[PASSED] Liberate KAISERREICH

[Sarakart]

You could argue it, but I don't see any reason that Moderation should take that stance. Liberations are a legitimate tool of GP politics.

But then why should it be limited to certain ideologies?

But...it's not. There is no rule blocking liberation of a leftist region. If it doesn't work, that's because the votes are not in its favor. It has nothing to do with moderation.

[Jar Wattinree]

You could argue it, but I don't see any reason that Moderation should take that stance. Liberations are a legitimate tool of GP politics.

But then why should it be limited to certain ideologies?

Who said it was limited to certain ideologies? Take a look through Passed Security Council Resolutions and see any number of regions Liberated for one reason or another. Fascist regions aren't being exclusively targeted here.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Could we not argue that attempting to hound a region into the grave due to unpopular beliefs is borderline harassment?

You could argue it, but I don't see any reason that Moderation should take that stance. Liberations are a legitimate tool of GP politics.

What we are seing here, however, is a proposal that is malicious in nature, and is used spacificly to hurt a region that the author doesn't like.
The purpose of liberation proposals is the protection of native communities from region griefing, not to cause such griefing itself.

[Triemann]

First;

Your claim to free speech on the NS platform is fallacious because it must abide by the site's rules, otherwise the content you have posted in your Discord would get you in trouble if it were on this site. In the context of the World Assembly, there is no such thing as free speech as it is commonly understood -- nor is there censorship. you can argue for anything, as long as you abide by site rules.

I don't doubt you on anything here whatsoever. I believe I must not have clarified myself, and I apologize.

I do not claim I am being actively suppressed or censored. I claim that, with this and the other resolutions, it will allow censorship of regions for political ideas te exist. Those who censor are this community, essentially enabling the majority to suppress regions with whom they disagree, whether or not there is a legitimate reason.

Secondly;

We are using offsite evidence for a political debate, not for moderation. You yourself are guilty of posting the exact kind of content this proposal is campaigning against. Don't go screaming about "rules" when the "rules" in this case is politics on a web browser game, not mods ruling on whether or not something you posted offsite should be used as evidence against you. This is false equivalence and you have not improved your argument by doing so.

As a user of this site, I have am party to these rules. If I would like to use these rules to protect myself, I may do so. Despite your opinions of me based off of a handful of inappropriate jokes, that doesn't mean we should be treated differently under NS rules.

The evidence gathered off-site should not be used to condemn my region. This opens the door for any content anyone says on or off NS to be used, should it be presented to NS at large. If I said such a remark on an offsite forum, social media linked to NS, or in a conversation linked to me, I don't think it should be allowed. I acted within the rules of this site on this site.

Using evidence gathered elswhere to sway a community regarding a policy on NationStates is simply wrong to me. We have a Discord for the community to interact outside of NationStates. I think it a dangerous precedent taking positions stated elsewhere as fact that should apply to my totally different profile/character on this website.

People generally don't act the same in a small group of online friends with limited rules when compared to a public forum with many rules. My actions in my smaller group of online friends (unregulated) should not be held accountable by the public, simply because my trust was violated. It is simply dastardly.

Not the same principle. You have been arguing that you are being censored when you are not, when you can still speak your mind in this debate with no one cutting out your words or deleting your posts. Now you use a hypothetical to support it? By the time your Founder goes boom, your region is fair game for Gameplay. The proposal is just leveling the playing field, and that is perfectly legal.

*See my clarification of censorship above*

Then why not level the playing field for literally every region if it is perfectly legal? Let other, larger regions become fair game for others if it is legal.

Face it, the actions on our Discord are reprehensible. They are jokes and statements written only with the intent to offend. Treating us differently based on unregulated and more intimate areas on an entirely different site with entirely different rules is not something with which the Security Council should be discussing.

[Triemann]

Using "evidence" from an offsite forum to set rules on another website makes no logical sense to me.

Nobody is trying to alter site rules with this resolution.

I never indented my statement to be interpreted as such.

As this response is not the understanding I indented, may you clarify how you came to this conclusion? I don't want to misrepresent myself more than I should.

[Jar Wattinree]

<snip>

The social media you used is one where you are an official of a government that also exists onsite. We'd not condemn you for your Facebook shenanigans unless it was linked to KAISERREICH or anywhere you have a governmental position.

Not the same principle. You have been arguing that you are being censored when you are not, when you can still speak your mind in this debate with no one cutting out your words or deleting your posts. Now you use a hypothetical to support it? By the time your Founder goes boom, your region is fair game for Gameplay. The proposal is just leveling the playing field, and that is perfectly legal.

*See my clarification of censorship above*

Then why not level the playing field for literally every region if it is perfectly legal? Let other, larger regions become fair game for others if it is legal.

Isn't that what Liberations are for? Check throughout the Passed Security Council Resolutions thread I linked earlier for similar examples.

Face it, the actions on our Discord are reprehensible. They are jokes and statements written only with the intent to offend. Treating us differently based on unregulated and more intimate areas on an entirely different site with entirely different rules is not something with which the Security Council should be discussing.

Again: using evidence for a political debate is different from using evidence to convict you to moderation. Can you stop using that argument?

[USS Monitor]

Nobody is trying to alter site rules with this resolution.

I never indented my statement to be interpreted as such.

As this response is not the understanding I indented, may you clarify how you came to this conclusion? I don't want to misrepresent myself more than I should.

The post I quoted mentions "setting rules."

[Triemann]

The social media you used is one where you are an official of a government that also exists onsite. We'd not condemn you for your Facebook shenanigans unless it was linked to KAISERREICH or anywhere you have a governmental position.

My behavior on any linked profile should adhere to the rules of NationStates, then?

Isn't that what Liberations are for? Check throughout the Passed Security Council Resolutions thread I linked earlier for similar examples.

I do not care if it has been done before. I am claiming that it should not be done this time.

Again: using evidence for a political debate is different from using evidence to convict you to moderation. Can you stop using that argument?

I honestly do not understand you here. I am not claiming someone is trying to convict me to moderation.

What I am saying is that Security Council should not make a claim based on evidence from an offsite area subject to different rules than NS. That is all. Such evidence should not be indicative of regional policy, as any channel within that Discord server is not indicative of Kaiserreich policy because of the different rules there.

[Triemann]

I never indented my statement to be interpreted as such.

As this response is not the understanding I indented, may you clarify how you came to this conclusion? I don't want to misrepresent myself more than I should.

The post I quoted mentions "setting rules."

Ah, thank you. That was unclear on my part.

More accurately, "set rules" means draft and pass resolutions through the Security Council.

[Lenlyvit]

What I am saying is that Security Council should not make a claim based on evidence from an offsite area subject to different rules than NS. That is all. Such evidence should not be indicative of regional policy, as any channel within that Discord server is not indicative of Kaiserreich policy because of the different rules there.

Do you conduct official government discussions, meetings, or any other thing pertaining to regional government in your discord? If so, that means your discord is one of two seats of your government. Therefore, it is an official place of governance and should be subjected to regional rules and regulations.

[Christian Democrats]

I don't pretend to know other people's political views better than they do, so I'll be voting against this proposal.

[Triemann]

Do you conduct official government discussions, meetings, or any other thing pertaining to regional government in your discord? If so, that means your discord is one of two seats of your government. Therefore, it is an official place of governance and should be subjected to regional rules and regulations.

We do not conduct official government discussions, meetings, or any other Reichstag affairs on that discord.

If we did, there'd definitely be a lot more rules there.

[Jar Wattinree]

The social media you used is one where you are an official of a government that also exists onsite. We'd not condemn you for your Facebook shenanigans unless it was linked to KAISERREICH or anywhere you have a governmental position.

My behavior on any linked profile should adhere to the rules of NationStates, then?

No.

My point is that if you don't want to be judged on social media outside of NS, and you hold any form of political office that is connected to KAISERREICH on said social media, then you had better take care that no one uses your words against you. The evidence has been posted elsewhere in this thread.

Isn't that what Liberations are for? Check throughout the Passed Security Council Resolutions thread I linked earlier for similar examples.

I do not care if it has been done before. I am claiming that it should not be done this time.

A shame, because you have given no defensible reason why this proposal should not pass.

Again: using evidence for a political debate is different from using evidence to convict you to moderation. Can you stop using that argument?

I honestly do not understand you here. I am not claiming someone is trying to convict me to moderation.

What I am saying is that Security Council should not make a claim based on evidence from an offsite area subject to different rules than NS. That is all. Such evidence should not be indicative of regional policy, as any channel within that Discord server is not indicative of Kaiserreich policy because of the different rules there.

Let me repeat myself.

Offsite evidence for a WASC resolution = legal
Offsite evidence for onsite moderation = not legal

Do you conduct official government discussions, meetings, or any other thing pertaining to regional government in your discord? If so, that means your discord is one of two seats of your government. Therefore, it is an official place of governance and should be subjected to regional rules and regulations.

We do not conduct official government discussions, meetings, or any other Reichstag affairs on that discord.

If we did, there'd definitely be a lot more rules there.

Given the above statement, my comments will reflect on citizen behavior within the Discord. My apologies for the confusion.

[Triemann]

No.

Exactly

A shame, because you have given no defensible reason why this proposal should not pass.

Oh, it should not pass because Kaiserreich is not a Nazi region, as first claimed by CAIN. I can post a link to my forum post refuting their evidence:

viewtopic.php?p=33564042&sid=24da4fc933073f64dec6ad1c8993ebc6#p33564042

Let me repeat myself.

Offsite evidence for a WASC resolution = legal
Offsite evidence for onsite moderation = not legal

And I am arguing for offsite evidence used for a WASC resolution to not be entirely legal or defensible. May I have explicit evidence of its legality? If not, it is subject to debate as we are having now, giving me the ability to have this argument.

My region is being accused of being Nazi for numerous anti-Semitic remarks, on top of claims already made by CAIN. I think that should be considered slander, as we are not Nazis.

Aside from the evidence I listed above in my link to refuting CAIN. "Liberating" Kaiserreich because it is a Nazi region is wrong on two levels:
- the government of the region has neither expressed nor executed anything in favor of Nazism and its practice
- Anti-Semitic remarks on an unregulated offsite forum with different rules does not equate Nazism

In fact, I've denounced Nazism on behalf of Kaiserreich on more than one occasion while serving as Chancellor.

That is my main argument. I will elaborate, but I've already had this discussion before elsewhere, and I'm tired. Good day.

Edit: Behavior of citizenry nowhere near equates to the official position of the region. Individual behavior is one thing, but when the Reichstag takes official anti-Semitic positions and actually discriminates between players, then I will agree Kaiserreich is Nazi. However, it has done neither of those things.

This resolution is punishing a region for uncouth behavior of individuals on a place where formality and legality regarding NS do not exist.

[Jar Wattinree]

No.

Exactly

See rest of quoted section tomorrow. It is a very important bit.

A shame, because you have given no defensible reason why this proposal should not pass.

Oh, it should not pass because Kaiserreich is not a Nazi region, as first claimed by CAIN. I can post a link to my forum post refuting their evidence:

viewtopic.php?p=33564042&sid=24da4fc933073f64dec6ad1c8993ebc6#p33564042

I believe Funk has already addressed these claims. But at this point we'll be re-dredging older history that serves no purpose except to go around in circles and waste my time and your time.

And I am arguing for offsite evidence used for a WASC resolution to not be entirely legal or defensible. May I have explicit evidence of its legality? If not, it is subject to debate as we are having now, giving me the ability to have this argument.

This will have to be subject to a mod ruling of Rule 4, ultimately. But given the phrasing in the resolution, it is entirely legal under Rule 4.

Good night to you.

Behavior of citizenry nowhere near equates to the official position of the region. Individual behavior is one thing, but when the Reichstag takes official anti-Semitic positions and actually discriminates between players, then I will agree Kaiserreich is Nazi. However, it has done neither of those things.

This resolution is punishing a region for uncouth behavior of individuals on a place where formality and legality regarding NS do not exist.

Perhaps, but I've said that the lack of moderation on the region's part with regards to its citizens' behavior is equal to passive and implicit support, which is part of the scope of this Liberation.

[Lord Dominator]

You could argue it, but I don't see any reason that Moderation should take that stance. Liberations are a legitimate tool of GP politics.

What we are seing here, however, is a proposal that is malicious in nature, and is used spacificly to hurt a region that the author doesn't like.
The purpose of liberation proposals is the protection of native communities from region griefing, not to cause such griefing itself.

Hahahahahaha, nope
Liberation proposals are meant to do one thing: remove the ability of delegates/ROs from setting or changing passwords. As I've said before, everything else is up to us, the collective voters of the WA.

[Dobrobyt]

Hello, everyone! I am Dobrobyt of the Federation of Conservative Nations, and before the vote, I wish to explain my reasoning on why we must vote AGAINST this bill.

My main point I will be making is that this resolution wishes to enforce punishments on a region for off-site content, which is not even sponsored by KAISERREICH's own leaders. The Security Council exists to enforce ON-SITE ACTIVITY! It claims that KAISERREICH uses Nazi propaganda and swastikas, yet on their RMB, which I can access as an embassy, there is zero anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda or content that breaks guidelines. There are parodies of WW2 propaganda, however, they are not in any way offensive.

The author also claims the group participates in hate speech, however, everyone's definition of hate speech is different. I will go with the assumed definiton here, which is saying KAISERREICH pushes hate on a group of people because of their nationality or race. As a longtime embassy, the FCN and I can confirm this is false. KAISERREICH is not a racist or anti-Semitic group.

Although there are some rather risque memes that get spread in the region's discord server, I believe we must not punish the region on this site for activities outside of the site. This is just an example of partisan censorship, which I think is unacceptable.

Oh, here's a biggie I missed. THIS BILL DOES NOT CITE ANY OF THE CLAIMS IT MAKES AGAINST KAISERREICH. It is poorly written, and not trustworthy.

So, when this bill comes to vote, I invite you all to vote against this vile and politically-aimed resolution, which wishes to weaken a group for speech which is not even occurring on this site or endorsed by its leadership.

[Dobrobyt]

I'm just going to point this out;

Abhorred by the regions use of hate speech behind closed doors in its hallowed halls

While I don't like Racism just as much as the next guy, I don't see see these guys as a bunch of Neo-Nazis or Racists like you all say they are, I see them as a bunch of edgy guys trying to be funny memers.

Also Regarding the "use of hate speech behind closed doors" part: these guys can say whatever they want in their Discord, no matter how terrible it is, if you honestly are offended by it just report them to the Discord Staff. I've also looked at the "horrible" screenshots that people took of them talking, I've seen worse in other Nationstate Discords. I don't see the point in including this part if your not gonna include everyone that has ever posted a Nazi meme or anything. ^

This is my exact opinion on this topic in shorter words.

[Sarakart]

viewtopic.php?p=33631237#p33631237

There are links to some offending material on this page. No one's going to link screenshots in a liberation, it would be against SC rules to directly reference that stuff.

[Jar Wattinree]

I'm just going to point this out;

Abhorred by the regions use of hate speech behind closed doors in its hallowed halls

While I don't like Racism just as much as the next guy, I don't see see these guys as a bunch of Neo-Nazis or Racists like you all say they are, I see them as a bunch of edgy guys trying to be funny memers.

Also Regarding the "use of hate speech behind closed doors" part: these guys can say whatever they want in their Discord, no matter how terrible it is, if you honestly are offended by it just report them to the Discord Staff. I've also looked at the "horrible" screenshots that people took of them talking, I've seen worse in other Nationstate Discords. I don't see the point in including this part if your not gonna include everyone that has ever posted a Nazi meme or anything.

Edit: I do Support this btw, just wanted to say this ^

It's a bit late regarding this post, but I do want to point out that the server had been reported to the Discord team, so that part's taken care of.

[Arotania]

Small addendum:
It is not like Kaiserreich limits their tasteful 'obvious jokes' to Discord.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=29715243

Written by a nation with a leader named 'Edolf Hylter', liked by the WA Delegate of KR. I am sure it will soon be pointed out that it is all just good-natured jest.

[Blood Wine]

Small addendum:
It is not like Kaiserreich limits their tasteful 'obvious jokes' to Discord.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=29715243

Written by a nation with a leader named 'Edolf Hylter', liked by the WA Delegate of KR. I am sure it will soon be pointed out that it is all just good-natured jest.

http://archive.is/5LKN1
Just in case there is some "creative rewriting of history"

[Markevia]

Small addendum:
It is not like Kaiserreich limits their tasteful 'obvious jokes' to Discord.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=29715243

Written by a nation with a leader named 'Edolf Hylter', liked by the WA Delegate of KR. I am sure it will soon be pointed out that it is all just good-natured jest.

http://archive.is/5LKN1
Just in case there is some "creative rewriting of history"

I bet they're shivering in their jackboots now.

[Cedoria]

It's for when the founder CTEs, as a preemptive measure.


lmao

KAISERREICH claims it is not fascist or Nazi and instead says it is German Empire themed. Yet, when we look at the evidence, they not only tolerate it amongst their ranks but refuse to change by eliminating it when it is brought to their attention. A proper Gameplay-conscious region would purge those elements from its ranks, or at the very least keep them suppressed and secure. If KReich was smarter, they would have locked those "joking" channels behind citizen masks so your random Joe wouldn't be able to take screenshots of its own Discord channels containing the very evidence you claim is not representative of the region.

What they do in discord is there business and what ideology its members have is their business

We don't agree. Deal with it. Gameplay members make their own judgements about what is and is not acceptable.

[Cedoria]

This is, indeed, a concern. Such a Liberation, though well-intentioned, brings up questions about essentially Liberating every other fascist region out there.

"Well-intention" No it isn't. It just bullying another region for not having the same views.

Correct, it is an attempt to push against advocates of genocidal Nazism. Well done. Forgive me if I don't buy the 'poor Fascists being bullied by ebul Leftist' sob-story though.