[PASSED] Liberate South Pacific

[Cromarty]

And I said they were asking for it by including 'raiders will be destroyed' in their WFE, just as, for example, if a region had 'death to GCRS' or similar in their WFE I'd support GCR military's attacking and griefing it. When you state in your WFE your opposition, and intent to destroy, a group, you are asking that group to act against you.

I believe the line was meant to express the idea that "raiders will be destroyed if they invade South Pacific". A general statement of ill intent towards all raiders is unbecoming but does not excuse the invasion of their region or the loss of their Right to Self Determination.

I was never been a moral defender so I don't see a need to excuse the invasion of their region.

[Cerian Quilor]

I don't even have a personal interest in the destruction of South Pacific. My total interest in the fate of SP amounts to somewhere below zero.

I am simply bothered because this resolution is utterly ridiculous. Pre-emptive liberations serve absolutely no purpose beyond making some people feel good. TBH has no password, has no intent of creating a password, and the rules of influence protect the region from passwording or destruction for a loooooooong time.

Liberation Resolutions don't protect regions (see: Christmas, See: Beligium, see: Catholic) and don't make the actual overthrow of the raider point any easier.

[Eist]

Pre-emptive liberations serve absolutely no purpose beyond making some people feel good.

Except, you know, preventing the occupying raiders from putting up a password...

TBH has no password, has no intent of creating a password, and the rules of influence protect the region from passwording or destruction for a loooooooong time.

Yes, considering you are a raider of the most extreme kind, we should totally just take your word for this

Liberation Resolutions don't protect regions (see: Christmas, See: Beligium, see: Catholic) and don't make the actual overthrow of the raider point any easier.

None of these regions have been permanently destroyed by raiders unlike NATO and North Atlantic.

You're wasting precious Internet space with your extreme and totally warped sense of what is right, Cerian Quilor.

[Rhemaland]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of a preventative Liberation. Seems just as shady as the invasion, itself.

[Cromarty]

I disagree that Belgium's liberation didn't protect it. It did exactly that. It originally protected from Macedonia, and when TNI invaded it, it prevented TNI putting a password on the region, if they had wished to do so.

[Everbeek]

I disagree that Belgium's liberation didn't protect it. It did exactly that. It originally protected from Macedonia, and when TNI invaded it, it prevented TNI putting a password on the region, if they had wished to do so.

Indeed. It might not have protected them from being the staging area of a tag raid on TRR, but overall it did its job pretty well.

[Imperium of Tanith]

While I believe the Liberation would help the issue, I refuse to vote on this Proposal out of fear that the Black Hawks and other Regions currently raiding South Pacific will turn on the people supporting this measure in the near future.I refuse to put my own Region, the Queendom of Denmark, in Jeopardy and unsafe over a piece of International Legislature.

Crown Prince Jack Valois-Lee I,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Queendom of Denmark

[Sabbatti]

Hope this gets by.

[Cerian Quilor]

I disagree that Belgium's liberation didn't protect it. It did exactly that. It originally protected from Macedonia, and when TNI invaded it, it prevented TNI putting a password on the region, if they had wished to do so.

So it protected it from something that was never going to happen? Congrats.

@Eist: Because you can totally ignore the second half of that sentence - you know, where I cited the rules of Influence?

[Cerian Quilor]

While I believe the Liberation would help the issue, I refuse to vote on this Proposal out of fear that the Black Hawks and other Regions currently raiding South Pacific will turn on the people supporting this measure in the near future.I refuse to put my own Region, the Queendom of Denmark, in Jeopardy and unsafe over a piece of International Legislature.

Crown Prince Jack Valois-Lee I,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Queendom of Denmark

Is your region even Founderless?

[Cromarty]

I disagree that Belgium's liberation didn't protect it. It did exactly that. It originally protected from Macedonia, and when TNI invaded it, it prevented TNI putting a password on the region, if they had wished to do so.

So it protected it from something that was never going to happen? Congrats

Indeed it did. The Liberation meant that it was never going to happen. Without the Liberation it's possible it could've happened.

This isn't difficult Cerian. Try to keep up.

[Eist]

@Cerian:

If you want to advocate for the abolition of the liberation resolution, then you should take that to technical. But to say "Pre-emptive liberations serve absolutely no purpose beyond making some people feel good" is clearly not correct, because they prevent a password being instated on any region -- and in this case a region that is certainly facing an imminent threat. (Whether you say otherwise is irrelevant -- you are participating in this raid, and with nations that have a history of locking regions.)

Your argument is so weak that I am having trouble comprehending it. Could you please explain it in a clear and concise manner? I really want to understand!

[Imperium of Tanith]

While I believe the Liberation would help the issue, I refuse to vote on this Proposal out of fear that the Black Hawks and other Regions currently raiding South Pacific will turn on the people supporting this measure in the near future.I refuse to put my own Region, the Queendom of Denmark, in Jeopardy and unsafe over a piece of International Legislature.

Crown Prince Jack Valois-Lee I,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Queendom of Denmark

Is your region even Founderless?

Technically yes and no, because control of the Founder Nation is given to the incumbent King, and passed down to his heir when he decides to step down.

[Cerian Quilor]

If the Founder Nation exists at all, its not founderless. Handing off of Founder Nation to the successor does not make a region Founderless - that's been done a number of times in NS, with the nation remaining Foundered.

So you don't have to worry about retaliation raids anyway. Which means your worries are completely baseless.

[Tredania]

While I believe the Liberation would help the issue, I refuse to vote on this Proposal out of fear that the Black Hawks and other Regions currently raiding South Pacific will turn on the people supporting this measure in the near future.I refuse to put my own Region, the Queendom of Denmark, in Jeopardy and unsafe over a piece of International Legislature.

Crown Prince Jack Valois-Lee I,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Queendom of Denmark

You think not voting is going to save you from ever being raided? For all you know, your region is as much a target as the ones who vote to agree with the measure. Who knows? We could even be surprised as they decide to raid the people who voted against it. Heck, they might even just attempt to go for the regions of everyone that've spoken in this thread right now.

Point being, if you're afraid of being raided, you shouldn't even put your voice in here to let them know that you fear it. You don't know how they pick their targets, and for all you know, simply stating what you did in your post could very well make your region their next target.

[Imperium of Tanith]

Why do you care about my vote Cerian? You want this to fail, and if I was to vote it'd be for this proposal.

@Tredania: Your point has been made, but at our current time It'd probably be an improvement, since I am the only "active" member of my Region. <_<

[The Republic of Equestria]

I am in full support of this proposal.

[Scootaworld]

Violation of international neutrality. Against.

[Pyshoria]

Violation of international neutrality. Against.

Everything in the Security Council is a "violation of international neutrality," if you will. Not that there's anything wrong with that; the SC, just like its UN counterpart, takes sides in a conflict based on the votes of member nations.

[Jakker]

7 minutes ago: Do What Thou Wilt voted for the World Assembly Resolution "Liberate South Pacific".
18 minutes ago: Moral Raiders voted against the World Assembly Resolution "Liberate South Pacific".

The difference between TBH and TBR.

Also the whole hawks and riders thing.

And the people involved. Jakker is just sexier than Halc.

This. All this.

[Communist Eraser]

^
I don't really have a point in that. I just like noting things for my own amusement. Likewise maybe one day I'll record the voting records of piling pure raiders in the GA/SC to make up some bs about their political views. I'll shelve that alongside my "Do defenders have more fluffy nation types?" project.

[Cerian Quilor]

Why do you care about my vote Cerian? You want this to fail, and if I was to vote it'd be for this proposal.

@Tredania: Your point has been made, but at our current time It'd probably be an improvement, since I am the only "active" member of my Region. <_<

I don't like BS - worrying about being raided in retaliation if you have a founder is BS. Hence, I point out your BS.

[Imperium of Tanith]

Why do you care about my vote Cerian? You want this to fail, and if I was to vote it'd be for this proposal.

@Tredania: Your point has been made, but at our current time It'd probably be an improvement, since I am the only "active" member of my Region. <_<

I don't like BS - worrying about being raided in retaliation if you have a founder is BS. Hence, I point out your BS.

Fair enough

[Bear Connors Paradiso]

It's nice knowing the WA will pick up the pieces after it's been shattered. There is no need for this resolution.

[Cromarty]

A glance at the RMB says enough about South Pacific to show it doesn't need a liberation, it needs a grief.