[PASSED] Liberate South Pacific

[Densaner]

As a former delegate of South Pacific I fully support this proposed resolution. A big thanks to GRO for putting it together.

[Solm]

Definitely in support of this. I see nothing wrong with pre-emptive liberations, especially if the natives are in full support of it, and actually encourage them.

[Canadian Davsland]

I support this motion 100% And i will help the best i can.

[Densaner]

I support this motion 100% And i will help the best i can.

[Mahaj]

I will be fully supporting this resolution.

[Bears Armed]

Any particular reason why natives can't state their support here?

Their busy? I mean their region just got invaded, you can't really expect them to have any say in this.

Especially since that would be the job of the founder. Or a WA delegate

But it's already been pointed out that the region in question doesn't have (and has never had) a founder, and if invaders have taken over then clearly there wouldn't be a native delegate either, so it would presumably be "the job" of any native of that region...

[Cerian Quilor]

It should be illegal to liberate a region with no password. It doesn't make sense. The point of a Liberation is to remove a Delegate imposed Password.

I'd be willing to be GRO was under the assumption a Liberation somehow saves the region in of itself.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Naturally I will support this. It has native support and is one of the older regions that I would like to see survive.

[Eist]

It should be illegal to liberate a region with no password. It doesn't make sense. The point of a Liberation is to remove a Delegate imposed Password.

I'd be willing to be GRO was under the assumption a Liberation somehow saves the region in of itself.

You should read the Rule Book:

"Liberation resolutions were introduced as a way of combating region destruction carried out behind a password. A liberation resolution, when passed, will remove any delegate imposed password on the target region, and prevent a password being imposed in the future by any delegate of that region."

Given your history, I'm sure you will still find this incomprehensible, but let me tell you now that there is nothing in this game that discourages, let alone prevents, a liberation resolution being passed for a region that does not currently have a password.

[Weed]

I would strongly support this. There is nothing wrong with preventative liberations if the natives support the measure.

[Cerian Quilor]

It should be illegal to liberate a region with no password. It doesn't make sense. The point of a Liberation is to remove a Delegate imposed Password.

I'd be willing to be GRO was under the assumption a Liberation somehow saves the region in of itself.

You should read the Rule Book:

"Liberation resolutions were introduced as a way of combating region destruction carried out behind a password. A liberation resolution, when passed, will remove any delegate imposed password on the target region, and prevent a password being imposed in the future by any delegate of that region."

Given your history, I'm sure you will still find this incomprehensible, but let me tell you now that there is nothing in this game that discourages, let alone prevents, a liberation resolution being passed for a region that does not currently have a password.

I didn't say it was illegal Eist. I was making a normative Statement about how thw world SHOULD be, not an emperical statement about how the world is.

I would suggest you learn to read other people's posts properly before you start trying to talk smack.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I totally oppose this measure. The current Delegate of South Pacific seems to be an enlightened individual who has taken measures to bring activity to the region.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Indeed.......although it seems limited to a game of cromarty pingpong. Fairly certain he can play that anywhere Mall.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Indeed.......although it seems limited to a game of cromarty pingpong. Fairly certain he can play that anywhere Mall.

I don't have the influence or the numbers to play it in Osiris, so I'm really limited here.

[Communist Eraser]

I support the liberation. We should be preserving true founderless region. Regardless of what the natives think.

I would say the same even if it was the natives who wanted a refound rather than the invaders. We should be preserving true founderless regions.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Where is the threat to password or refound the region located exactly?

[Jakker]

If a liberation gets passed that means more influence can be used to eject natives. I mean if that's what you all want

[Cormac Stark]

All right, so -- no worries here -- I'm not going to go back to blanket opposition of all defender-authored liberation resolutions.

That said, I truly don't see the evidence in this case that the region will be password-protected. This hasn't been a terribly harsh raid for natives thus far and The Black Hawks don't always impose passwords on regions. Of course a preemptive resolution would remove even the possibility, but it would also do more than that: It would bar a native Delegate from imposing a password for protection of the region, including in the aftermath of this raid when the region will be more vulnerable and the native Delegate may have fewer endorsements than he or she previously had.

When I led Asgard's invasion of Christmas in July and password-protected the region, I argued that a liberation resolution would leave it open to constant invasion. That has turned out to be the case: Christmas has been raided ten times in the past five months. Given South Pacific's promise on its WFE to destroy raiders, it will always be a target for raids and a liberation resolution will leave it more vulnerable. It will be liberated from the threat of password protection, but at what cost? An average of two raids per month? I'm not sure how much of a "liberation" that really is.

I'm opposed to this until an actual need for a liberation resolution arises. Whether I'll support it then is an open question but it's completely premature now.

[Sichuan Pepper]

and yet you argued against a repeal of the liberation resolution on christmas cormac.

[Cormac Stark]

and yet you argued against a repeal of the liberation resolution on christmas cormac.

I did, and I continue to believe that the liberation resolution should not be repealed -- because while password protection would in theory prevent Christmas from being raided, it never has a native Delegate to impose password protection. Thus in the case of Christmas password protection would likely only ever be used by raiders, so there really is no good option for Christmas besides refounding. It will either be vulnerable to constant invasion or vulnerable to constant invasion with the possibility of password protection being imposed for as long as it's a founderless region with no natives willing to take on WA responsibilities long-term.

South Pacific, on the other hand, does have an active native Delegate who could impose password protection and thus prevent the region from being vulnerable to raids, particularly in the days and weeks following this raid. By passing a preemptive liberation resolution the Security Council would be removing that possibility unless and until the liberation resolution is repealed, and thus removing all of the tools at the native Delegate's disposal to secure the region. Yes, a repeal could happen, but a repeal will take at least a week to pass in all likelihood and there's no guarantee it would pass at all. So in the case of South Pacific, I believe we're jumping the gun here and potentially preparing to take actions that would make the region more, not less, vulnerable. Liberation resolutions should be a last resort, not the first option, if for no other reason than the real long-term impacts they can have on founderless regions.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Normally a pre-emptive liberation resolution might be something to avoid. In this case however it gives natives some power and enables them to take action in a situation they feel powerless in.

For clarification I applied to the Summit with the understanding that "I am one of the few active raiders who consistently advocates for the destruction of regions that are taken during raids."

Given that the lead invader lead does represent himself as a region griefer I feel this is a justified measure.

[Cormac Stark]

Normally a pre-emptive liberation resolution might be something to avoid. In this case however it gives natives some power and enables them to take action in a situation they feel powerless in.

For clarification I applied to the Summit with the understanding that "I am one of the few active raiders who consistently advocates for the destruction of regions that are taken during raids."

Given that the lead invader lead does represent himself as a region griefer I feel this is a justified measure.

I disagree that a preemptive liberation resolution empowers natives. It may, at most, empower defenders because they won't have to fear imposition of a password before they can liberate the region. Nevertheless, as Jakker has pointed out a preemptive liberation resolution would also put the raider lead on notice that a password is impossible -- which means he can proceed to banject natives he might otherwise refrain from banjecting due to the influence cost. If defenders fail to liberate the region, as is often the case, what we will see are natives banjected more quickly by a raider lead who has no reason to preserve his influence. Will it prevent refounding? Only maybe. Refounding is still possible, though more difficult, without a password. I don't like the odds of "only maybe" as a good reason to pass a preemptive liberation resolution, nor do I see more natives banjected at a much more rapid pace as particularly empowering.

You are correct that this would allow natives to take action, but the resolution wasn't even authored by a native nor have we yet seen natives express support here in this forum. And while this would allow natives to take action that doesn't mean it's the right action, and I do think the Security Council can take into consideration what's right for this region at this time even if it's not what the natives want.

You raise a valid point regarding Mall's fondness for griefing, but even Mall doesn't always attempt to destroy every region he takes. Does he? I honestly don't know. I'm not going to pretend that there isn't a good possibility The Black Hawks will attempt to destroy this region, particularly given the anti-raider sentiments expressed in the WFE, but my point is that a preemptive liberation resolution could accelerate native banjections and may not prevent the destruction of South Pacific in any case. I hope natives will take this argument into consideration as they decide whether or not to support this proposal and I hope the Security Council will hold off until we know if they actually support it.

EDIT: Yep, obviously I missed the posts from the natives. Apologies. I still think we need to hear from more of them, however; it's a large region.

[Land filled with People]

Natives have already given their support Cormac...
One
Two

[Cormac Stark]

Natives have already given their support Cormac...
One
Two

Yeah, I legit missed their posts. Was skimming. I edited my post accordingly.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Natives have already given their support Cormac...
One
Two

I've also made sure they know the consequences (as long as the sticker stays, the delegate can't password and easily refound which applies to both invaders and natives) and briefed them separately by telegram. They said to proceed. (I won't share their telegrams in public, but I would share with defenders if they ask).

The SC has passed a number of pre-emptive liberation before and this won't be the first or last time. As many have said, the fact that TBH has a grudge against South Pacific due to their WFE and has a history of destroying regions it invades, is a strong consideration for this case.

EDIT: Draft edited to add the names of 3 more natives who have been eject/banned.