NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Commend Crushing Our Enemies

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Jakker City
Envoy
 
Posts: 211
Founded: Dec 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Jakker City » Wed Jan 29, 2020 3:36 pm

Warden Roavin wrote:The perfidious thing about this resolution is that it has been soiled by being a thinly-veiled advertisement for TBH and thereby undermining an otherwise great resolution for a wholly deserving nominee. If I was COE, I would be absolutely furious at Jakker.


You are very much not COE then :P

User avatar
Roavin
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1213
Founded: Apr 07, 2016
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Roavin » Wed Jan 29, 2020 3:41 pm

See, you didn't even deny it :P
Roavinur face from the South Pacific

"Not to mention TSP are some democracy wankers
and democracy wanking is peak defender
" — Tim

NS Coders Discord | I am a LOLcat | Former First Warden of TGW | aka Curious Observations

User avatar
Jakker City
Envoy
 
Posts: 211
Founded: Dec 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Jakker City » Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:36 pm

Roavin wrote:See, you didn't even deny it :P


My focus was on me thinking it was funny that you think COE would be upset as if he wasn't involved in seeing the proposal. :P

Anyways, this has been a fun battle and it was truly cool to see those who supported this. It looks like it most likely will not be passing. Guess the SC is not as progressive as I would hope, but there is always another time.

User avatar
Green Days and Equality
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Oct 29, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Green Days and Equality » Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:11 pm

Jakker City wrote:
Roavin wrote:See, you didn't even deny it :P


My focus was on me thinking it was funny that you think COE would be upset as if he wasn't involved in seeing the proposal. :P

Anyways, this has been a fun battle and it was truly cool to see those who supported this. It looks like it most likely will not be passing. Guess the SC is not as progressive as I would hope, but there is always another time.


Its not a matter of being progressive or not. You are commending a nation that is no better than any other raider nation and the region they reside in that they helped quite abit has 2 condemnations.

User avatar
Yokiria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 752
Founded: Jan 24, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yokiria » Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:14 pm

Green Days and Equality wrote:You are commending a nation that is no better than any other raider nation


That's... not true.
~ And if you go,
Former Guardian of Osiris

I want to go with you,
and if you die...
This nation's views do not necessarily reflect the views of the player.

I want to die with you.~

User avatar
Roost1513
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Jan 18, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Roost1513 » Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:08 am

I was very conflicted upon this, torn about it for quite a few days. I've finally made my decision - I'm voting against.

While I recognize that there are very significant contributions made that deserve to be commended, and I would even recommend a re-submission with a revised draft. If my concerns are met, I'll be voting 'for'.

However... I believe that any commendation should not include this segment:

Recognizing this nation’s 10+ years of influence on The Black Hawks (TBH) which included their roles as Head of Military, Head of Foreign Affairs, and Military Advisor, as well as developing the rank and promotion system that TBH uses and has also since been adopted by many other regional militaries,

Complementing that Crushing Our Enemies played a vital role in the foreign policy practices and regional responses of The Black Hawks' Council including the aftermath of the military weapon, Predator, being found to be against international law,

Noting Crushing Our Enemies’ induction into the Raiding Hall of Fame for their integrity and leadership,

Summarizing that when given the ability to conquer other regions, this practice can attract nations who selfishly commit acts which negatively impact regional partners, and Crushing Our Enemies helped to develop a culture of professionalism and responsibility to mitigate this within The Black Hawks


Leadership influence on a raiding nation that's been condemned repeatedly is not something that should be commended. 'Complementing' (it should be 'Complimenting') a nation for their foreign policy of a Raiding nation should not be a commendation. Being in a raiding Hall of Fame (regardless of the reason) is not worth a commendation. Additionally, 'raising standards' to not do very bad acts and instead do just bad acts is also not worth a commendation (anyone who didn't join a raiding region would deserve a commendation before this does).

Everything in that quote is basic standards that the average person wouldn't just meet but exceed - it isn't hard to understand that raiding within itself is bad, no matter how well you do it or how pretty a bow you tie upon it. Most people wouldn't do that.

Unlike the claim that the SC isn't 'progressive' enough, these segments I (and others) have pointed out are indeed very 'regressive'.


EDIT: Additionally, especially if the segment I quoted is removed, the nation General COE is more appropriate to be commended.
Last edited by Roost1513 on Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Yokiria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 752
Founded: Jan 24, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yokiria » Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:09 am

Roost1513 wrote:'Complementing' (it should be 'Complimenting') a nation for their foreign policy of a Raiding nation should not be a commendation.

Roost1513 wrote:Unlike the claim that the SC isn't 'progressive' enough, these segments I (and others) have pointed out are indeed very 'regressive'.


The segment commending COE's role in response to the Predator scandal is not "very regressive". It's not regressive at all. Saying so is just ignorance of what the Predator scandal was. Educate yourself on the Predator scandal, what it meant, and why COE's behavior as a raider mattered in its aftermath.
Last edited by Yokiria on Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:11 am, edited 3 times in total.
~ And if you go,
Former Guardian of Osiris

I want to go with you,
and if you die...
This nation's views do not necessarily reflect the views of the player.

I want to die with you.~

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2764
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:15 am

I hope after this, TNP and the other regions joining them in voting for this proposal will have a more critical eye toward fluff proposals that aim to commend defenders essentially for nothing more than defending. We've had quite a few of those in recent months, many authored by people from the region that led the counter-campaign against this proposal, and I'd personally like to see the pro-defender fluff proposals stopped in their tracks if this is how defenders are going to treat other players and their accomplishments. Respect works both ways, and if defenders won't give it, they shouldn't get it.

In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

User avatar
A Bloodred Moon
Envoy
 
Posts: 244
Founded: Jan 13, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby A Bloodred Moon » Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:20 am

Cormactopia Prime wrote:In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

I believe TWP opposed this because of their opposition to the World Assembly much rather than any friendly feelings towards defenderism.

It really is a shame that people still can't look past their hatred of raiding to recognise the achievements of someone who has done way more than some defender footsoldier from TITO. It is truly a terrible shame. I suppose there is little we can do except hope that people will eventually grow past that bias.

EDIT: Badger released something regarding it here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=37496022

It appears Badger suspects TBH of pursuing an agenda that opposes TWP's.
Last edited by A Bloodred Moon on Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lone Wolves United - For Your Protection

User avatar
Aingard
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Feb 17, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aingard » Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:43 am

Jakker City, I read your telegram, and although I would be voting against, I would like to commend you for including and not hiding the part about COE's raiding history in the proposal, and for writing one the most interesting resolutions I have the pleasure of participating in.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20836
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:43 am

Cormactopia Prime wrote:I hope after this, TNP and the other regions joining them in voting for this proposal will have a more critical eye toward fluff proposals that aim to commend defenders essentially for nothing more than defending. We've had quite a few of those in recent months, many authored by people from the region that led the counter-campaign against this proposal, and I'd personally like to see the pro-defender fluff proposals stopped in their tracks if this is how defenders are going to treat other players and their accomplishments. Respect works both ways, and if defenders won't give it, they shouldn't get it.

In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

WALL is not a block of raiders, though.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8276
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:10 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Cormactopia Prime wrote:I hope after this, TNP and the other regions joining them in voting for this proposal will have a more critical eye toward fluff proposals that aim to commend defenders essentially for nothing more than defending. We've had quite a few of those in recent months, many authored by people from the region that led the counter-campaign against this proposal, and I'd personally like to see the pro-defender fluff proposals stopped in their tracks if this is how defenders are going to treat other players and their accomplishments. Respect works both ways, and if defenders won't give it, they shouldn't get it.

In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

WALL is not a block of raiders, though.

At no point did Cormac say such. WALL is however presently unanimously in favor of this proposal (going by the gameside votes).

User avatar
Superbunny
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 59
Founded: May 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Superbunny » Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:29 am

My apologies, but I cannot in good faith vote for a resolution that commends a nation performing the opposite of international security in a WA branch that is supposed to be promoting it.

OOC: Holy cow, the for/against margin on this one is super tight. As of writing, only off by a couple hundred.
-Queen Ashley Ninelives the First
Anthropomorphic Cat Queen of Superbunny

The East won the West not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in giving native tribes fatal illness. Easterners often forget this fact; non-Easterners never do.

User avatar
Borovan entered the region as he
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1115
Founded: Dec 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Borovan entered the region as he » Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:47 am

The Borovan ambassador uses his expert reading skills using the two page technique to pore over the recent telegrams and resolution at question. "Hmmm difficult choice. Good stuff done at the North Pacific but mentions war against nations. ABSTAIN."
"Boooo!!!" A crowd of pro hawks protestors are stand outside the building pelting tomatoes at the window.
He opened the window only to be pelted by a tomato and changed it to Against.

User avatar
Green Days and Equality
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Oct 29, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Green Days and Equality » Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:10 pm

It is still very close to call but let me say i find it interesting that almost a 2/3rds majority of individual nation are against while the slight majority of delegate votes are in favor. I think individual nations don't want to commend a raider.

To elaborate on my earlier point, COE has played a huge role in a region that has been condemned many times. For me that makes COE responsible and causes me too vote strongly against.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6594
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:34 pm

Lord Dominator wrote:
Unibot III wrote:I'm surprised such an Accord would even pass S1&2 of TNP Bill of Rights ... but then again, their ruling on "the TNP Flag as a National Flag" makes you wonder.

Which looks to only apply to resident nations, which the vast majority of those sending campaign tgs are not.

(note, it was later repealed for policy rather than legal reasons)


You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Yokiria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 752
Founded: Jan 24, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yokiria » Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:44 pm

Unibot III wrote:
Lord Dominator wrote:Which looks to only apply to resident nations, which the vast majority of those sending campaign tgs are not.

(note, it was later repealed for policy rather than legal reasons)


You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.


It's a weird day when I agree with Unibot.

The sorts of restrictions being described used to be common only in gameplay organizations, and even they've allowed for more player freedom with time. It's really odd seeing it make a comeback in the largest GCR in the game.
Last edited by Yokiria on Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~ And if you go,
Former Guardian of Osiris

I want to go with you,
and if you die...
This nation's views do not necessarily reflect the views of the player.

I want to die with you.~

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8276
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:59 pm

Unibot III wrote:
Lord Dominator wrote:Which looks to only apply to resident nations, which the vast majority of those sending campaign tgs are not.

(note, it was later repealed for policy rather than legal reasons)


You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.

Huh? It was a policy regarding the delegate's vote. It didn't conflict legally with any freedoms as mentioned (only impact was the delegate's vote) and was appropriately passed by the Regional Assembly. At most, it restricted the delegate's voting options and discouraged mass campaigns from targeting the region.
Yokiria wrote:
Unibot III wrote:
You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.


It's a weird day when I agree with Unibot.

The sorts of restrictions being described used to be common only in gameplay organizations, and even they've allowed for more player freedom with time. It's really odd seeing it make a comeback in the largest GCR in the game.

The relevant treaty hasn't been in force in several years (this technically started off of Europe's similar law on the subject), nor has it been applied regardless as a policy to my knowledge in said timeframe.

User avatar
McMasterdonia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 958
Founded: Apr 19, 2012
Mother Knows Best State

Postby McMasterdonia » Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:06 pm

Yokiria wrote:
Unibot III wrote:
You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.


It's a weird day when I agree with Unibot.

The sorts of restrictions being described used to be common only in gameplay organizations, and even they've allowed for more player freedom with time. It's really odd seeing it make a comeback in the largest GCR in the game.
Unibot III wrote:
Lord Dominator wrote:Which looks to only apply to resident nations, which the vast majority of those sending campaign tgs are not.

(note, it was later repealed for policy rather than legal reasons)


You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.


Just to confirm the above by Lord Dominator. The treaty has been repealed for some time now. The North Pacific otherwise has no laws against campaign telegrams.

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2764
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:15 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
Cormactopia Prime wrote:I hope after this, TNP and the other regions joining them in voting for this proposal will have a more critical eye toward fluff proposals that aim to commend defenders essentially for nothing more than defending. We've had quite a few of those in recent months, many authored by people from the region that led the counter-campaign against this proposal, and I'd personally like to see the pro-defender fluff proposals stopped in their tracks if this is how defenders are going to treat other players and their accomplishments. Respect works both ways, and if defenders won't give it, they shouldn't get it.

In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

WALL is not a block of raiders, though.

That's a nice straw man you've got there. Fancier than a lot of straw men I've seen. Taller too. A real catch.

User avatar
Yokiria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 752
Founded: Jan 24, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yokiria » Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:42 pm

Lord Dominator wrote:<snip>

Thanks for setting the record straight. I had my doubts that TNP was restricting player freedom, but I don't know anything about TNP other than the very basic, so I have to rely on what I hear.
~ And if you go,
Former Guardian of Osiris

I want to go with you,
and if you die...
This nation's views do not necessarily reflect the views of the player.

I want to die with you.~

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8276
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:48 pm

Yokiria wrote:
Lord Dominator wrote:<snip>

Thanks for setting the record straight. I had my doubts that TNP was restricting player freedom, but I don't know anything about TNP other than the very basic, so I have to rely on what I hear.

That's fine, understandable that it'd be assumed the debate was about existing policy, given the context :)

User avatar
One Small Island
Envoy
 
Posts: 269
Founded: Aug 30, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby One Small Island » Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:16 pm

Green Days and Equality wrote:It is still very close to call but let me say i find it interesting that almost a 2/3rds majority of individual nation are against while the slight majority of delegate votes are in favor. I think individual nations don't want to commend a raider


The against campaign targeted tag:WA the for campaign targeted tag:delegate.

Correlation does not equal causation, but it looks like those people who received the for campaign decided to vote for, and those who didn't decided to vote against. What I'm taking away from this is that the money talks.
God-Emperor of the Warzone Empire
Longest Serving Warzone Delegate
Warzone Delegate of the Year - 2019, 2020, 2021
Most Influential Warzoner - 2021
Warzoner of the Year - 2021

User avatar
Flanderlion
Minister
 
Posts: 2076
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Flanderlion » Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:20 pm

One Small Island wrote:
Green Days and Equality wrote:It is still very close to call but let me say i find it interesting that almost a 2/3rds majority of individual nation are against while the slight majority of delegate votes are in favor. I think individual nations don't want to commend a raider


The against campaign targeted tag:WA the for campaign targeted tag:delegate.

Correlation does not equal causation, but it looks like those people who received the for campaign decided to vote for, and those who didn't decided to vote against. What I'm taking away from this is that the money talks.

Well, for my one nation who was WA until a few mins ago (accidentally resigned it rather than switching to this one), I got 3 TGs re the resolution. First, a TG from 10KI's del urging to vote against. Second, a TG from TNP's del urging a vote for the resolution. Finally a TG from TBH (Jakker) also urging a vote for the resolution. If anything the tag:WA TGs to individual nations have been heavily one sided towards the for campaign. You might not have seen the second one as it was -delegates. The third was also -10KI, while all 3 were minus tnp, europe and europeia.
As always, I'm representing myself.
Information
Wishlist

User avatar
Praeceps
Diplomat
 
Posts: 757
Founded: Feb 08, 2016
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Praeceps » Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:49 pm

Guess what I'm taking away from this is that more people agree with Kuriko's stance than people do with McMasterdonia's and Jakker's stance. :P
Apparently simultaneously a Ravenclaw puppet, a NPO plant, and a Warden spy. I had no idea I was that good. Depending on who you ask, my aliases include Krulltopia.

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs for The North Pacific, Former Guildmaster of The North Pacific Cards Guild

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads