submitting liberations = bad.
raiders submitting liberations = good.

The stance is remarkable in it's idiocy.

Dude, the mafia of the SC is controlled by the UDL.

Dude, The SC is part of the WA. It's controlled by every voting WA nation. Get your facts right.

Translation: defenders submitting liberations = bad.
raiders submitting liberations = good.

The stance is remarkable in it's idiocy.

That's actually not our position. We would also have considered voting for a liberation resolution authored by a neutral or independent region, or someone from such a region. We refuse to vote for defender-authored liberation resolutions because, again, we believe that defenders have for too long manipulated the Security Council to their own ends. There's no way to stop this except by refusing to vote for their Security Council resolutions. Some may find this "short-sighted and counter-productive," but we find it a necessity if the Security Council is ever to be anything but a rubber stamp for UDL policy.

The liberation will have the same result regardless of who writes the proposal. Why the hell does the author have so much to do with it?

[Conservita Victoria]

The liberation will have the same result regardless of who writes the proposal. Why the hell does the author have so much to do with it?

A subtle blend of principles mixed with an aromatic cacophony of hate for defenders and delicious hints of preserving one's own interests in the face of voting for one or the other results in a fantastic delight in which Asgard abstains from the vote.

Might we also note that were Asgard a bigger region we might not be more blase about the vote. Also, it has been noted that Asgard personally has less to lose if it abstains. Ultimately, we are not that fussed whichever side authored but because Asgard is chock-a-block full of raiders who dislike defenders we are going to lean more to ignoring the legislation than if a raider had written it.

Does it entirely matter that a small raider region refuses to vote?

[Lilah Morgan]

The liberation will have the same result regardless of who writes the proposal. Why the hell does the author have so much to do with it?

A subtle blend of principles mixed with an aromatic cacophony of hate for defenders and delicious hints of preserving one's own interests in the face of voting for one or the other results in a fantastic delight in which Asgard abstains from the vote.

Might we also note that were Asgard a bigger region we might not be more blase about the vote. Also, it has been noted that Asgard personally has less to lose if it abstains. Ultimately, we are not that fussed whichever side authored but because Asgard is chock-a-block full of raiders who dislike defenders we are going to lean more to ignoring the legislation than if a raider had written it.

Does it entirely matter that a small raider region refuses to vote?

A vote is a vote is a vote. And no, not really in this instance, more a fact of principle. And the fact that, knowing Asgard's founder, I find it hard to believe a man so smart would be so...less smart here.

[Cromarty]

Translation: defenders submitting liberations = bad.
raiders submitting liberations = good.

The stance is remarkable in it's idiocy.

That's actually not our position. We would also have considered voting for a liberation resolution authored by a neutral or independent region, or someone from such a region. We refuse to vote for defender-authored liberation resolutions because, again, we believe that defenders have for too long manipulated the Security Council to their own ends.

The word is 'used'. The UDL, and many other people, have 'used' the Security Council.

It's really not the UDL's fault raiders don't use it. In fact, maybe they shouldn't use it, as when they do they come up with bullshit like this.

There's no way to stop this except by refusing to vote for their Security Council resolutions. Some may find this "short-sighted and counter-productive," but we find it a necessity if the Security Council is ever to be anything but a rubber stamp for UDL policy.

The Security Council existed before the UDL did, and will exist after the UDL does. It has never been a rubber stamp for the UDL.

What your policy does, is that it hurts everyone, except the people who are trying to hurt, the UDL. As Liberate RORMS has shown, and Liberate Catholic, and any other Liberate resolution submitted by defenders recently, they can get it passed without you.

Your policy is as stupid as it is ineffectual.

Edit: fixing quote tags

[Gut Razda]

After thinking long and hard,Gut Razda officialy supports this liberation.

Your Truley,
Hanz Weiss

[Xanthal]

Most raiders are fun-loving, respectful people that I've been happy to host in SPACE until they moved on to their next target. But unfortunately sometimes certain raiders act like thugs, and people don't like thugs. It is often objected that Liberations are a defender's tool. In practice they usually are, because defenders typically aren't the ones taking control of a region and abusing its natives. Such things have been known to happen, of course, and when a Liberation is put forward by a raider to kick out a defender who's made herself Delegate of someone else's region against the will of the natives and password-protected it, I'll happily help give them the boot. The larger point is Liberations are naturally- like all WA resolutions- populist measures. People generally vote against the people they see as bad guys, and raiders do tend to cast themselves in the role of the villain right up until they push far enough for the community to censure their actions with Liberation, at which point- annoyingly- some inevitably try to play the victim.

The fact is dozens of raids are being executed at any time, and most pass without the SC blinking because the raiders want the natives to share in the fun they're having and don't waste time and resources that could be spent raiding new targets trying to control their conquests permanently. Some people may not like the disruption caused by these raiders, but most natives at least tolerate them, and may even enjoy engaging with the invaders. In any case, Liberations are very deliberately designed to do no good and even be harmful to regions under a raider's (or defender's) passing control. They are only useful in the context of the raider-defender game when invaders become occupiers, and are having their fun at others' expense. Of course they're an obvious target for Liberations. How could one expect otherwise?

[Little Tralfamadore]

Perhaps I do not understand being a new member of this august group. From what I understand the proposal to "liberate" The United Kingdom of Britain is because they invited in groups from The Greater German Reich. Democratic elections were held and a group originally from Germany was elected the new Delegate - by a majority of the people.

So now, the Britons, unhappy with the results wants the world to step in and overturn legal elections.

seized the delegacy of The United Kingdom of Great Britain away from the native delegate, Helertia

First of all the delegacy was not "seized". It was won in open elections. The second part really bothers me. It appears the concern is that <gasp> a non-native</gasp> won the election. Sounds rather racist there if you ask me.

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate & Media Minister of Europeia will be voting AYE on this Liberation after an internal vote of 13/0 decided said action. As you can see, Europeia firmly stands against the Greater German Reich and all Nazi communities. While we would have preferred a Liberation drafted by the Land of Kings and Emperors, the previous protectorates of the region, we will gladly take this as it will at least start the fall of this Nazi-led raid.

Hopefully it'll be the Land of Kings and Emperors that does lead the charge to take back the region.