NationStates

The Security Council,

RECALLING the intent and provisions of SC RES. #29, 'Liberate Greece', which summarized and sought action against the seizure of the region of Greece by a non-native nation, Yauna,

RECOGNIZING that in July-August of 2009, Yauna utilized dishonest and malevolent tactics to refound and usurp control of Greece on behalf of the Persian Empire, a region that initiated and sponsored an invasion of Greece,

NOTING that the original natives of Greece, including Tetrapolis, Iasonia, and Nikolaos The Great, among other nations, have since attempted several refounds during the period of Persian occupation,

APPALLED BY the nation of Yauna's continued destructive and reprehensible practices in Greece, including but not limited to:
1. Extensive and long-term region-griefing, achieved by allowing itself to cease to exist, but returning at irregular intervals to impede refound attempts by original natives,
2. Utilizing defamatory and derogatory language to denigrate the original natives of Greece and their defenders on numerous occasions,
3. Ejecting and banning numerous Greek-affiliated nations without providing due process and without justification, thus depriving residents of Greece of fundamental rights,

DENOUNCING the ongoing Persian occupation of Greece, facilitated by Yauna and its supporters,

HEREBY CONDEMNS The Disputed Territories of Yauna

SkyDip wrote:You're trying to Condemn this nation for something that happened...four years ago? Good luck with that. That being said, one invasion of one region is not something the SC needs to give attention to.

Neoconstantius wrote:

SkyDip wrote:You're trying to Condemn this nation for something that happened...four years ago? Good luck with that. That being said, one invasion of one region is not something the SC needs to give attention to.

The invasion of one region by another region is, in fact, addressed by nearly every Liberation proposal the SC has enacted.
This was not a single event; the seizure of Greece four years ago precipitated a long and tedious effort by the original natives to regain control of their region. Yauna allows itself to CTE, and returns just before a re-found by the Greek natives is possible. This has already occurred 7 times.

SkyDip wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:
The invasion of one region by another region is, in fact, addressed by nearly every Liberation proposal the SC has enacted.
This was not a single event; the seizure of Greece four years ago precipitated a long and tedious effort by the original natives to regain control of their region. Yauna allows itself to CTE, and returns just before a re-found by the Greek natives is possible. This has already occurred 7 times.

Sounds like something multiple Founder nations across the game do. This one isn't special.

SkyDip wrote:You seem to think that the reasons behind a Liberation in 2010 are equivalent and still valid for a Condemnation three years later. They aren't. What you have here is a case of the douchebag founder. It's not special, it's not rare, and it certainly doesn't warrant an SC Condemnation.

Neoconstantius wrote:

SkyDip wrote:You seem to think that the reasons behind a Liberation in 2010 are equivalent and still valid for a Condemnation three years later. They aren't. What you have here is a case of the douchebag founder. It's not special, it's not rare, and it certainly doesn't warrant an SC Condemnation.

It seems to me you don't have a complete understanding of this issue. Yauna's most recent activities, which occurred as a direct result of its actions three years ago, warrant an SC Condemnation. Furthermore, this is greater than just a Founder being a despotic jerk, but rather a foreign seizure of a region through dishonest and despicable means.

If there are any constructive comments on the proposed resolution, I would be more than willing to entertain them.

SkyDip wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:
It seems to me you don't have a complete understanding of this issue. Yauna's most recent activities, which occurred as a direct result of its actions three years ago, warrant an SC Condemnation. Furthermore, this is greater than just a Founder being a despotic jerk, but rather a foreign seizure of a region through dishonest and despicable means.

If there are any constructive comments on the proposed resolution, I would be more than willing to entertain them.

Constructive comment - the SC regulars and majority of (sensible) WA members are not going to see a Founder of 2+ years kicking nations out of their region as something worthy of Condemnation. The region belongs, first and foremost, to the Founder.

SkyDip wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:
It seems to me you don't have a complete understanding of this issue. Yauna's most recent activities, which occurred as a direct result of its actions three years ago, warrant an SC Condemnation. Furthermore, this is greater than just a Founder being a despotic jerk, but rather a foreign seizure of a region through dishonest and despicable means.

If there are any constructive comments on the proposed resolution, I would be more than willing to entertain them.

Constructive comment - the SC regulars and majority of (sensible) WA members are not going to see a Founder of 2+ years kicking nations out of their region as something worthy of Condemnation. The region belongs, first and foremost, to the Founder.

Neoconstantius wrote:Why don't we let the other SC members speak for themselves on this issue? If they raise more legitimate complaints than you have, I will gladly take their advice.

I feel you still missed the significance of this nation re-founding Greece before the original natives were able to do so, and then holding the region as nothing more than a hollow trophy for an invading region, all the while toying with the natives trying to regain control. In this regard, the nation in question is not the legitimate founder.

Mariopolis wrote:You seem to give no regard whatsoever to the significance of the region's name and its historical animosity with the "founder's" Persian allies, to whom the "founder" has expressed notable sympathy.

SkyDip wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:Why don't we let the other SC members speak for themselves on this issue? If they raise more legitimate complaints than you have, I will gladly take their advice.

I feel you still missed the significance of this nation re-founding Greece before the original natives were able to do so, and then holding the region as nothing more than a hollow trophy for an invading region, all the while toying with the natives trying to regain control. In this regard, the nation in question is not the legitimate founder.

Doesn't look (by the WFE or RMB) that the Founder nation is suppressing you, gloating a trophy region, etc. There is no link to the "capturing" region or anything of the sort. This is a four-year-old issue that is now being brought up because the Founder ejected some nations.

Mariopolis wrote:You seem to give no regard whatsoever to the significance of the region's name and its historical animosity with the "founder's" Persian allies, to whom the "founder" has expressed notable sympathy.

Expressing sympathy ≠ taking forceful control of region, believe it or not.

Elias Greyjoy wrote:I will not be supporting for many of the above reasons.

Neoconstantius wrote:

Elias Greyjoy wrote:I will not be supporting for many of the above reasons.

Seeing as you're not a member of the WA, that is fine.

Elias Greyjoy wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:
Seeing as you're not a member of the WA, that is fine.

You assume I don't control a WA nation somewhere in the world.

Neoconstantius wrote:

Elias Greyjoy wrote:You assume I don't control a WA nation somewhere in the world.

You may, but it's not my concern. You previously stated that you would not support the proposal for many of the reasons listed above; would you be so kind as to specify which? Thank you.

Elias Greyjoy wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:
You may, but it's not my concern. You previously stated that you would not support the proposal for many of the reasons listed above; would you be so kind as to specify which? Thank you.

You said I didn't so I'm telling. Obviously, it is your concern.

The Founder of the region has supreme control. Even if you happen to think it was a hostile refound.

Elias Greyjoy wrote:I will not be supporting for many of the above reasons.

Feux wrote:

Elias Greyjoy wrote:I will not be supporting for many of the above reasons.

Using your puppet to agree with your own points?

Anyway, I agree with Mr. Greyjoy. However, proposal looks nice. I'd advise to keep writing, but with a different topic in mind.

Neoconstantius wrote:

Feux wrote:Using your puppet to agree with your own points?

Anyway, I agree with Mr. Greyjoy. However, proposal looks nice. I'd advise to keep writing, but with a different topic in mind.

I suspected it was a puppet nation . Thank you for your compliments.