[DEFEATED] Liberate Westphalia

[Etlara]

The Security Council,

Noting Westphalia’s long and treasured history as a region,

Appreciating the steps it has taken to bring nations together, through the creation of a constitution, a map, its own government, and many other efforts made to strengthen their community,

Remembering when Westphalia was once a massive region, with over six hundred members,

Acknowledging that Westphalia is currently in a state of rebirth after losing its Founder, and was, until recently, re-electing its own government and forming countless regional alliances,

Reminding the international community that Westphalia is easily one of the largest openly Defender-oriented regions,

Recognizing that Westphalia has recently been invaded by a massive coalition of eight infamous invader regions,

Saddened that such action would be initiated by these raider groups during a time of Renaissance for the region of Westphalia,

Observing that the amount of Raiders easily outnumbers Westphalia’s long-time protectorate, SWORD, which was formerly known as FORGE,

Worrying that the raid destabilizes the region so soon after a recent upheaval, which including the loss of its Founder,

Understanding that Westphalia has been targeted entirely for symbolic purposes, to serve as a rallying cry for further Raids, and finding this resolution necessary to send a message against such provocative and disruptive action by the raiding community upon peaceful regions,

Believing that if this resolution were to pass, that it would give more time for defenders to muster a force to liberate the region,

Hereby liberates Westphalia.

Co-authored by:
The Grand Puffle Republic

[Ransium]

R4(c) “players” “off-site forum” could be more this is just a quick read.

[Etlara]

R4(c) “players” “off-site forum” could be more this is just a quick read.

Fixed rules violations.

[Unibot III]

This may become necessary. The significant piling (90+) certainly can be an indicator of potential griefing. We'll have to work on this text, however.

[Vulturret]

This may become necessary. The significant piling (90+) certainly can be an indicator of potential griefing. We'll have to work on this text, however.

How so? I have seen no griefing so far. Just going about daily business as a raider. Wouldn't surprise me if it's refounded instead of being pass-worded, as well.

[Fauxia]

This may become necessary. The significant piling (90+) certainly can be an indicator of potential griefing. We'll have to work on this text, however.

How so? I have seen no griefing so far. Just going about daily business as a raider. Wouldn't surprise me if it's refounded instead of being pass-worded, as well.

It’s possible they want the Delegate to keep influence, so they’re waiting til the 26-hour mark.

But refound is somewhat more likely, seeing as the founder isn’t deleted

[Unibot III]

This may become necessary. The significant piling (90+) certainly can be an indicator of potential griefing. We'll have to work on this text, however.

How so? I have seen no griefing so far. Just going about daily business as a raider. Wouldn't surprise me if it's refounded instead of being pass-worded, as well.

To refound, they pretty much need to password it. The password prevents battalions from liberating the region while the lead delegate is purging their own troops during the refound.

[Ransium]

Although it's not illegal to have over 3 co-authors you should look over the rules for co-authors and make sure they all truely apply:

Co-authors:
Multiple co-authors are allowed in the Security Council. Co-authors must be nations, not regions/organisations:

An authorship credit is for doing almost as much work on the proposal as the author -- a complete re-write, for example. It's not for collective critiquing, whether done by a forum or by region members.

There is no limit on co-authors, but a "reality-imposed limit" of 3 has been suggested. Nations which no longer exist can be cited, so long as they actually contributed to the authoring of the resolution. However, citing nations which are dead and clearly didn't contribute to the proposal may get your proposal deleted - as in this case (more on it here). Only those who contributed to the text of the proposal should be listed, so campaigners, lobbyists etc. should not be named - see here. Note that the text should make crystal clear that the listed nations are co-authors, or it may be considered a list of supporters, as per this ruling.

[Fauxia]

Yeah they shouldn’t be listed as co-authors if they only contributed one line... certainyl not worth mentioning the titles of Crystalsummer and SA

[The Grand Puffle Republic]

Yeah they shouldn’t be listed as co-authors if they only contributed one line... certainyl not worth mentioning the titles of Crystalsummer and SA

I contributed quite a bit to the proposal. The others are, as Ransium mentioned, supporters.

[Yuanduanga]

Dropping in a bit of native support, but it isnt neccesary right now. Keep editing and when the time is right put it for queue

[Fauxia]

Yeah they shouldn’t be listed as co-authors if they only contributed one line... certainyl not worth mentioning the titles of Crystalsummer and SA

I contributed quite a bit to the proposal. The others are, as Ransium mentioned, supporters.

Ok, I wasn’t targeting anyone in particular. If they are just supporters though, they don’t get co-authorship. Read what Ransium quoted

[Volhgard]

Why don't we just ban raiding? All it does is destroy regions and cause drama.

[Willania Imperium]

Why don't we just ban raiding? All it does is destroy regions and cause drama.

OOC: That's basically impossible. Not only does it have a large membership and is actually accepted by the creator, but you'll need to manipulate the game's internal programs to do it. You're out of luck.

[Reploid Productions]

Why don't we just ban raiding? All it does is destroy regions and cause drama.

I love that I no longer have to type up the answer and can just refer back to old posts that answer this.

Bajillionth verse, same as the first as to why that will not happen. Unless someone ever finally manages to come up with an actual, solid, useful answer to the the same set of questions I ask every time "ban raiding!" has been brought up.

Or, the tl;dr version for those who don't want to go through the links: "Game can't automatically tell a raid WA delegate change from a not-raid WA delegate change. Since raids and not-raids look completely identical to the game, we can't ban raids without also banning not-raids. Banning not-raids would really, really suck for the vast majority of players, so we don't ban either."

[Wrapper]

roleplay region

Any references to "roleplay" violate Rule 4.

[The American Union of Fascists]

Why don't we just ban raiding? All it does is destroy regions and cause drama.

Raiding aids in the game mechanic by simulating invasions and demographic displampcements. It almost feeds the Security Council, giving it a purpose.

[Odinburgh]

As WA Delegate of The Radiant I support this legislation.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

Just here to echo what Fauxia said. Definitely remove Crystalsummer and South Asians if they haven't done anything for the text of the proposal.

[Lenlyvit]

This may become necessary. The significant piling (90+) certainly can be an indicator of potential griefing. We'll have to work on this text, however.

How so? I have seen no griefing so far. Just going about daily business as a raider. Wouldn't surprise me if it's refounded instead of being pass-worded, as well.

May want to recheck Vulturret, they've started kicking natives.

[Ransium]

Not wearing a mod hat right now.

Honestly, much of this resolution reads like a raider written resolution and from what I've seen in the past I doubt it would pass because of it (or you'd lose a ton of support you might not have lost at least). You need to find a way to not imply defenders are so weak and raiders so strong, and the specific naming of raider regions reads like an advertisement. You should also be aware that raiders will probably try to pass their own proposal once they are reasonably sure you will submit it soon. Probably a big reason they haven't yet is there's not much they'd want to change from the current version. Well I don't want to discourage drafting and this resolution definitely needs it, you have to be aware of the environment around you.

[Fauxia]

Just mention it was raided by eight invader organizations

[Lord Dominator]

And this looks to have been submitted

[Fauxia]

And this looks to have been submitted

Sighs

[Nightkill]

They did it against the recommendation of other defenders too. shakes head