[DEFEATED] Commend Crushing Our Enemies

[Bodger]

Against.

SC should be seen as in-character, and IC raiders are baddies. This is consistent with how people who RP as baddies really well are IC condemned (while the player is OOC honoured to be recognised for it). Therefore great organisational skills that led to TBH being more skilled IC raiders, more skilled baddies, should not be commended. If it's really that great it should go as part of a condemn.

tldr; Commends and Condemns are IC. Some (IC) condemns are OOC positive recognition. Don't use Commend when IC is a Bad Thing to honour OOC positives.

[One Small Island]

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.

Well sure; you could look at it that way if you wanted to.

[Gorundu]

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.

That's odd. What I'm taking away from this is most people fall for defender propaganda too easily. I can't even count how many times I see hate against raiders from those who have no ideas what raiders even do.

[Praeceps]

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.

That's odd. What I'm taking away from this is most people fall for defender propaganda too easily. I can't even count how many times I see hate against raiders from those who have no ideas what raiders even do.

And don't forget you're also taking away that Europe has a law on sending campaign telegrams to their region!

[Gorundu]

That's odd. What I'm taking away from this is most people fall for defender propaganda too easily. I can't even count how many times I see hate against raiders from those who have no ideas what raiders even do.

And don't forget you're also taking away that Europe has a law on sending campaign telegrams to their region!

Nice deflection. I knew I might have gotten it wrong when I posted it, but at least I was 2/3 correct.

[Praeceps]

And don't forget you're also taking away that Europe has a law on sending campaign telegrams to their region!

Nice deflection. I knew I might have gotten it wrong when I posted it, but at least I was 2/3 correct.

If we want to talk poor debating tactics, we could start with you categorizing the points of your opposition as "propaganda".

2/3 is a passing grade so I'll give you that.

[Gorundu]

Nice deflection. I knew I might have gotten it wrong when I posted it, but at least I was 2/3 correct.

If we want to talk poor debating tactics, we could start with you categorizing the points of your opposition as "propaganda".

2/3 is a passing grade so I'll give you that.

I think I'd rather talk about people trusting defender propaganda without question, so I'm going to have to decline that offer.

[McMasterdonia]

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.

First out of the gate has a natural advantage. Particularly when it is emotive and brings up a recent raid and even quotes a native that were not at all related to the nominee... A compelling story can sell to early voters better than the actual facts.

[The Allied Tribe]

For. It’s honest; what more do you want?

[Praeceps]

If we want to talk poor debating tactics, we could start with you categorizing the points of your opposition as "propaganda".

2/3 is a passing grade so I'll give you that.

I think I'd rather talk about people trusting defender propaganda without question, so I'm going to have to decline that offer.

Probably not the best strategy when you are losing but hey, sure insult people that you need to switch their votes if you want to win.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I think I'd rather talk about people trusting defender propaganda without question, so I'm going to have to decline that offer.

Probably not the best strategy when you are losing but hey, sure insult people that you need to switch their votes if you want to win.

Which of the defender regions + TWP do you imagine would be switching their votes if they're sufficiently flattered?

[Kananji]

Thank you all for helping prevent this injustice. We will not let this nation be commended!!!!!


-President of Kananji

[HumanSanity]

Probably not the best strategy when you are losing but hey, sure insult people that you need to switch their votes if you want to win.

Which of the defender regions + TWP do you imagine would be switching their votes if they're sufficiently flattered?

Notice how votes of individual nations are actually making the difference on this one. Maybe you need to develop an argument that is broadly persuasive instead of just accusing us of lying to people, which we also never did. Clearly "he made good songs" didn't cut it.

[Praeceps]

Probably not the best strategy when you are losing but hey, sure insult people that you need to switch their votes if you want to win.

Which of the defender regions + TWP do you imagine would be switching their votes if they're sufficiently flattered?

Pretty sure that from the context you can see we were not discussing the votes of the larger Delegates. Unless you think that TWP fell for "defender propaganda"?

[Cormactopia Prime]

Notice how votes of individual nations are actually making the difference on this one. Maybe you need to develop an argument that is broadly persuasive instead of just accusing us of lying to people, which we also never did.

There is no argument more persuasive than "raiders are bad, mmkay" to a playerbase that is largely ignorant of and hostile to the R/D game. As you all well know. This is not even to mention that the first tag:WA telegram sent is the one people are most likely to read in full and make up their mind based on.

[Tinhampton]

...This is not even to mention that the first tag:WA telegram sent is the one people are most likely to read in full and make up their mind based on.

Suppose you - "you" in general, not a particular person - live here in Britain and you don't check NS after you wake up or until you return from work at 6pm. Which telegram are you going to see first in your inbox - McMasterdonia's telegram, which was sent at 3:45pm, or Kuriko's on behalf of the Co9, which was sent at 5am? (The same argument applies for those in America who nodded off to sleep before Wednesday major.)

[HumanSanity]

Notice how votes of individual nations are actually making the difference on this one. Maybe you need to develop an argument that is broadly persuasive instead of just accusing us of lying to people, which we also never did.

There is no argument more persuasive than "raiders are bad, mmkay" to a playerbase that is largely ignorant of and hostile to the R/D game.

I hope we all realize how contrived and elitist this statement is.
One should reflect on this statement as the exact reason why raiding is bad. It seems the vast majority of players in this game would prefer to be left alone.
It's obviously a case of me using popular opinion because it happens to support my view, fair enough. But I think it does demonstrate that most people don't want this to be a part of the game. They didn't actively consent to the possibility of raids. They just want to hang out, post memes, answer issues, collect trading cards, and mind their own business. Why can't we let them? Why does everything have to be about the fun of maybe 200 people involved in the R/D game (and I think that's a generous estimate) when there's something like 21000+ players on the site?

[Garvtopia]

I'd like some clarification for my benefit, and for the benefit of other relatively-new players who may come to this discussion to figure out what all the fuss is about.

From what I gather:

- The World Assembly is analogous to the UN, and is an in-character institution. We're meant to vote on resolutions as if we were world leaders representing the WA member nations we control.
- The Security Council, as part of the WA, is also in-character. It exists to condemn or commend nations/regions who have acted against or in accordance with the spread of interregional peace and goodwill.
- Raiding is an act analogous to coalitions of belligerent nations invading and occupying smaller coalitions of nations.
- Raiding and defending are a part of the game enjoyed by a vanishingly small minority of players, and most who have been raided report annoyance that someone else has interfered with their work and may have lost hours of work as a result. Additionally, from the perspective of a real-world nation or region, being invaded and occupied would almost universally be considered a Bad Thing.

If the Security Council were intended to recognize players who have brought a positive contribution to the game as a whole, I could see how this proposal currently stands at over 45% of the vote in favor. After all, raiders gonna raid... it's nice that someone has taken it upon themselves to make sure it's done in a more civil manner. But since the SC is intended to be in-character, the resolution is analogous to a United Nations proposal to commend one of the leaders of a belligerent power for being nice about it when they invade another sovereign nation.

Please tell me what I'm not understanding correctly here, because it seems painfully obvious that this resolution should be shot down, and by a much wider margin than it's currently looking like it will be.

[Cormactopia Prime]

There is no argument more persuasive than "raiders are bad, mmkay" to a playerbase that is largely ignorant of and hostile to the R/D game.

I hope we all realize how contrived and elitist this statement is.
One should reflect on this statement as the exact reason why raiding is bad. It seems the vast majority of players in this game would prefer to be left alone.
It's obviously a case of me using popular opinion because it happens to support my view, fair enough. But I think it does demonstrate that most people don't want this to be a part of the game. They didn't actively consent to the possibility of raids. They just want to hang out, post memes, answer issues, collect trading cards, and mind their own business. Why can't we let them? Why does everything have to be about the fun of maybe 200 people involved in the R/D game (and I think that's a generous estimate) when there's something like 21000+ players on the site?

You know, after seeing this same tired propaganda for eight years, I really can't muster anything for it except a bored yawn. Sorry.

[Lord Dominator]

There is no argument more persuasive than "raiders are bad, mmkay" to a playerbase that is largely ignorant of and hostile to the R/D game.

I hope we all realize how contrived and elitist this statement is.
One should reflect on this statement as the exact reason why raiding is bad. It seems the vast majority of players in this game would prefer to be left alone.
It's obviously a case of me using popular opinion because it happens to support my view, fair enough. But I think it does demonstrate that most people don't want this to be a part of the game. They didn't actively consent to the possibility of raids. They just want to hang out, post memes, answer issues, collect trading cards, and mind their own business. Why can't we let them? Why does everything have to be about the fun of maybe 200 people involved in the R/D game (and I think that's a generous estimate) when there's something like 21000+ players on the site?

I fail to see the actual addressing of Cormac's point, which is that the most persuasive argument is 'raiders are bad' in response to your suggestion to get better arguments. Your tangent about why they feel that way is largely irrelevant.

[Third ZSeparatists]

For. It’s honest; what more do you want?

I agree, this proposal should be passed, for what you stated.

[Superbunny]

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.

Arguments over big region votes? Check.
The North or South Pacific is somehow brought into conversation? Check.
Accusing the WA of bias/overreach/corruption/etc. when your resolution vote isn't going the way you thought it would? Check.

Yep, it's NationStates forum time.

There is no argument more persuasive than "raiders are bad, mmkay" to a playerbase that is largely ignorant of and hostile to the R/D game. As you all well know. This is not even to mention that the first tag:WA telegram sent is the one people are most likely to read in full and make up their mind based on.

Come on dude, the target of the commendation is a large player in a region that is notable for being condemned twice. Raiding is generally accepted by the WA to be a negative thing, as seen in almost any condemnation of a region or player.

Maybe some people like playing the game without getting their regional factbook plastered with "THIS REGION WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE BLACK HAWKS HERE IS A LINK TO OUR REGION" in the middle of the night, and maybe some others like taking over regions for glory or whatever the reason you raid or defend. Sweeping generalizations are no way to bolster your argument.

[Aumeltopia]

I'd like some clarification for my benefit, and for the benefit of other relatively-new players who may come to this discussion to figure out what all the fuss is about.

From what I gather:

- The World Assembly is analogous to the UN, and is an in-character institution. We're meant to vote on resolutions as if we were world leaders representing the WA member nations we control.
- The Security Council, as part of the WA, is also in-character. It exists to condemn or commend nations/regions who have acted against or in accordance with the spread of interregional peace and goodwill.
- Raiding is an act analogous to coalitions of belligerent nations invading and occupying smaller coalitions of nations.
- Raiding and defending are a part of the game enjoyed by a vanishingly small minority of players, and most who have been raided report annoyance that someone else has interfered with their work and may have lost hours of work as a result. Additionally, from the perspective of a real-world nation or region, being invaded and occupied would almost universally be considered a Bad Thing.

If the Security Council were intended to recognize players who have brought a positive contribution to the game as a whole, I could see how this proposal currently stands at over 45% of the vote in favor. After all, raiders gonna raid... it's nice that someone has taken it upon themselves to make sure it's done in a more civil manner. But since the SC is intended to be in-character, the resolution is analogous to a United Nations proposal to commend one of the leaders of a belligerent power for being nice about it when they invade another sovereign nation.

I would say your pre-conclusions are largely correct. However -- with the General Assembly, it's quite clear that resolutions are in-character, and decisionmaking about them is meant to be in-character. With the SC that's a lot less clear. The SC, due to its inherent power of Liberations as well as Commendations and Condemnations, is much more closely tied to the "gameplay" community, a community which tends to operate in both the in-character and out-of-character realms. Even when in-character, gameplayers never operate as nations, but rather as governmental officials in their region or raiding/defending military leaders or whatever. So although the SC is officially an in-character body, and all the language in its resolutions must make sense from an in-character perspective, many resolutions certainly have an element of out-of-characterness. There's a bit of an ongoing dilemma or debate over whether in-character "evil" players should be commended or condemned when they've done good OOC work. The general consensus seems to be that a player can/should be recognized for OOC good deeds, but whether that is by a commendation or by a condemnation should be determined by their IC stance.

Please tell me what I'm not understanding correctly here, because it seems painfully obvious that this resolution should be shot down, and by a much wider margin than it's currently looking like it will be.

The big thing you may be missing is that the raiding-defending game is very closely tied to the regional government game, or Gameplay as a whole. It functions as an alignment, a bit like the left-right political axis IRL. The same players who "grew up" in the game through the raiding-defending world are often the ones involved in and leading regional governments in the GCRs and other major regions. It makes sense: raiding and defending set up a natural ideological conflict in the regional-level, social part of the game. Some large regions do in fact identify as raider-aligned themselves (e.g. Osiris), but even for gameplayers who don't strictly consider themselves raiders, it can make sense to support the commendation of a legendary member from your "niche" of the game.

This vote, though, is probably made closest by the fact that the nominee is an esteemed member of the North Pacific. TNP, of course, has every reason to support the proposal, and it is a member of the WALL bloc of mostly Independent-aligned major regions, which have therefore (except for IDU) chosen to support the proposal as well.

So -- yes, from a strictly in-character standpoint, commending a raider does not fit the mandate of the Security Council. I personally agree with that analysis and do not support a commendation for raiding (I am disappointed that an otherwise deserving nominee was saddled with material essentially promoting, yes, a belligerent power). But there are a lot of community dynamics from the gameplay world to deal with as well.

[Bears Armed]

TNP, of course, has every reason to support the proposal, and it is a member of the WALL bloc of mostly Independent-aligned major regions, which have therefore all chosen to support the proposal as well.

Incorrect: The IDU has now clearly rejected it, by a decisive margin, and our delegate has changed their vote accordingly.

[Lux Cathia]

Since we are a democratic institution I would like to say this:

I am against it because I am against it.