[PASSED] Liberate Iran

[Feux]

I suggest you add the clause "Observing the similarities between the invasion of Greece, which resulted in Security Council Resolution #29, and the invasion of Iran, and how both regions were likely invaded by the same force and with the same destructive technique;" after your "Noting" clause, which helps clarify why the older proposal to Liberate Iran plagiarized SCR #29 and the precedent this sort of slow invasion has had on invoking a SC Liberation.

Because of the suggestions given by Liagolas, I put the clause after the new regretting clause. I think it works fine right there. What do you think?

[Iramerica]

Hello everyone,

First of all, I want to thank you guys for you support. I was an old nation in the region of Iran and for a period of time I was the region's WA delegate. Everything was good and under control and we all had peace till the time that a bunch of fake nations from a fake region invaded our region and kicked most of us out. I would like to support your purposed action in order to liberate Iran.

[Fratt]

I am also in favour - it's definitely a griefing, even if I don't know if it was the work of the Persian Empire proper.

So if it passes you'll move your WA to the region to kick all the raider puppets? Or will you make an excuse?

The nations who were involved in the original takeover are long dead.
The current residents are likely controlled by various puppetmasters who don't bother doing anything.

[Unibot III]

Hello everyone,

First of all, I want to thank you guys for you support. I was an old nation in the region of Iran and for a period of time I was the region's WA delegate. Everything was good and under control and we all had peace till the time that a bunch of fake nations from a fake region invaded our region and kicked most of us out. I would like to support your purposed action in order to liberate Iran.

*salutes*

We'll get this sorted out. I'm sorry it's taken this long, Iramerica.

[La Navasse]

I suggest you add the clause "Observing the similarities between the invasion of Greece, which resulted in Security Council Resolution #29, and the invasion of Iran, and how both regions were likely invaded by the same force and with the same destructive technique;" after your "Noting" clause, which helps clarify why the older proposal to Liberate Iran plagiarized SCR #29 and the precedent this sort of slow invasion has had on invoking a SC Liberation.

Because of the suggestions given by Liagolas, I put the clause after the new regretting clause. I think it works fine right there. What do you think?

Sure.

Hello everyone,

First of all, I want to thank you guys for you support. I was an old nation in the region of Iran and for a period of time I was the region's WA delegate. Everything was good and under control and we all had peace till the time that a bunch of fake nations from a fake region invaded our region and kicked most of us out. I would like to support your purposed action in order to liberate Iran.

Your support of this Liberation is noted. Do you happen to know any other fellow natives that you could bring to these forums?

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

Liberate it! It is empty and deserves activity.

[Unibot III]

The Security Council,

Noting Iran has a treasured history that is important to the international community,

Regretting that the natives were subverted misled by an invasion which ultimately resulted in the region's destruction behind closed the region with a password,

Observing the similarities between the invasion of Greece, which resulted in Security Council Resolution # 29, and the invasion of Iran, and how both regions were likely invaded by the same force with the same destructive technique,:

• August 5/7, 2013: Gharechi (also known as Avalonian Persia) and Persepolis the Great, appeared in Iran. Persepolis the Great had been founded that very same day. Whereas Gharechi released a dispatch that day explaining their "intentions" for moving to Iran. This group antagonized the regional community while making false accusations against the native delegate.
• December 8 2014: Baharestan took the delegacy with the support of Gharechi and Persepolis the Great and promptly ejected and banned natives. Natives were encouraged by Baharestan, Gharechi et al. to leave Iran for a puppet storage region named Shahish Empire owned by Persian Empire (who directed the occupation of Greece.) The reason given for this policy - to conserve regional influence - was plainly false. Presumably, the real intent of the policy was to mislead natives into voluntarily departing from the region so their ejection was not necessary.
• May - August 2014: Persepolis the Great replaces Avalonian Persia as delegate, who replaced Baharestan.
• August 15, 2014: Persepolis the Great changes the regional password.
• September 8, 2014: Twenty four days later, Persepolis the Great resigns from the World Assembly.

Recognizing that a native at the time, Iramerica, attempted to save the region from an invasion with a liberation proposal on May 12 2014, though the author was temporarily removed from the World Assembly for plagiarizing Security Council Resolution # 29, “Liberate Greece,” putting the community at a further disadvantage,

Believing that this honored council has failed the community of Iran and should ought to do everything in its power to promote security, growth, and stability, and security in the region to correct this mistake wrong,

Acknowledging the risks involved with liberating a region for a particular purpose – a lesson learned by Security Council Resolution # 109, “Liberate Nazi Europe,”

Therefore Encouraging regions and defender organizations to interested parties to ensure the security of the region upon the passing of this resolution so that a community can develop,

Hereby Liberates Iran.

[Fauxia]

Wait, aren’t those links illegal?

[Feux]

Wait, aren’t those links illegal?

After a quick review of the rules, I don't see why they would be. I don't think there is much difference between them and using links to nations and regions. I may be wrong, though.

[Wrapper]

Wait, aren’t those links illegal?

After a quick review of the rules, I don't see why they would be. I don't think there is much difference between them and using links to nations and regions. I may be wrong, though.

Incorrect. The only links that are allowed are nation/region tags and links to passed resolutions.

[Unibot III]

After a quick review of the rules, I don't see why they would be. I don't think there is much difference between them and using links to nations and regions. I may be wrong, though.

Incorrect. The only links that are allowed are nation/region tags and links to passed resolutions.

I've never seen this ruling before? Who ruled that?

Ard/Sedge's ruling was about FULL ADDRESSES. Full addresses violate R4.

This was what Ard was ruling on....

The draft thread and the prospective debate thread are available here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=148487

The latter clearly breaks the fourth wall in using a full address. But there's no reason under R4 grounds (indeed it would be terribly inconsistent given the free use of tags) to prohibit NS links. Links allow us to more clearly state what it is we're trying to say. Banning addresses is just a natural extension of R4, but banning the use of links is nonsensical and without precedent.

Banning links altogether cannot be justified under R4. Nor any of the other canonical rules. Which is why they were never banned in the first place.

[Wrapper]

Here's what I'm basing it on:

Links in proposals:
Use of the nation and region tags is fine in proposals. Additionally, links to passed SC or GA resolutions (even if repealed) are acceptable (see here and here. They must be formatted to not show the url (i.e. "Noting the passage of Liberate Feudal Japan"), and you have to link to their in-game page, not their forum page.

You cannot link to forum threads in proposals - see here.

[Unibot III]

Here's what I'm basing it on:

Links in proposals:
Use of the nation and region tags is fine in proposals. Additionally, links to passed SC or GA resolutions (even if repealed) are acceptable (see here and here. They must be formatted to not show the url (i.e. "Noting the passage of Liberate Feudal Japan"), and you have to link to their in-game page, not their forum page.

You cannot link to forum threads in proposals - see here.

Yeah I get that but...

The original ruling (the one linked there) was always about keeping addresses from being used in full - it was a very sensible extension of R4. You can't write a url in full without breaking the fourth wall.

At that time, we didn't have [url]'s. So it wasn't a relevant question.

Prohibiting all links is, in my opinion, not justified under any of the four canonical rules and rulings flow from the four rules. It's also a different matter than what Sedge was ruling on back then.

Interestingly, when when we got feeder tags - we were in fact encouraged to use them by the moderation team, because it was seen as a compromise between not allowing "feeder" and allowing it under Rule IV which was a rules debate that continued for years...

EDIT: Indeed, you'll note in the linked source that Ard actually did rule urls were legal provided they were NS links (28/12/09). Sedge ruled they weren't legal if they were expressed as an url address. And from there is seems no one on the moderation team remembered the actual point of the ruling: to enforce Rule IV. Rulings in the SC should always follow logically from the canonical rules.

[Lenlyvit]

I see its marked illegal by Fris. Can someone explain how it violates rule 4(c)?

[Flanderlion]

I see its marked illegal by Fris. Can someone explain how it violates rule 4(c)?

Yeah, we're talking about it offsite and struggling a bit. I initially thought it was the mention of Password but someone found something that says mentioning the password is fine.

Edit: viewtopic.php?p=3755837#terms "Any term included within NationStates the game - eg. passwords, World Factbook Entries, founders, eject, 'black helicopters transporting nations between regions' - legal..."

[Tim-Opolis]

Pretty sure the R4c that Fris has you flagged as illegal for would be the usage of "password". I can't find anything else that would set it off, so it's either that or we need to drag Fris here for a rules re-clarification.

Try something like "impenetrable barrier"

[Jar Wattinree]

Pretty sure the R4c that Fris has you flagged as illegal for would be the usage of "password".

Try something like "impenetrable barrier"

Password is a legal term to use, so that's not what it could be flagged for.

[Feux]

December 8 2014: Baharestan took the delegacy with the support of Gharechi and Persepolis the Great and promptly ejected and banned natives. Natives were encouraged by Baharestan, Gharechi et al. to leave Iran for a puppet storage region named Shahish Empire owned by Persian Empire (who directed the occupation of Greece.) The reason given for this policy - to conserve regional influence - was plainly false. Presumably, the real intent of the policy was to mislead natives into voluntarily departing from the region so their ejection was not necessary.
May - August 2014: Persepolis the Great replace

Alright, so right now I think it was this. I don't think this is illegal because it refers to a region and not a particular individual. I am not sure, though. Clarification would be great before I ask to have it pulled.

[Lenlyvit]

December 8 2014: Baharestan took the delegacy with the support of Gharechi and Persepolis the Great and promptly ejected and banned natives. Natives were encouraged by Baharestan, Gharechi et al. to leave Iran for a puppet storage region named Shahish Empire owned by Persian Empire (who directed the occupation of Greece.) The reason given for this policy - to conserve regional influence - was plainly false. Presumably, the real intent of the policy was to mislead natives into voluntarily departing from the region so their ejection was not necessary.
May - August 2014: Persepolis the Great replace

Alright, so right now I think it was this. I don't think this is illegal because it refers to a region and not a particular individual. I am not sure, though. Clarification would be great before I ask to have it pulled.

From the mod compendium at the top of the forum:

"Personal pronouns - illegal when referring to the nation (see here, here and here). However, using the personal pronoun "who" to refer to a nation, while discouraged, is considered a grammatical error, not a rules violation (see here)"

[Unibot III]

It’s not even a grammatical error. Who/whose ought to be fine for use under R4 with regards to regions. Persian Empire is a region.

Password is also legal.

[Ransium]

Very quick thoughts:

The "who" is not the problem.

"puppet storage region" Although puppet is a legal term, in this usage, it makes no sense outside of this being a game. This is clearcut illegal.

"August 15, 2014: Persepolis the Great changes the regional password." Although password is also legal, I think this particular instance is borderline and could be made more artful.

"Recognizing that a native at the time, Iramerica, attempted to save the region with a liberation proposal on May 12 2014, though the author was temporarily removed from the World Assembly for plagiarizing Security Council Resolution # 29, “Liberate Greece,” putting the community at a further disadvantage," Again this is borderline and could be made more artful.

[Unibot III]

Very quick thoughts:

The "who" is not the problem.

"puppet storage region" Although puppet is a legal term, in this usage, it makes no sense outside of this being a game.

"August 15, 2014: Persepolis the Great changes the regional password." Although password is also legal, I think this particular instance is borderline and could be made more artful.

"Recognizing that a native at the time, Iramerica, attempted to save the region with a liberation proposal on May 12 2014, though the author was temporarily removed from the World Assembly for plagiarizing Security Council Resolution # 29, “Liberate Greece,” putting the community at a further disadvantage," Again this is borderline and could be made more artful.

Regional password and password are both fine under R4. There is nothing “borderline” about the clause you’ve quoted - it’s the same as any other clause that’s been written about passwords since 2009.

“Puppet storage” region is a game tag term.

Has Rule IV and the way it’s being interpreted changed? Or are we to stop using ‘RMB’ too? Or ‘telegram’? Or 'feeder'?

Rule IV wasn’t about enforcing a fully convincing roleplay to SC text. It was always about finding a reasonable middle ground between gameplay speak, game mechanics and national simulation. We’re expected to look for in-game phrases (like RMB, Password, Regional Administration) to guide and inform our authorship. R4 doesn’t tell us to avoid them!

[A mean old man]

I remember when Rule 4 was originally employed as a fairly easily-detoured attempt to keep the Security Council civil and safe from its own most prolific contributors, before its application devolved into microscopic semantic nitpicking. The whole point of it was to stop people from referring to nations as "he" or "she" and to prevent people from writing scathing, personal reviews of one another and publishing them via the WA. Its increasingly compulsive employment over the years for the sake of pleasing the "artful" palates of the mod staff is a deterrent for new writers and an endless source of irritation for old ones. Not to mention a waste of money.

[Unibot III]

I would suggest "backwater region" to replace "puppet storage" until an appeal can be made on it.

I have no idea how to rewrite the other "offending" clauses to be more "artful." There's not even vaguely a rules offence in the second clause that Ransium has cited. On the third one, rules violations can be cited in SC proposals and I think the wording that Feux has used it fine. It's exactly what I would have recommended him use.

Compendium: However, if a rules violation has already been reported and addressed by the moderation team, it can potentially be cited in a proposal. This is tricky, as you have to make it Rule 4 compliant - while this is fairly simple for matters such as WA multying, other violations can be trickier to cite. Also, the ability to cite illegal actions is purely at Moderation discretion. If we say you can't cite some illegalities, that's it. You're recommended to ask for a ruling before attempting to do so.

In my opinion, the fact that the native got ejected from the WA is an important part of the narrative. It helps to explain why this went nowhere - he tried and he didn't get help from anyone.

[Feux]

I hope after this proposal is over with, some of these grey areas in the rules are further clarified to reflect the current state of the game, such as region tags and this conflict between regional password and password. When this many experinced authors have a difficult time finding the rule violation or plainly disagree with it, clarification is needed in the basic rules.