NationStates

The Stalker wrote:I wouldn't rush into this until it's clear their intentions, unless it is your intention to have this liberation permanently.

The delegate only has vassal influence, while native WAs have a ton considering how old the region is. It would take forever to actually destroy your region so it's unlikely their gonna wanna stick around that long.

Calling this a "four year operation" sounds more devoted than it is. Raiders have puppets planted in dozens and for some hundreds of founderless regions. The raider who had a nation there for that long probably has done the same in many other regions as well.

Yes, the intentions behind this liberation draft are mostly preemptive, to prevent them from even imposing one in the first place. However, we definitely don't intend to rush anything through. Though, as far as I've gathered, this does have native support.

If there are no major flaws or edits that need to be made, then I definitely intend to submit this soon, but I am willing to wait a while before doing so. If this needs delaying, then that's also an option.

Is the word "sleeper" an allowable word and not an R4 hit?

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Is the word "sleeper" an allowable word and not an R4 hit?

It's a common term used in the game so maybe not an R4 violation.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Is the word "sleeper" an allowable word and not an R4 hit?

It's a common term used in the game so maybe not an R4 violation.

I'm a bit confused by what you mean here. It's not written in the game itself like "password" or "eject" insofar as I know. I suppose the argument would be that it's like a sleeper cell, and a real world term like raider or invader that makes sense in the character of the SC, but it feels borderline (granted as an SC amateur). "Sleeper Nation" seems to me like a metagame term like "trigger."

Maybe I'm wrong, I have seen terms like "puppet government" after all, but it feels sketchy.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:It's a common term used in the game so maybe not an R4 violation.

I'm a bit confused by what you mean here. It's not written in the game itself like "password" or "eject" insofar as I know. I suppose the argument would be that it's like a sleeper cell, and a real world term like raider or invader that makes sense in the character of the SC, but it feels borderline (granted as an SC amateur). "Sleeper Nation" seems to me like a metagame term like "trigger."

Maybe I'm wrong, I have seen terms like "puppet government" after all, but it feels sketchy.

I was thinking more IC for the SC rather than the legal game related terms such as password etc. We talk about invasions by nations - a sleeper nation seems to fit in with that. Maybe Sedge or CG will pass by and give an opinion.

I can't find the original moderator post, but both "sleeper" and "trigger" were approved for R4 - sleeper bears an adequate resemblance to 'sleeper cell.' That ruling would later put pressure on the moderators to recognize "feeder" and "sinker" as R4 compliant too...

"Puppet" is perfectly legitimate. The current American president is a good example of one, even.

Unibot III wrote:I can't find the original moderator post, but both "sleeper" and "trigger" were approved for R4 - sleeper bears an adequate resemblance to 'sleeper cell.' That ruling would later put pressure on the moderators to recognize "feeder" and "sinker" as R4 compliant too...

"Puppet" is perfectly legitimate. The current American president is a good example of one, even.

Wrong forum, but yes, puppet nation or similar terms have come up.

I see you've already submitted this, despite the not listening to anyone presenting the fact that it's still not needed. It's not likely that The Invaders will stay there as long as it would take to impose a password, so passing this is just a waste of the Security Council's time. I don't speak for the participants (TI and KGB) at all, but I can assure you from observation that they neither have the time nor the numbers to gather enough influence to remove some of the natives that have been around since before founders were even introduced to the game.

If the author wasn't a nation in South Pacific, I'd think this was a badge hunt.

Wow. Can't believe it. Raiders managed to take The South Pacific. That's like if Firehelm invaded The Pacific tomorrow and took it over. Looks like the big 5 (the 5 major pacific regions) aren't so stable after all.

United City States of Oceania wrote:Wow. Can't believe it. Raiders managed to take The South Pacific. That's like if Firehelm invaded The Pacific tomorrow and took it over. Looks like the big 5 (the 5 major pacific regions) aren't so stable after all.

They didn't invade one of the Feeder Pacifics, but rather a Founderless region with a similar name. (Feeders are "The ___ Pacific", this was just "South Pacific")

Lord Dominator wrote:

United City States of Oceania wrote:Wow. Can't believe it. Raiders managed to take The South Pacific. That's like if Firehelm invaded The Pacific tomorrow and took it over. Looks like the big 5 (the 5 major pacific regions) aren't so stable after all.

They didn't invade one of the Feeder Pacifics, but rather a Founderless region with a similar name. (Feeders are "The ___ Pacific", this was just "South Pacific")

This is clearly defender propaganda.

Kyal wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:They didn't invade one of the Feeder Pacifics, but rather a Founderless region with a similar name. (Feeders are "The ___ Pacific", this was just "South Pacific")

This is clearly defender propaganda.

Trust me, I'm no defender

Lord Dominator wrote:

Kyal wrote:This is clearly defender propaganda.

Trust me, I'm no defender

More defender propaganda.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Kyal wrote:This is clearly defender propaganda.

Trust me, I'm no defender

That's just what a defender would say >.>

Kyal wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Trust me, I'm no defender

More defender propaganda.

Lord Dominator wrote:They courageously didn't invaded one of the Feeder Pacifics, but rather a Founderless region with a similar name. (Feeders are "The ___ Pacific", this was just "South Pacific") using great skill and cunning.

Is that better?

Aclion wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Trust me, I'm no defender

That's just what a defender would say >.>

Also what a cabbage would say.

Regardless of my supposed defender leanings, I see no reason to not support this liberation should it come to vote (say I, immediately after denying having defender leanings).

Sygian Supremum wrote:I see you've already submitted this, despite the not listening to anyone presenting the fact that it's still not needed. It's not likely that The Invaders will stay there as long as it would take to impose a password, so passing this is just a waste of the Security Council's time. I don't speak for the participants (TI and KGB) at all, but I can assure you from observation that they neither have the time nor the numbers to gather enough influence to remove some of the natives that have been around since before founders were even introduced to the game.

If the author wasn't a nation in South Pacific, I'd think this was a badge hunt.

The 3 co authors are certainly fendas, that dislike TI.....but the Native supporter....

Sygian Supremum wrote:I see you've already submitted this, despite the not listening to anyone presenting the fact that it's still not needed. It's not likely that The Invaders will stay there as long as it would take to impose a password, so passing this is just a waste of the Security Council's time. I don't speak for the participants (TI and KGB) at all, but I can assure you from observation that they neither have the time nor the numbers to gather enough influence to remove some of the natives that have been around since before founders were even introduced to the game.

If the author wasn't a nation in South Pacific, I'd think this was a badge hunt.

A couple people noted it might be better off delayed until its really necessary. More broadly though the draft was supported by most who posted here. You overstate your case.

Considering a password has been put into effect this has my full support.

Lingang wrote:[box]THE SECURITY COUNCIL,

KNOWING that two large raider organizations are in the process of destroying South Pacific, one of the earliest oldest regions in the world,

Gah, sorry that's really nit-picky but it just sounds much better this way I think.

RECOGNIZING that an invader sleeper nation was implanted in the region over four years ago, for the sole purpose of seizing control of South Pacific,

I saw the discussion on sleeper being Rule IV problematic, and I don't think it is per the fact that "sleeper" has been used by mods in the past in this forum and it appears to pass the little litmus test developed by the mods:

1. Is the term something that could be applied to real-world nations. If yes, then fine. If no, see #2.
2. Is the term something that could be applied to the NationStates world? If yes, see point 3, if no, then what on earth are you writing about?
3. Is the term referring to NationStates as a game, or to the people behind the nations? If yes, it's not acceptable. If no, it's fine.

APPALLED by the methodology which the raiders are using to taunt and terrorize the native population nations, notably the implementation of mock trials to target and eject unsuspecting natives,

FEARING that the inhabitants of the region will soon all be forcibly banned from their home region of residence, without any hope of regaining it ever again,

These clauses kinda skirt more on the Rule IV edge IMO. It's a gray area. I think it passes even without the edits, but opinions can differ.

I guess if like a year and something is soon for a refound, than color me the Queen of England.

Why does this resolution attempt to mislead voters that The South Pacific is being raided, rather than South Pacific?

Wallenburg wrote:Why does this resolution attempt to mislead voters that The South Pacific is being raided, rather than South Pacific?

To make people vote for it. Duh.

The World Assembly shouldn't have to jump in to every little inter-Nicene squabble. I see no clear evidence that any invaders are actually doing anything. There is the mere echo and threat that someone may do something. That isn't a cause for action. We shouldn't be fighting a war that Southern Pacific boy ought to be fighting themselves!

WE Need To help them! I do not stand up to raiders, and do not associate with them.

Switzo-Polish Republic wrote:WE Need To help them! I do not stand up to raiders, and do not associate with them.

cry
Raiders are fine. This resolution is native written, I figure it's fine, I voted for. I'm still a raider, there's nothing wrong with that.