[PASSED] Liberate The NSIA

[Pangur Ban]

I believe that this is a gross violation of regional rights slyly disguised as "The Right Thing To Do'
You have used the good will of the security council to forward your own goals.
I hope some condemns you.

By that definition the allies should have refused to fight and then allowed them selves to be annexed by Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy during WW2, after all, war is bad, people die in war and the US manage to get away with a lot as a result of fighting evil. Just pointing that one out

I.E. How amoral is to kill a mass murderer on a rampage? Or in this case dismantle the propaganda tool of nazis? IMO morality is something personal, but also something that changes when tested against the proper stimulus, like survival.

Personally I support this, I'd rather help stop something evil now then worry about the potential abuse of this bill and it's ability to spawn more evil at the bottom of the slippery slope in the far future, while trusting that the majority of my fellow delegates will share in my moral views and stop said further abuse when it's attempted.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

While we despise Nazism in all its forms, this clearly does not have native support. Almonaster Nuevo will be voting against.

[Caelapes]

While we despise Nazism in all its forms, this clearly does not have native support. Almonaster Nuevo will be voting against.

The Nazi occupiers are not natives. If you would like, we can get Hans Kammler to give their thoughts in this thread.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

While we despise Nazism in all its forms, this clearly does not have native support. Almonaster Nuevo will be voting against.

The Nazi occupiers are not natives. If you would like, we can get Hans Kammler to give their thoughts in this thread.

[ooc]I'd certainly be interested in hearing from some long term residents. It seems like a rather confused situation. Unless there is very clear-cut support, though, I don't think the motion as written justifies a liberation. Striking down a password because you don't like the occupants is not a sufficient reason in my book.[/ooc]

[Leruc]

What nonsense this is. The purpose of the Security Council is not to promote or defame one ideology over another, it is to defend the rights and opportunities of natives in their own region. If NSIA had been invaded by Nazis such a liberation would be reasonable and justified, as it is however it seems to me to be a misuse of Security Council power, as well as setting a troubling precedent.

[Brunhizzle]

What nonsense this is. The purpose of the Security Council is not to promote or defame one ideology over another, it is to defend the rights and opportunities of natives in their own region. If NSIA had been invaded by Nazis such a liberation would be reasonable and justified, as it is however it seems to me to be a misuse of Security Council power, as well as setting a troubling precedent.

Which is it? Is the purpose of the Security Council not to promote or defame one ideology over another or is it to promote the defender ideology over other ideologies?

Confusing.

[Ainland]

What nonsense this is. The purpose of the Security Council is not to promote or defame one ideology over another, it is to defend the rights and opportunities of natives in their own region. If NSIA had been invaded by Nazis such a liberation would be reasonable and justified, as it is however it seems to me to be a misuse of Security Council power, as well as setting a troubling precedent.

Which is it? Is the purpose of the Security Council not to promote or defame one ideology over another or is it to promote the defender ideology over other ideologies?

Confusing.

What I understood Leruc to mean is, the Security Council's purpose is protect the interest of natives, regardless of ideology. If you want to call that an ideology in itself, that's up to you, but I think the point is pretty clear.

Edit - Sorry Brunhizzle, I meant to name Leruc above rather than yourself.

[Ainland]

Believing the passage of this resolution would be an unprovoked act of aggression, could lead to undesirable consequences, and would set a dangerous precedent for the procedures of the Security Council, The Social Liberal Republic of Ainland votes against this proposal.

The Social Liberal Republic of Ainland wishes to make it clear that this vote in no way is any expression or indication of any sympathy or tolerance with the natives of The NSIA or their ideology.

[Camp De-Cap-A-Lot]

Despite the fact that I am against the NSIA and what they stand for, it is inherently wrong to basically make legislation destroying another nation just because you want to. I think most people are probably against the NSIA, and that's because we are predisposed to believe that they're bad (there's a whole book on it and research)- but just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you can basically eradicate it from existence. Haters gonna' hate. If we liberate and destroy, they'll find a way to pop up on the site again. We shouldn't use the security council as a guise to start implementing a global environment where an elite group gets to decide what happens and why.

But, I digress, as are the words of Socrates: I am the wisest man alive, for I admit that I know nothing.

[Brunhizzle]

What I understood Brunhizzle to mean is, the Security Council's purpose is protect the interest of natives, regardless of ideology. If you want to call that an ideology in itself, that's up to you, but I think the point is pretty clear.

Not that these people are the natives of NSIA but I don't believe it is the Security Council's purpose to protect the interests of natives. I believe it's the Security Council's purpose to protect the interests of NationStates' community through gameplay mechanics and that doesn't always align with protecting the interests of natives. To that end, I believe it is in the interests of this community to pursue Security Council action against regions and organizations that wish to take a hate-based ideology and supplant it into our gameplay world.

[Proctopeo]

I find this ridiculous and offensive, despite being strongly against the NSIA and what they stand for. In my opinion, at least, the SC shouldn't be used to raid regions you don't like. If it can happen to one region, it can happen to any region, if they have enough enemies. Perhaps a better option would be to just give them little notice. Sure, it wouldn't allow you to destroy it because of their ideology, but no press is worse than bad press. Bad press still implies visibility.

[General Knot]

Believing the passage of this resolution would be an unprovoked act of aggression, could lead to undesirable consequences, and would set a dangerous precedent for the procedures of the Security Council, The Social Liberal Republic of Ainland votes against this proposal.

The Social Liberal Republic of Ainland wishes to make it clear that this vote in no way is any expression or indication of any sympathy or tolerance with the natives of The NSIA or their ideology.

Such a "dangerous precedent" was set in 2014 with the resolution "Liberate NAZI EUROPE".

"SLU's long history of ties to the NS Left was brought to light..."

[Ainland]

"SLU's long history of ties to the NS Left was brought to light..."

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make? The Social Liberal Union is very open about its preference for social and liberal ideologies. And I'm not sure this is the place for such a discussion anyway. But just to clarify, Ainland is not the Delegate for the SLU and makes this vote in a nation capacity only.

[General Knot]

"SLU's long history of ties to the NS Left was brought to light..."

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make? The Social Liberal Union is very open about its preference for social and liberal ideologies. And I'm not sure this is the place for such a discussion anyway. But just to clarify, Ainland is not the Delegate for the SLU and makes this vote in a nation capacity only.

That was an amusing aside. My main point on the usage of offensive Liberations still stands.

[NSIA-1]

Thanks for the compliment. It's quite an honor to be considered a "greater threat" to your side of this game than La Pasionaria.

Oh my, how canny of you. I’m not above embellishment and outright lying in TGs to players who pretend to be on my side, but whose actions suggest otherwise.

I wanted to persuade NJ to give me BC in The URAP or out himself as an enemy agent by refusing to do so. I would tell him my great aunt Stella, confined to a wheelchair, was a threat if I thought it would achieve the desired results.

The fact that Nazis have to move the goalposts so far from what any sensible region considers a victory is telling—as is their continued insistence that the game at large paying attention to them is what keeps them going.

I've never moved a single goalpost. Nazi Europa has always welcomed the SC spotlight. I'm unaware any raiders don't. As GN said, it's Uncle! time again.

What else do you think does keep us going? I would have quit three years ago were it not for the game's intense, obsessive focus on my business.

I.E. How amoral is to kill a mass murderer on a rampage? Or in this case dismantle the propaganda tool of nazis?

We can all thank the new lynch posse, CAIN, for your rampaging mass murderer analogy and for the new 'Condemn Nazi Europa' Condemnation proposal. Spotlighting Nazism and making the virtual world fear Nazi Europa is all this business ever accomplishes.

The CAIN transcripts I receive from traitors in their ranks, who know lynch posse tactics backfire each and every time, reveal CAIN fears us a great deal, and all the ‘insignificant joke’ nonsense they pedal publicly is a sad effort to mask fear. For instance, Cormac, who campaigned for this Lib, fears I would use a Condemnation as a recruitment tool.

Liberating an obscure Nazi region only a handful of players knew existed won’t dismantle Nazi Europa’s ‘propaganda tool’. The new lynch posse can take out a couple of our trophy regions, but spotlighting us while doing so will hurt them more than it hurts us.

Our really wicked This region is controlled/owned by Nazi Europa and BLITZKRIEG propaganda tool in
Western Europe, Paris, Prussia, Maui, Hispaniola and dozens of other 'real place' regions is far more likely to be viewed by players than unknown backwater.

[NSIA-1]

While we despise Nazism in all its forms, this clearly does not have native support. Almonaster Nuevo will be voting against.

The Nazi occupiers are not natives. If you would like, we can get Hans Kammler to give their thoughts in this thread.

if Hans is a native, all my sleepers in founderless regions are natives.

[Caelapes]

As a general note: should this pass (and it looks, early though it may be, that it will—easily) it will only be the second successful offensive use of the Liberation resolution. The first, of course, being Liberate NAZI EUROPE which did not have such a broad coalition of regions supporting it as one.

[Leruc]

Not that these people are the natives of NSIA but I don't believe it is the Security Council's purpose to protect the interests of natives. I believe it's the Security Council's purpose to protect the interests of NationStates' community through gameplay mechanics and that doesn't always align with protecting the interests of natives. To that end, I believe it is in the interests of this community to pursue Security Council action against regions and organizations that wish to take a hate-based ideology and supplant it into our gameplay world.

Ainland is quite right, that's pretty much what I meant. While the nations presently in The NSIA might not be considered natives, nor can they be considered invaders. Merely a bunch of fascists moving to a region of fascists. How can you claim to protect the interests of NationStates' community when you approve a proposal taking perfectly reasonable freedoms away from members of that very community. Where is the justification for this attack? The mere existence of The NSIA has been likened to mass murder, even the holocaust, which is absolute garbage. While I disagree with The NSIA they aren't hurting anyone, and I firmly believe it would be irresponsible of the Security Council to protect nations from raiders, then sanction raiders of their own.

[NSIA-1]

As a general note: should this pass (and it looks, early though it may be, that it will—easily) it will only be the second successful offensive use of the Liberation resolution. The first, of course, being Liberate NAZI EUROPE which did not have such a broad coalition of regions supporting it as one.

How well did Liberate NAZI EUROPE work for you, hmm? Here you are, back again, trying to run us out of town using the same old failed tactics. Piling on a few more supporters won't make a lick of difference. Your option to answer us will only ever be SC Liberation spotlight. Bravo.

[NSIA-1]

Ainland is quite right, that's pretty much what I meant. While the nations presently in The NSIA might not be considered natives, nor can they be considered invaders.

My crew in The NSIA is there for historic preservation purposes. I knew the founder. He's not just game CTE, he's ceased to exist in the real world. Targeting a deceased individual's virtual holdings in an Internet game is terribly ghoulish, but don't try to tell that to the folks who concocted the Liberation resolution. They're so morally superior to us.

How does it feel to hound a dead guy, CAIN? C'mon, let's hear you admit what I'm reading in the secret chat.

[Proctopeo]

I agree with NSIA-1 here, and in fact some of what they said is what I had previously said. All you're doing is pointing a spotlight at them.

[Der Angreifer]

From the Osiris Fraternal Order
And the office of the Sub-Vizier of World Assembly Affairs

---

---

As Ra makes his way across the heavily sky, and the cycle of the universe continues, the people of Osiris and its prosperity of the Nile, after consulting with the community, and the gods Seshat and Ma’at, have determined to vote IN FAVOR OF the current resolution. The Pharaoh will vote according to the people, and according to Ma’at. His actions are necessary in maintaining the balance between order and chaos, truth and darkness, and Osiris will follow the Pharaoh’s direction. The government of the Osiris Fraternal Order will consider no proposal without the text meeting the requirements of Ma’at. We will continue to uphold our moral responsibilities to the people, maintaining and voting in favor of any proposals that will forward the truth and honor that is expected of all who call Osiris home. Cosmic harmony is only obtainable through expressing the will of Ma’at and the will of the Pharaoh. Although we have derived at this decision, the author of the proposal is welcome to present a case that would enlighten the Pharaoh and the community to the purpose of the proposal and perhaps change the will of the gods, the Pharaoh, and the community. If this interests you, please visit our kingdom and speak your knowledge there. All information is important, and will be presented to Seshat, the goddess of wisdom, knowledge, and writing to help direct the Pharaoh to make the right decision for the people of the fraternal order. If you have any questions about Osiris in the World Assembly, please direct them to the office of the Sub-Vizier of World Assembly Affairs by sending Der Angreifer a telegram. For more general questions regarding Osiris, please direct them to the Pharaoh, Cormactopia II. Thank you fellow ambassadors, and author of the current proposal at vote, for your time. Osiris, her people, and the office of the Sub-Vizier greatly appreciate your time and patience.

Best Regards,

Der Angreifer, Sub-Vizier of World Assembly Affairs

[LollerLand]

Despising the ideology of Nazism and supporting the great coalition of regions standing against Nazism and Nazi regions, The Universal Allegiance will vote FOR this proposal.

Lollerland
Chancellor/WA Delegate

[Pangur Ban]

as it is however it seems to me to be a misuse of Security Council power, as well as setting a troubling precedent.

erm, 3 things:

1) There is already precedent.

2) If it was misuse of the power of this SC, which is highly debatable, it wouldn't be the fist or last time, why not abuse it for a good (also debatable) result for a change.

3) We are not the normal corrupt delegates backed by corrupt politicians of corrupt government we all know and hate, attempts to misuse the Security Council's power, even if there is precedent, can and will easily be quashed. As was the case with the Liberate Social Liberal Union bill before this one.

Do the right thing now rather then quiver in fear of imaginary consequences at the bottom of a non-existent slippery slope.

[Leruc]

erm, 3 things:

1) There is already precedent.

2) If it was misuse of the power of this SC, which is highly debatable, it wouldn't be the fist or last time, why not abuse it for a good (also debatable) result for a change.

3) We are not the normal corrupt delegates backed by corrupt politicians of corrupt government we all know and hate, attempts to misuse the Security Council's power, even if there is precedent, can and will easily be quashed. As was the case with the Liberate Social Liberal Union bill before this one.

Do the right thing now rather then quiver in fear of imaginary consequences at the bottom of a non-existent slippery slope.

Very well sir I shall address your points in order.

1) I was not aware of the precedent earlier, I believe the resolution was passed in 2004? If that is the one to which you refer then I assure you, had I been a member of this Security Council at the time I would have argued against that proposal then as I argue against this proposal now.

2) This is a misuse of Security Council power, this is not debatable. The Security Council exists for the express purpose of "spreading interregional peace and goodwill". This proposal is nothing less than a Council sanctioned raid against an innocent region protected by a fairly elected delegate. A misuse of power is a misuse of power, no matter the cause, nor even if power has been misused before. The fact that power has been misused before serves only to remind us as member nations of the Security Council to stand vigilant against those who would abuse the power of the Security Council. Additionally, 'right' and 'wrong' are utterly subjective and therefore beyond the purview of the Security Council.

3) I do not know why you bring up corruption as that is not what I am arguing. I am not saying the Security Council is corrupt, I'm saying that this proposal is wrong and an abject abuse of Security Council powers. You claim that misuses of Security Council power can be quashed, yet this proposal already has a vast majority of votes in favour and shows no signs of being 'quashed'. You say misuses of Council power can be undone but the fact our mistakes can be repaired is not an argument in favour of making mistakes in the first place!

Finally you claim that there is no slippery slope present in this flagrant abuse of power. The only reason you cannot see such a slope sir, is because you yourself have slid so far down it you have lost all notion of level ground! The Security Council has neither the right nor the authority to interfere in the workings of an innocent region made up of genuine member nations and protected by an honestly elected delegate. Besides which, once this proposal has been passed what then? Once an army of self-righteous 'defenders' have descended on this region, vandalised, destroyed and dissolved it, then what? The nations who call The NSIA their home will simply move on and all that will be lost is 6 years of history.