PASSED: Liberate Free Thought

[Martyrdoom]

Oh yeah he wasn't kicked was he, apologies: but it does seem reasonable to infer , especially with your disclosure . So you griefed the region to rectify the previous griefing? Right. But because you did its ok?

You obviously misunderstand griefing - no surprise since the concept of 'natives' eludes you too. I didn't Feudal Japan, because I didn't kick out any natives - only invaders.

You clearly mistunderstand it since:

Obsoleted Rules

As mentioned above, "Invasion Griefing" rules have been abolished. The forum rules sticky has been updated to reflect this, with the following old rules removed:

* Deleted: A distinction was drawn between "invaders" and "natives," and different rules applied to each.
* Deleted: "Invader Delegates" were prohibited from ejecting more than a certain number (usually 10%) of residents, and required to unban them immediately afterward.
* Deleted: If an "invader Delegate" password-protected the region, she was required to distribute that password to residents via telegram.
* Deleted: Delegates were prohibited from ejecting residents in order to re-Found a region.

These rules no longer apply.

(http://www.nationstates.net/page=influence)

As a result, 'native' eludes everyone. You create definitions such as 'griefing'. I create and use definitions in the same manner, 'griefing' being a case in point as well. The strength of my definition - that a nation is native to the region where it currently resides - reflects the use of influence which underpins gameplay.

[Ananke]

Since most of the last page of this thread seem to consist of the same general discussion about whether liberation resolutions should exist or not, which we've had at least a dozen times now, could we move that to a new thread and keep this one for posts dealing specifically with the subject at hand?

[Martyrdoom]

Since most of the last page of this thread seem to consist of the same general discussion about whether liberation resolutions should exist or not, which we've had at least a dozen times now, could we move that to a new thread and keep this one for posts dealing specifically with the subject at hand?

I for one am not debating whether or not they should exist; they do, and will remain. I'm concerned with how they are being used, and how defenders - through the proxy of liberations - are directing the SC down a particular avenue. The end of which sees the SC and liberations as a mechanism for installing nations they prefer over those they don't. For example:

DEFINING "griefing" as any act wherein where a group of nations, not native to a region, move to it with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position; and then, having seized this position, proceed to forcibly remove natives from the region;

It uses 'griefing' and 'native' despite them being terms which are not recognised by the game rules; it then fails to satisfy its own criteria of 'griefing' - that is, the remaining 'native' nations have not been ejected.

BELIEVING that griefing is morally wrong, as it infringes on the right of natives to govern their own region;

Apart from the morality angle which is derelict, where does this 'right' of natives to govern their own region come from? They, like everyone else, have the 'right' when they have the most endorsements.

RECOGNISING that the natives of Free Thought, including Polynumina and Luna Amore, desire to have the region restored to their control;

RESOLVING that this can only be done through the intervention of the Security Council;

This is dangerously mixing up password removal and empowerment.

[Topid]

Oh like you haven't done that.

Sedge was just elaborating on why he should be able to grief regions while others can't.

Uni, you make it sound like you're the bloody SC.

Sedge = griefer, and Uni has a messiah complex. It seems like these same arguements come up in every single debate. I wonder if one day it might actually accomplish something, or at least have a point...

Why, Marty, do you feel that any term not in the Game Rules can't be used by other players. If the mods decided tomorrow that the rules regarding WA multis were too hard to enforce, would controling more than one WA nation be any less wrong?

The admins were tired of regions being destroyed, they gave the world liberations. What is wrong with that?

[Martyrdoom]

Oh like you haven't done that.

Sedge was just elaborating on why he should be able to grief regions while others can't.

Uni, you make it sound like you're the bloody SC.

Sedge = griefer, and Uni has a messiah complex. It seems like these same arguements come up in every single debate. I wonder if one day it might actually accomplish something, or at least have a point...

Why, Marty, do you feel that any term not in the Game Rules can't be used by other players. If the mods decided tomorrow that the rules regarding WA multis were too hard to enforce, would controling more than one WA nation be any less wrong?

The admins were tired of regions being destroyed, they gave the world liberations. What is wrong with that?

They can! I do - but informally. I just don't think they should be used in legislation. Said legislation - insert "natives have been griefed" clause - then becomes inconsistent with game rules. How can one grief natives when influence rejects that?

[Kalibarr]

Oh like you haven't done that.

Sedge was just elaborating on why he should be able to grief regions while others can't.

Uni, you make it sound like you're the bloody SC.

Sedge = griefer, and Uni has a messiah complex. It seems like these same arguements come up in every single debate. I wonder if one day it might actually accomplish something, or at least have a point...

Why, Marty, do you feel that any term not in the Game Rules can't be used by other players. If the mods decided tomorrow that the rules regarding WA multis were too hard to enforce, would controling more than one WA nation be any less wrong?

The admins were tired of regions being destroyed, they gave the world liberations. What is wrong with that?

Right and wrong has no relevance as it does not exist. Morality is the creation of culture over many many years to justify ones actions, when those actions are the same as ones considered "wrong" but the only difference is that the actions are against them.

Defenders have locked down regions before to protect them from raiders yes?

if so to call raiders cowards, and to use liberations is hypocritical.

I see why liberations are used, trophy taking destroys a region, but instead of letting the region return to a fair balance it basically lets the defenders decide who is to govern the region. In the long run liberations will only cause more re-founds as people would be concerned at the loss of their locked down region.

[Martyrdoom]

Oh like you haven't done that.

Sedge was just elaborating on why he should be able to grief regions while others can't.

Uni, you make it sound like you're the bloody SC.

Sedge = griefer, and Uni has a messiah complex. It seems like these same arguements come up in every single debate. I wonder if one day it might actually accomplish something, or at least have a point...

Why, Marty, do you feel that any term not in the Game Rules can't be used by other players. If the mods decided tomorrow that the rules regarding WA multis were too hard to enforce, would controling more than one WA nation be any less wrong?

The admins were tired of regions being destroyed, they gave the world liberations. What is wrong with that?

Right and wrong has no relevance as it does not exist. Morality is the creation of culture over many many years to justify ones actions, when those actions are the same as ones considered "wrong" but the only difference is that the actions are against them.

Defenders have locked down regions before to protect them from raiders yes?

if so to call raiders cowards, and to use liberations is hypocritical.

I see why liberations are used, trophy taking destroys a region, but instead of letting the region return to a fair balance it basically lets the defenders decide who is to govern the region. In the long run liberations will only cause more re-founds as people would be concerned at the loss of their locked down region.

Exactly. There is no 'right and wrong' in a game which is codified upon rules.

[Topid]

They can! I do - but informally. I just don't think they should be used in legislation. Said legislation - insert "natives have been griefed" clause - then becomes inconsistent with game rules. How can one grief natives when influence rejects that?

How does influnce 'reject that'? Griefing was REMOVED from the game rules, that does not mean the game rules say griefing is okay. It simply isn't illegal anymore.

It is not illegal to grief regions. It is also not illegal to vote on WA resolutions however you want. But Aegara wanted to (and could have) been condemned for how he votes.

Just because something isn't illegal by the game rules doesn't mean the game rules 'reject' it being in WA legislation. In fact anything that IS illegal is NOT allowed in SC proposals. So all SC proposals are by your definition 'rejected' by the game rules because they will ALL be about things that are not illegal.

Right and wrong has no relevance as it does not exist. Morality is the creation of culture over many many years to justify ones actions, when those actions are the same as ones considered "wrong" but the only difference is that the actions are against them.

Hard to argue that the SC shouldn't consider things that are 'right' and 'wrong' when we have commend/condemn powers.

Defenders have locked down regions before to protect them from raiders yes?

Have defenders in the past? Yes. Have I ever? No. Have I ever endorsed a delegate who imposed a secret password? No.

if so to call raiders cowards, and to use liberations is hypocritical.

Not really seeing as raiders do not have a valid claim to the region. They took the region. Ejecting them is not the same as ejecting natives who did nothing underhanded to get control of the region.

As for the cowardice charges being hypocritical... I dont' want to touch that... But all I can say is I have never endorsed a delegate who imposes a hidden password.

I see why liberations are used, trophy taking destroys a region, but instead of letting the region return to a fair balance it basically lets the defenders decide who is to govern the region. In the long run liberations will only cause more re-founds as people would be concerned at the loss of their locked down region.

How do Liberations let defenders decide anything? A liberation removes a password. That is it. The raiders are still in complete control of the liberated region.

[Sedgistan]

Exactly. There is no 'right and wrong' in a game which is codified upon rules.

What? How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Travancore-Cochin]

No. 'A region has been invaded and passworded, one of the natives has been ejected' - that's part of the game; these things happen everyday (the password now under threat would have prevented all of this if it had been installed in the first instance).

Likewise, Liberations are now part and parcel of the game, and they occur.. um.. every other day, at least.

'the natives wish to have it restored to them' part should be an irrelevant argument to the SC. So, because these 'natives' 'want' the region to belong to them, the SC should just make it happen? Even if it did, it'd be a police action or at the very least instigating one. Are you saying the SC should be choosing who is acceptable and who isn't as a delegate? If an invader said to the SC, 'liberate this region because we want it', that is not going to hold water, so why should such an argument be acceptable with a mere changing of labels? Moreover, there's already a mechanism for controlling a region - endorsements and who gets the most.

Oh yes, the SC will decide when it comes to vote.

IT WILL.

[Martyrdoom]

How does influnce 'reject that'? Griefing was REMOVED from the game rules, that does not mean the game rules say griefing is okay. It simply isn't illegal anymore.

The games rules DO say 'it's ok': "Delegates need not worry about whether they are allowed to eject, ban, or password-protect—instead, if the game lets you do them, they're legal." (http://www.nationstates.net/page=influence). I think it's pretty clear.

Just because something isn't illegal by the game rules doesn't mean the game rules 'reject' it being in WA legislation. In fact anything that IS illegal is NOT allowed in SC proposals. So all SC proposals are by your definition 'rejected' by the game rules because they will ALL be about things that are not illegal.

I'm saying, if the game is to be internally consistent, then in-game legislation should use definitions based on the game rules now existing, not how they did previously.

[Sedgistan]

How does influnce 'reject that'? Griefing was REMOVED from the game rules, that does not mean the game rules say griefing is okay. It simply isn't illegal anymore.

The games rules DO say 'it's ok': "Delegates need not worry about whether they are allowed to eject, ban, or password-protect—instead, if the game lets you do them, they're legal." (http://www.nationstates.net/page=influence). I think it's pretty clear.

Sure, they need not worry about breaking NS rules. They should worry about the morality of their behaviour.

[Martyrdoom]

What? How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

BELIEVING that griefing is morally wrong,

Delegates need not worry about whether they are allowed to eject, ban, or password-protect—instead, if the game lets you do them, they're legal.

[Topid]

I'm saying, if the game is to be internally consistent, then in-game legislation should use definitions based on the game rules now existing, not how they did previously.

No resolution is based on game rules. Current or old. They are based on past SC decisions and/or opinion of the delegates who allowed the resolution to get to vote.

It is against the rules to use game rules as an arguement in an SC resolution.

[Martyrdoom]

How does influnce 'reject that'? Griefing was REMOVED from the game rules, that does not mean the game rules say griefing is okay. It simply isn't illegal anymore.

The games rules DO say 'it's ok': "Delegates need not worry about whether they are allowed to eject, ban, or password-protect—instead, if the game lets you do them, they're legal." (http://www.nationstates.net/page=influence). I think it's pretty clear.

Sure, they need not worry about breaking NS rules. They should worry about the morality of their behaviour.

My word Sedge. Now I see where you're coming from.

[Topid]

What? How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

BELIEVING that griefing is morally wrong,

Delegates need not worry about whether they are allowed to eject, ban, or password-protect—instead, if the game lets you do them, they're legal.

So you think because of quote #3, quote #2 can't be true? Wrong.

Quote 3 says you can do it. It does not say it is right to do it, or you should do it, or you.

Quote 2 says you shouldn't do it, or it isn't right to do it. It does not say you can't do it.

Just because game rules say you have the power to do something, doesn't mean the SC must say it is right to use that power.

[Dysian]

You CAN kill people in Counter Strike, Topid. Is it immoral if you do?

Sure, they need not worry about breaking NS rules. They should worry about the morality of their behaviour.

And who are you to speak of morality? The Spanish Inquisition perhaps? Wake up, it's the 21st century.
This ignorant attitude is long present with defenders. There are two possibilities: they either know what they're saying is silly, but keep saying it only to further their propaganda; or, they really do believe invaders are evil demons sent from hell.

I don't know which one of those two I should be concerned more about, but I do know I should be concerned about you. If you think someone who's playing a GAME is evil, then you probably haven't seen anything of the outside world.

[Sedgistan]

There's a difference between killing someone in a game which is all about killing someone, and griefing regions in a nation simulator game. NationStates' main appeal is its communities - getting to know & interact with other people. Many of the communities are based around regions, and when people like you grief them, you often tear apart the communities. If you were just raiding regions, ejecting a few defenders, and then leaving after a week, I'd have no problem. Its when people feel the need to destroy regions, and the communities which reside within them, that I have a problem with.

[Martyrdoom]

What? How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

BELIEVING that griefing is morally wrong,

Delegates need not worry about whether they are allowed to eject, ban, or password-protect—instead, if the game lets you do them, they're legal.

So you think because of quote #3, quote #2 can't be true? Wrong.

Quote 3 says you can do it. It does not say it is right to do it, or you should do it, or you.

Quote 2 says you shouldn't do it, or it isn't right to do it. It does not say you can't do it.

Just because game rules say you have the power to do something, doesn't mean the SC must say it is right to use that power.

It draws a moral argument against something that can simply take place in a dispassionate sense: it's like condemning the phenomenon of rain for raining or being wet. I don't invade because it's an 'evil act' or because I'm evil. But because I can, legally and practically. It's a fooking game man!

[Topid]

You CAN kill people in Counter Strike, Topid. Is it immoral if you do?

1) Assumes pasword grabbing raiding is point of NS because killing people is point of Counter Strike.
2) Counter Strike doesn't have a governing body to decide moral issues as NS does.

You CAN enter cheat-codes into many multiplayer games. It's coded into the game to be able to do so... But that doesn't mean everyone should?

[Sedgistan]

It draws a moral argument against something that can simply take place in a dispassionate sense: it's like condemning the phenomenon of rain for raining or being wet. I don't invade because it's an 'evil act' or because I'm evil. But because I can, legally and practically. It's a fooking game man!

Yuh, and your selfish way of playing it has driven players like Marcuslandia away from the game.

[Kalibarr]

You CAN kill people in Counter Strike, Topid. Is it immoral if you do?

1) Assumes pasword grabbing raiding is point of NS because killing people is point of Counter Strike.
2) Counter Strike doesn't have a governing body to decide moral issues as NS does.

You CAN enter cheat-codes into many multiplayer games. It's coded into the game to be able to do so... But that doesn't mean everyone should?

they usually don't work in multiplayer mode anyway

you argue that raiding is not the point of the game, for some people it is, others it is not.

[Topid]

What? How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

BELIEVING that griefing is morally wrong,

Delegates need not worry about whether they are allowed to eject, ban, or password-protect—instead, if the game lets you do them, they're legal.

So you think because of quote #3, quote #2 can't be true? Wrong.

Quote 3 says you can do it. It does not say it is right to do it, or you should do it, or you.

Quote 2 says you shouldn't do it, or it isn't right to do it. It does not say you can't do it.

Just because game rules say you have the power to do something, doesn't mean the SC must say it is right to use that power.

It draws a moral argument against something that can simply take place in a dispassionate sense: it's like condemning the phenomenon of rain for raining or being wet. I don't invade because it's an 'evil act' or because I'm evil. But because I can, legally and practically. It's a fooking game man!

And you may continue to raid without the SC having any ability to stop you for years to come. But if you want to use a hidden password to prevent anyone but your team from playing the game, the other team gets to take a shot now.

[The Grand Jedi Order (Ancient)]

*Shrug* Decent proposal, but I wouldn't vote for it. Also, the 'that darn flag' still seems pretty trivial and misplaced...

[Kalibarr]

What? How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

BELIEVING that griefing is morally wrong,

Delegates need not worry about whether they are allowed to eject, ban, or password-protect—instead, if the game lets you do them, they're legal.

So you think because of quote #3, quote #2 can't be true? Wrong.

Quote 3 says you can do it. It does not say it is right to do it, or you should do it, or you.

Quote 2 says you shouldn't do it, or it isn't right to do it. It does not say you can't do it.

Just because game rules say you have the power to do something, doesn't mean the SC must say it is right to use that power.

It draws a moral argument against something that can simply take place in a dispassionate sense: it's like condemning the phenomenon of rain for raining or being wet. I don't invade because it's an 'evil act' or because I'm evil. But because I can, legally and practically. It's a fooking game man!

And you may continue to raid without the SC having any ability to stop you for years to come. But if you want to use a hidden password to prevent anyone but your team from playing the game, the other team gets to take a shot now.

years to come? are you saying raiding is going to stop... conspiracy!

as for "taking a shot" you could do that already, simply date raiders for their regional passwords.