Page 1 of 7

[PASSED] Liberate Region of Reunited Muslim States

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:46 pm
by Fischistan
yeah yeah yeah, RORMS has been invisible pworded, and 80 something nations banned. time to Liberate.
The Security Council,

AWARE that Region of Reunited Muslim States was a peaceful region of about 120 nations with 13 endorsements on the delegate,

NOTING that on 29 April of 2012, the nation of [nation=short+noflag]Talgud[/nation] seized the delegacy of the region Region of Reunited Muslim States, also known as RORMS,

UNDERSTANDING that Talgud is a member-nation of the notorious raider region The Black Riders, which has a history of leaving a large, damaging footprint on the regions it invades, often holding a region for more than a week at a time, closing all of the region's embassies, and banning many natives,

COGNIZANT of the fact that Talgud has closed all 111 embassies that RORMS had at the time of the invasion, and established an embassy with The Black Riders in that region, a symbolic move to alienate RORMS from the rest of the world,

SADDENED by the fact that Talgud has banned over 80 nations from RORMS, many of which are innocent natives uninvolved with the invasion,

REALISING that an invisible password has been put on RORMS, which bars any ejected natives from re-entering their home region,

AWARE that these natives have expressed their desire to return to their region and have subsequently gathered in the region of RORMS,

CONCLUDING that if the Security Council does not immediately take swift and forceful action, RORMS will remain a colony of the Black Riders,

HEREBY Liberates Region of Reunited Muslim States.
Co-authored by [nation=short]Mahaj[/nation]

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:56 pm
by Drop Your Pants
2 things strike me right away.

How many of the banned nations are defender nations? 80 natives seems extreme even for the most enthusiastic raider.

When did TBR get an empire?

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:57 pm
by Mahaj
Drop Your Pants wrote:2 things strike me right away.

How many of the banned nations are defender nations? 80 natives seems extreme even for the most enthusiastic raider.

When did TBR get an empire?

Yeah the actual count is 64 or more.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:59 pm
by Fischistan
Drop Your Pants wrote:2 things strike me right away.

How many of the banned nations are defender nations? 80 natives seems extreme even for the most enthusiastic raider.

When did TBR get an empire?

In the UDL update I think it said 50 natives, which is still a lot. And the region was passworded like 3 hours ago, so 3 hours ago, I guess :P
I may take that part out.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 2:00 pm
by Mahaj
The Security Council,

AWARE that Region of Reunited Muslim States was a peaceful region of about 120 nations with 13 endorsements on the delegate,

NOTING that on 29 April of 2012, the nation of [nation=short+noflag]Talgud[/nation] seized the delegacy of the region Region of Reunited Muslim States, also known as RORMS,

UNDERSTANDING that Talgud is a member-nation of the notorious raider region The Black Riders, which has a history of leaving a large, damaging footprint on the regions it invades, often closing all of its embassies and banning natives of the region,

COGNIZANT of the fact that Talgud has closed all 111 embassies that RORMS had at the time of the invasion, and established an embassy with The Black Riders in that region, a symbolic move to alienate RORMS from the rest of the world,

SADDENED by the fact that Talgud has banned over 80 nations from RORMS, many of which are natives of the region that did nothing to incur this griefing,

REALISING that an invisible password has been put on RORMS, which bars any ejected natives from re-entering their home region,

AWARE that these natives have expressed their desire to return to their region and have subsequently gathered in the region of RORMS,

CONCLUDING that if the Security Council does not immediately take swift and forceful action, RORMS will remain a colony of the Black Riders,

HEREBY Liberates Region of Reunited Muslim States.


some changes made.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 4:29 pm
by Hesse
This isn't necessary. The region of discussion was, at one point, medium-sized, however, what went on in the region before the invasion? Maybe an election here or there, some petty arguments, and some discussions that had no meaning. Your typical region, nothing special.

So, what makes this region so special from the others, I ask?

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 4:34 pm
by Fischistan
Hesse wrote:This isn't necessary. The region of discussion was, at one point, medium-sized, however, what went on in the region before the invasion? Maybe an election here or there, some petty arguments, and some discussions that had no meaning. Your typical region, nothing special.

So, what makes this region so special from the others, I ask?

It was a large region and very active.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 4:45 pm
by Tim-Opolis
Fischistan wrote:
Hesse wrote:This isn't necessary. The region of discussion was, at one point, medium-sized, however, what went on in the region before the invasion? Maybe an election here or there, some petty arguments, and some discussions that had no meaning. Your typical region, nothing special.

So, what makes this region so special from the others, I ask?

It was a large region and very active.


Do these natives really deserve their region back?

I mean have you seen some of the stuff they posted on the RMB?

As well as that. I really wish I could post the IRC of the "treaty talk" we had with them.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 4:49 pm
by Socialist Ecuador
Eh, they already have their new region all in place and everything.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 5:22 pm
by Tim-Opolis
So you'd support Liberating RORMS?

But do you know what the natives of RORMS really believe in?

Terrorism:
Quote from the RMB of Region of Reunited Muslim States by Greater Islamic empire of Pakistan, original founder of RORMS.
"you all take the micky out of our religion, then you wonder why we come and bomb your houses and shoot your troops. Atleast now i know who to support."

Intolerance:
Former Resident North Arabia declared that "israel isnt a real country"on the RORMS RMB.

Are these the values you believe in? Say NO to Liberate Region of reunited muslim states

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 5:28 pm
by Fischistan
Tim-Opolis wrote:So you'd support Liberating RORMS?

But do you know what the natives of RORMS really believe in?

Terrorism:
Quote from the RMB of Region of Reunited Muslim States by Greater Islamic empire of Pakistan, original founder of RORMS.
"you all take the micky out of our religion, then you wonder why we come and bomb your houses and shoot your troops. Atleast now i know who to support."

US soldiers burned entire forests to the ground with napalm in Vietnam, and we shoot plenty of foreign soldiers.
Intolerance:
Former Resident North Arabia declared that "israel isnt a real country"on the RORMS RMB.

Are these the values you believe in? Say NO to Liberate Region of reunited muslim states

I could agree Palestine should have governing powers over the land that is now referred to as Israel.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:03 pm
by Goobergunchia
Tim-Opolis wrote:I mean have you seen some of the stuff they posted on the RMB?


Perhaps you could link said RMB posts here?

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:53 pm
by SunRawr
Goobergunchia wrote:
Tim-Opolis wrote:I mean have you seen some of the stuff they posted on the RMB?


Perhaps you could link said RMB posts here?

As well as realize that the natives are not the only ones who have made inflammatory comments.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:11 pm
by A Million Voices
Because the region's native population has been all but wiped out, I don't know if this liberation will accomplish much.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:26 pm
by Fischistan
A Million Voices wrote:Because the region's native population has been all but wiped out, I don't know if this liberation will accomplish much.

It will allow them to return home.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 8:00 pm
by Mahaj
Tim-Opolis wrote:So you'd support Liberating RORMS?

But do you know what the natives of RORMS really believe in?

Terrorism:
Quote from the RMB of Region of Reunited Muslim States by Greater Islamic empire of Pakistan, original founder of RORMS.
"you all take the micky out of our religion, then you wonder why we come and bomb your houses and shoot your troops. Atleast now i know who to support."

Intolerance:
Former Resident North Arabia declared that "israel isnt a real country"on the RORMS RMB.

Are these the values you believe in? Say NO to Liberate Region of reunited muslim states

Well, sure, if you flame them and bait them first, its really easy to get a response that looks great for you out of context. Its still really weak and stupid of you though.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 8:14 pm
by SunRawr
Fischistan wrote:
A Million Voices wrote:Because the region's native population has been all but wiped out, I don't know if this liberation will accomplish much.

It will allow them to return home.

The Liberation passing will guarantee that? You and I both know that isn't true.


EDIT:
Tim, that post looked like a horribly slanted commercial for a political candidate. It almost made me want to support the Lib. Almost.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 8:17 pm
by Mallorea and Riva
SunRawr wrote:
Fischistan wrote:It will allow them to return home.

The Liberation passing will guarantee that? You and I both know that isn't true.

It doesn't even guarantee that the region won't be refounded.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 10:37 pm
by Xanthal
Time and again we see argument and counterargument lobbed across the table on Liberations regarding what might or might not happen if the Liberation is or is not passed. Maybe the invaders will leave, maybe the natives won't come back, maybe defenders will hijack the region. The only certainty is the present: a group has taken possession of a region that does not belong to them, and abridged the rights of those who called it home. Nobody has ever said Liberation was anything but a blunt and clumsy instrument, but it is the only tool the WA has at its disposal, and giving Natives a chance at reclaiming what is theirs is preferable to leaving a region in the hands of usurpers without opposition.

This is not a question of who has a higher moral claim, or which group is more politically agreeable, it is a question of one party seizing something by force that belonged to another. Whether the raided region is inhabited by a couple barely-active hermits or a bastion of activity, home to delightful and inoffensive nations or genocidal lunatics, it is theirs. When a raiding group steps beyond planting a flag, having a bit of a laugh, and moving on to consolidating power and abusing natives, they become not just invaders but occupiers. They become the enemy of every Founderless region because we all know that but for a prejudice, an association, a whim- it could have been us facing humiliation and displacement.

I've said it before and I will say it again; raiders and defenders play in our backyards. If they can be good guests they'll often be tolerated, even welcomed. If they start tearing up the lawn and moving into the house, though, they should expect no less than that we use every method available to push them out. Better to risk all the problems Liberation can bring for a chance at regaining control than leave an occupying force in place unchallenged. As far as Xanthal is concerned, any other approach to these scenarios only obfuscates the real issue.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 10:58 pm
by Crushing Our Enemies
Oh please, as if any region can ever be said to belong to a group of players. Regions belong to those who can control them. No authority in this matter is higher than that of the game mechanics. The liberation proposal does nothing to transfer ownership of a region from one party to another. It simply restricts the power of the founder and delegate (whoever they may be!) to password their region, and therefore puts the region less firmly under their control.

If you oppose the current occupants (natives?) of the region, then it makes sense to support this resolution. But don't pretend it is giving the region back to its "rightful owners," as if there were some standard of ownership more authoritative than that of who occupies the current WA Delegate and Founder positions.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 11:06 pm
by Xanthal
Crushing Our Enemies wrote:Oh please, as if any region can ever be said to belong to a group of players. Regions belong to those who can control them. No authority in this matter is higher than that of the game mechanics. The liberation proposal does nothing to transfer ownership of a region from one party to another. It simply restricts the power of the founder and delegate (whoever they may be!) to password their region, and therefore puts the region less firmly under their control.

If you oppose the current occupants (natives?) of the region, then it makes sense to support this resolution. But don't pretend it is giving the region back to its "rightful owners," as if there were some standard of ownership more authoritative than that of who occupies the current WA Delegate and Founder positions.

Whether you believe that is your business, but it is a sentiment born of self-justification by those who blemish the good name of those many raiders which manage to have fun without abusing others in the process.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 11:20 pm
by SunRawr
Xanthal wrote:Whether you believe that is your business, but it is a sentiment born of self-justification by those who blemish the good name of those many raiders which manage to have fun without abusing others in the process.

I think it is pretty safe to say that what he said represents the feelings of the majority of today's active raiders. Those so-called natives have no more right to be there than you, me, or my aunt Stacie.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 11:46 pm
by Crushing Our Enemies
Xanthal wrote:
Crushing Our Enemies wrote:Oh please, as if any region can ever be said to belong to a group of players. Regions belong to those who can control them. No authority in this matter is higher than that of the game mechanics. The liberation proposal does nothing to transfer ownership of a region from one party to another. It simply restricts the power of the founder and delegate (whoever they may be!) to password their region, and therefore puts the region less firmly under their control.

If you oppose the current occupants (natives?) of the region, then it makes sense to support this resolution. But don't pretend it is giving the region back to its "rightful owners," as if there were some standard of ownership more authoritative than that of who occupies the current WA Delegate and Founder positions.

Whether you believe that is your business, but it is a sentiment born of self-justification by those who blemish the good name of those many raiders which manage to have fun without abusing others in the process.

Whatever the birthplace of the sentiment, it is one rooted in the only definition of regional ownership recognized by NationStates, and in the game mechanics which enforce that definition.

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 11:56 pm
by Xanthal
Crushing Our Enemies wrote:Whatever the birthplace of the sentiment, it is one rooted in the only definition of regional ownership recognized by NationStates, and in the game mechanics which enforce that definition.

Those same game mechanics also give us the tools to dislodge the forces of raiders who abuse those mechanics in the eyes of the majority. If the power to hold a region is all that matters and the ability to do so is all the justification you need, then by your own admission what you or I say here is of no consequence, unless you really think either of us is likely to change the outcome of the forthcoming vote. Therefore I suggest we let the game mechanics you tout as the ultimate authority on the subject do their part and see who prevails.

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 12:15 am
by Crushing Our Enemies
Certainly! I just wanted you to admit that this:

Xanthal wrote:This is not a question of who has a higher moral claim, or which group is more politically agreeable, it is a question of one party seizing something by force that belonged to another. Whether the raided region is inhabited by a couple barely-active hermits or a bastion of activity, home to delightful and inoffensive nations or genocidal lunatics, it is theirs. When a raiding group steps beyond planting a flag, having a bit of a laugh, and moving on to consolidating power and abusing natives, they become not just invaders but occupiers. They become the enemy of every Founderless region because we all know that but for a prejudice, an association, a whim- it could have been us facing humiliation and displacement.


is a load of crap.