[DEFEATED] Condemn the Invaders

[Anapol]

Warzone Airspace? Really?!

[Leruc]

I really think it would be best to simply abstain from voting in this resolution altogether. On the one hand, it seems apparent that it's just a publicity stunt by The Invaders trying to drum up some infamy. On the other hand, as raiders The Invaders probably DO deserve to be condemned. But it's obvious that to be condemned is what they want, and the idea that any raider group can influence and simply ignore the effect of Security Council proposals in such a way is galling to say the least.

[The Atlae Isles]

You know, the Social Liberal Union was mentioned in a Security Council Proposal. It was defeated. The Invaders sound terrible, but it does sound like a publicity stunt. I'm currently undecided.

-WA Security Council Atlae Isles Ambassador James Frederikssen

[The Atlae Isles]

It's strange. On the regional page for the Invaders, it even...well, you check out the polls for yourself.

[The Atlae Isles]

What's the point of WA Security Council condemnations if the bad nations (or regions) that are condemned wear it as a medal of prize?

[Amatores Vitae]

Though I am new to NationStates, the SLU, and the WA, I am voting FOR the condemnation. Here is the simple logic:
1. TIN invades and raids.
2. The SC does not condone invading and raiding (condemns).
3. The SC should condemn those who invade and raid.
4. The SC should condemn TIN.

[Tinhampton]

It really is strange that Cormactopia II, the same nation to have complained about the lack of raider unity in the Liberate SLU vote topic, has voted to condemn The Invaders.

[Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic]

Alinghi will vote FOR at the resolution, the region ITALIA had tree temptative of invasion (and the invader at the first attempt had succed, after we was liberated by a defender region), and after the last temptative we loked the region with password. If the region had invaded other's regions we will vote every time FOR

[Horsean]

My brain hurts from deciding.

[Merni]

Though I am new to NationStates, the SLU, and the WA, I am voting FOR the condemnation. Here is the simple logic:
1. TIN invades and raids.
2. The SC does not condone invading and raiding (condemns).
3. The SC should condemn those who invade and raid.
4. The SC should condemn TIN.

It's your vote. However, you should consider that:
1. TI would take a condemnation as a badge of honour.
2. This proposal, as stated earlier, reeks of self-condemnation.

[Ainland]

It's your vote. However, you should consider that:
1. TI would take a condemnation as a badge of honour.
2. This proposal, as stated earlier, reeks of self-condemnation.

Neither of these points have any bearing on whether we believe the Security Council should condemn The Invaders. What difference does it make if they take pride in their condemnation? They can't change the meaning of the word condemnation, and the question is simply whether we condemn them or not. Personally, I think they ought to be condemned. If you vote against this proposal, you are simply expressing your lack of condemnation for The Invaders. It really is that simple.

[Horsean]

Wait......you invaded where?......Singapore? I know what to do now!For this condemnation!

[Ariadnea]

This resolution appears to be a self-condemnation, submitted by a suspiciously new account with a suspiciously bland name and a suspiciously high level of NS/WA-related knowledge for a supposed newbie. (Most likely a puppet of someone in the Invaders.) But more than that, this resolution appears to glorify the Invaders as "a large and infamous raiding organisation" who have (somehow) "infiltrated" the WA and whose "ideology" is "spreading rapidly across the world at a very fast pace" [anyone notice the tautology in that last one?]: not one of these claims appears to have any basis in fact.

We can only conclude, therefore, that this condemnation, if passed, would be construed by the Invaders as a badge of pride, and would serve a recruiting purpose for the Invaders and other raider organisations by making these organisations seem 'exciting' and 'glamorous'.

Ariadnea is therefore voting against this resolution. And we encourage all peace-loving, anti-raider nations to join us in saying no to the Invaders' shameless self-promotion.

[Diyaristan]

OOC: If the Invaders deserve a badge of condemnation for playing NS well and actively, then I think there should also be more defender regions commended for the same reason. It would incentivize raider/defender gameplay.

Why I voted in favor:

Because badges for both sides motivate gameplay, and that keeps people in NS longer.
Because I always vote and debate according to my particular puppet's IC belief system except when out of character, and treat Condemn and Commend badges as IC.
They ARE a huge raider region.

I recognize that they could invade my native Markion, but that would give me a chance to play defender too. None can play the hero's part without villains to fight.

[Ainland]

OOC: If the Invaders deserve a badge of condemnation for playing NS well and actively, then I think there should also be more defender regions commended for the same reason. It would incentivize raider/defender gameplay.

Why I voted in favor:

Because badges for both sides motivate gameplay, and that keeps people in NS longer.
Because I always vote and debate according to my particular puppet's IC belief system except when out of character, and treat Condemn and Commend badges as IC.
They ARE a huge raider region.

I recognize that they could invade my native Markion, but that would give me a chance to play defender too. None can play the hero's part without villains to fight.

Excellent point, if I may say so. I think that people confusing the difference and blurring the lines between IC and OOC is exactly why so many have a problem with approving this resolution, which is simply a straightforward condemnation of The Invaders from a small nation with no known ties to them.

Any OOC glory is OOC, any OOC link from the puppet to The Invaders is OOC. Can anyone give me a good IC reason to vote against this proposal? Or are we letting our OOC selves get in the way of what we perceive might cause the OOC Invaders to feel happy?

[Esno-Calarin]

This proposal reeks of idiocy. Condemnation is idiocy. Just remove it. It dosen't do anything.

[We Are Not the NSA]

OOC: If the Invaders deserve a badge of condemnation for playing NS well and actively, then I think there should also be more defender regions commended for the same reason. It would incentivize raider/defender gameplay.

Why I voted in favor:

Because badges for both sides motivate gameplay, and that keeps people in NS longer.
Because I always vote and debate according to my particular puppet's IC belief system except when out of character, and treat Condemn and Commend badges as IC.
They ARE a huge raider region.

I recognize that they could invade my native Markion, but that would give me a chance to play defender too. None can play the hero's part without villains to fight.

Excellent point, if I may say so. I think that people confusing the difference and blurring the lines between IC and OOC is exactly why so many have a problem with approving this resolution, which is simply a straightforward condemnation of The Invaders from a small nation with no known ties to them.

Any OOC glory is OOC, any OOC link from the puppet to The Invaders is OOC. Can anyone give me a good IC reason to vote against this proposal? Or are we letting our OOC selves get in the way of what we perceive might cause the OOC Invaders to feel happy?

The Security Council resides in a pocket of reality between IC and OOC, so both are supposed to be applied in the decision making process.

[Ainland]

The Security Council resides in a pocket of reality between IC and OOC, so both are supposed to be applied in the decision making process.

Could you possibly direct me to where this is written? As I don't recall having read it before?
Or did you just mean to say that this is your opinion, that you personally regard the SC as real life? If so, that's fine, and I have already expressed my view that the SC should be regarded as part of the game.

[DrWinner]

The Security Council resides in a pocket of reality between IC and OOC, so both are supposed to be applied in the decision making process.

Could you possibly direct me to where this is written? As I don't recall having read it before?
Or did you just mean to say that this is your opinion, that you personally regard the SC as real life? If so, that's fine, and I have already expressed my view that the SC should be regarded as part of the game.

Quoted from "The Guide to the Security Coucil"

A couple of points you should be aware of are:

Should a nation be condemned if they want such a distinction?
Should a nation be commended if they do not want such a distinction?


The first one, while still repeated, has been controversial due to the desire to nevertheless recognise deplorable actions.

The SC exists as both a part of the game and as part of our real life feelings, and thus, voting FOR this bill means that you support this organization receving the benefit of having a condemnation, which, in the raider world, means you're tough enough for the SC to have to notice you. That's a big benefit for the raiders.

[We Are Not the NSA]

The Security Council resides in a pocket of reality between IC and OOC, so both are supposed to be applied in the decision making process.

Could you possibly direct me to where this is written? As I don't recall having read it before?
Or did you just mean to say that this is your opinion, that you personally regard the SC as real life? If so, that's fine, and I have already expressed my view that the SC should be regarded as part of the game.

There is a better example of a mod ruling on this, but I can't find it atm:

It's mixed. You get full IC, gameplay-IC and wholly OOC posts in threads.

The way it works is that proposals need to be IC or at least not clearly OOC, but the debate can be IC, OOC, IC pretending to be IC, etc. Typically when it comes to gameplay related matters the debate goes mostly OOC.

Edit: viewtopic.php?p=4088536#p4088536

Debates in the Security Council are a mixture of out of character (OOC) and in character (IC), depending on the preference of the poster and the context of the proposal being debated.

[LollerLand]

After discussing with our community The Universal Allegiance has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal.

Lollerland
WA Delegate

[Twins of Hearts]

Amongst The Invaders residents, voting is currently 0-26 (100% Against).

At least write us a good one.

-- Lawrence.

Of course you guys would vote against it. Can't be too suspicious and the newbies in TI don't know what a condemnation means.

You call me a newbie, and your nation was founded September 2016. Heh. Check when this puppet was made .

I agree, poorly written, and against. We deserve a medal for our good works.

[Galiagolach]

Wow, the Invaders are really pulling out all the stops to make themselves famous.

I'm not even joking, you could literally take the text from this proposal and paste it into their WFE and it would not be out of place in the slightest. It's almost an advertisement at this point.

Cool takeda logo

Holy crap, you're the first person to actually notice the blatant Takeda clan reference! Everyone else keeps saying it's the Windows logo...

Anyway, more on topic:
The Glorious Emperor of the Star Systems of Galiagolach has heartily and openly voted AGAINST this current proposal, as the barbarian peasantry which have made the vote seem inclined only to make themselves more powerful in the process. As the underlying basis for this proposal is believed to be corrupt, and against the nature of the Security Council, he encourages other nations to take a similar stance on this issue.

[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

[Phoenixcat]

I cannot believe people are voting to allow the Invaders to attack without any check. Why would you vote to allow them to attack other nations at will?? How would you like it if they attack your nation?? If they go unchecked, they will take over the entire world. They will not stop at one region. They will attack every region of the world until the whole world is theirs. We need to stop their aggression against peaceful nations. We vote for the condemnation of the aggressors!!