[PASSED] Liberate Boston

[Stratagem]

Where will Boston be after this liberation should it pass? The mushroom Gul Patoth you dragged out from the region, with his first post ever, is clearly just a raider or defender (same thing to me) that squats there for influence purposes.
Will any attempt be made to bring life to the region? Or is this particular pissing contest over once no one is delegate and it sits unused, and dead to all but these influence driftwood?
Come ON! Do something, someone, make it completely unraidable by either side so a community can start here!

[Kurnugia]

Where will Boston be after this liberation should it pass? The mushroom Gul Patoth you dragged out from the region, with his first post ever, is clearly just a raider or defender (same thing to me) that squats there for influence purposes.
Will any attempt be made to bring life to the region? Or is this particular pissing contest over once no one is delegate and it sits unused, and dead to all but these influence driftwood?
Come ON! Do something, someone, make it completely unraidable by either side so a community can start here!

Most likely as a war zone. And wars tend to be exploding with activity

[Hemuraile]

So, people shun fascists by being harsh on any collaboration between fascists and non-fascists. I get that, but that shouldn’t translate into an (abusive) SC resolution that gives it anti-ideological intent, and thereby attacking freedom of thought (SC#38, clauses 4-7).

[Kurnugia]

So, people shun fascists by being harsh on any collaboration between fascists and non-fascists. I get that, but that shouldn’t translate into an (abusive) SC resolution that gives it anti-ideological intent, and thereby attacking freedom of thought (SC#38, clauses 4-7).

Until you realize that SC #240 is commending the fight against said ideology. Also #245 and #246 that are spec. attacking a region for said ideology.

[Hemuraile]

So, people shun fascists by being harsh on any collaboration between fascists and non-fascists. I get that, but that shouldn’t translate into an (abusive) SC resolution that gives it anti-ideological intent, and thereby attacking freedom of thought (SC#38, clauses 4-7).

Until you realize that SC #240 is commending the fight against said ideology. Also #245 and #246 that are spec. attacking a region for said ideology.

So the SC has abandoned a liberty it granted eight years ago?

[Kozmix]

Until you realize that SC #240 is commending the fight against said ideology. Also #245 and #246 that are spec. attacking a region for said ideology.

So the SC has abandoned a liberty it granted eight years ago?

It is not a liberty. The arguments presented in an SC Resolution and agreed upon by the WA Members at that time is limited to that Resolution.

[Hemuraile]

It is not a liberty. The arguments presented in an SC Resolution and agreed upon by the WA Members at that time is limited to that Resolution.

Where’d you get that from, unless it’s some SC convention?

[Kozmix]

It is not a liberty. The arguments presented in an SC Resolution and agreed upon by the WA Members at that time is limited to that Resolution.

Where’d you get that from, unless it’s some SC convention?

Unlike the General Assembly, there are many resolutions in the SC that contain clauses that contradict one another. SC #1 v. SC #222 v. SC #247 on the point of color is an example of that.

Every resolution presents its arguments, which may or may not be in line with other resolutions, or else these contradictions would never have arisen. It depends on the situation, need and the arguments most suitable and favorable for the voting members at that point in time.

[Kurnugia]

Where’d you get that from, unless it’s some SC convention?

Unlike the General Assembly, there are many resolutions in the SC that contain clauses that contradict one another. SC #1 v. SC #222 v. SC #247 on the point of color is an example of that.

Every resolution presents its arguments, which may or may not be in line with other resolutions, or else these contradictions would never have arisen. It depends on the situation, need and the arguments most suitable and favorable for the voting members at that point in time.

exactly, afaik the only relationship that does exist, is the one between repeal and resolution. That's it. Repeals do only one thing: Targeting said resolution and do not set a precedence in the WA. That goes for the GA too btw.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, (1) there doesn't exist something like a contradiction rule, prohibiting later legislation from contradicting prior legislation, and (2), even if they did, arguments don't impose requirements that would in fact be contradicted.

[Caracasus]

It really is good to see freedom of speech being supported so robustly via this proposal.

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it also guarantees the rights of others to criticise said speech. It doesn't guarantee a platform, or indeed compel others to listen to you without consequence. While it is, of course, purely symbolic in nature it is good to see that the vast majority of NS has decided to exercise this freedom to state its distaste for fascism and those who would collaborate with fascists to achieve their goals.

[Hehateu]

Are you purposely being ironic? There's no freedom of anything in the security council. It is made up of a bunch of fascists who think they know better than everybody else even tho they failed at playing nationstates. I spit on all of you

[Terra Voltera]

Are you purposely being ironic? There's no freedom of anything in the security council. It is made up of a bunch of fascists who think they know better than everybody else even tho they failed at playing nationstates. I spit on all of you

Sorry to disappoint, but last time I checked I'm a democratic socialist that supports Bernie Sanders

[Caracasus]

Are you purposely being ironic? There's no freedom of anything in the security council. It is made up of a bunch of fascists who think they know better than everybody else even tho they failed at playing nationstates. I spit on all of you

Nope. I meant every word.

I think you might be confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences of your actions."

Given that fascists are allowed to express their ideologies on this website to the point of actually calling for criminal action or harm against others etc. (and have even more free reign on offsite forums) the Security Council can act as a handy way of getting across the message that their ideology is not very well liked.

This isn't even one of the slightly more controversial uses of liberation. It's liberating a region that was invaded which, correct me if I'm wrong, makes up the vast majority of liberations on the SC books.

[Kurnugia]

Are you purposely being ironic? There's no freedom of anything in the security council. It is made up of a bunch of fascists who think they know better than everybody else even tho they failed at playing nationstates. I spit on all of you

Keep crying. At the end of the day, you still lost. The SC is part of the game and if you cant win in it, it is you who is bad in the game. Oh and you get plenty of freedoms in the SC. For as long as the mods allow it, you are free to those things. Players, on the other hand, cannot infringe on your freedoms.

Are you purposely being ironic? There's no freedom of anything in the security council. It is made up of a bunch of fascists who think they know better than everybody else even tho they failed at playing nationstates. I spit on all of you

Sorry to disappoint, but last time I checked I'm a democratic socialist that supports Bernie Sanders

PS: Bernie is a social democrat not a democratic socialist.

[Valentine Z]

Are you purposely being ironic? There's no freedom of anything in the security council. It is made up of a bunch of fascists who think they know better than everybody else even tho they failed at playing nationstates. I spit on all of you

And also, I'm just saying - You did mention something about wanting a new home, a new region for yourself.

Why don't you just found a new one, or join one of the many many non-raider regions? There're a lot of good folks out there, and it'll make you feel homely.

And you do know that SC indeed has that freedom? If you don't like Liberate Boston, you can counter that with Repeal Resolution.

[Terra Voltera]

Are you purposely being ironic? There's no freedom of anything in the security council. It is made up of a bunch of fascists who think they know better than everybody else even tho they failed at playing nationstates. I spit on all of you

Keep crying. At the end of the day, you still lost. The SC is part of the game and if you cant win in it, it is you who is bad in the game. Oh and you get plenty of freedoms in the SC. For as long as the mods allow it, you are free to those things. Players, on the other hand, cannot infringe on your freedoms.

Sorry to disappoint, but last time I checked I'm a democratic socialist that supports Bernie Sanders

PS: Bernie is a social democrat not a democratic socialist.

Its pretty much the same thing I was saying I'm a democratic socialist. Or at least, I think I am...... Hard to tell actually since I've never taken a test.

[Kurnugia]

Keep crying. At the end of the day, you still lost. The SC is part of the game and if you cant win in it, it is you who is bad in the game. Oh and you get plenty of freedoms in the SC. For as long as the mods allow it, you are free to those things. Players, on the other hand, cannot infringe on your freedoms.



PS: Bernie is a social democrat not a democratic socialist.

Its pretty much the same thing I was saying I'm a democratic socialist. Or at least, I think I am...... Hard to tell actually since I've never taken a test.

Do you want socialism as an economic system? Then yes, you are a democratic socialist. If you want a Scandinavian-ish system. In the US (meaning capitalism with a strong welfare state) then you are a social democrat.

[Conquerme]

Keep crying. At the end of the day, you still lost. The SC is part of the game and if you cant win in it, it is you who is bad in the game. Oh and you get plenty of freedoms in the SC. For as long as the mods allow it, you are free to those things. Players, on the other hand, cannot infringe on your freedoms.



PS: Bernie is a social democrat not a democratic socialist.

Its pretty much the same thing I was saying I'm a democratic socialist. Or at least, I think I am...... Hard to tell actually since I've never taken a test.

I like political compass a fair bit. Try that.

[Conquerus]

Its pretty much the same thing I was saying I'm a democratic socialist. Or at least, I think I am...... Hard to tell actually since I've never taken a test.

I like political compass a fair bit. Try that.

I'm a Reagan conservative.

[Kurnugia]

I like political compass a fair bit. Try that.

ew no, go away. The best way to find out where you lay, is by reading actual literature from different political views and see if you agree with it.

[Kozmix]

I like political compass a fair bit. Try that.

ew no, go away. The best way to find out where you lay, is by reading actual literature from different political views and see if you agree with it.

So much effort! ;-;

[Forestavia]

I commend the Security Council for looking after native rights and properly using the liberation. The occupying government of Boston is ejecting people. This is clearly a situation the requires intervention by the world government. I'm voting in favor.

[Forestavia]

Are you purposely being ironic? There's no freedom of anything in the security council. It is made up of a bunch of fascists who think they know better than everybody else even tho they failed at playing nationstates. I spit on all of you

We're just looking out for the natives, their region, and their self-determination.

But a liberation doesn't necessarily mean your occupying government has to leave. Technically you have the power to stay there, build influence, and crush the spirit of the natives as long as you want to. The liberation simply prevents you from putting up a password. (And by the way, it also prevents the natives/defenders from putting up a password.) And that may give the natives enough hope to get organized with some defenders and take back their region. Maybe. The war could theoretically go on forever. The liberation levels the playing field so that it becomes a war of resolve.

So who has more resolve? Your people who have laid claim to the land or the natives who want their land back? Only time will tell...

[Those Guys with a lot of fire arms]

My nation and it region would like to support you in anyway we can! Please message me so we can remove those that hold boston!

Those that hold Boston are liberators! We came to that horrendous slum in order to boot out a so-called "democratic" leader! To truly support Boston, you should vote "No" and join in our occupation for freedom!

My support is for and I will not waver my support!