NationStates

Congrats! Only 13 hours left until voting ends. Thank you to all the people who voted "Against" for this matter.

-President of Kananji

Maybe defenders have gone a bit too far. I support it because:

It is honest about it contributing to The Black Hawks,
It has created ranks within their region,
Controlling General COE, which helps The North Pacific,
Supporting democracy within their regions,
and a bunch of other things.

Besides, if you are asking "Why can't you just commend General COE instead?", it is because nobody really commends or condemns puppets in the WA, but instead commends or condemns the main nation.

(I am a defender, read this weird proposal: third_zseparatists_1580355269)

In the course of time, the wise temper past perspectives with the unfolding layers of life experiences.

When I arrived in NationStates Region in November of 2003 the region was rising from the ashes of Raider-Defender devastation. The chill nations of the region inspired me to recruit like-minded Nations resulting in incredible growth and community. Soon after, these Nations elected me as their Regional Delegate.

The primary responsibility of the Regional Delegate is the security of the Region. In those days of constant invasions, the challenge I faced was made even more difficult given our lack of a Founder. Whereas other regions had this final level of security, NationStates Region was created prior to Founders getting credit for their creation, meaning my final line of defense was the ability to Password-Protect the region.

Meanwhile, the Region felt stuck in the middle of the Raider-Defender dynamic: side with the Defenders and the Raiders were sure to retaliate; pick the Raiders and risk the vengeance of the self-righteous TITO. I chose the neutral path: Friends with all, allied with none.

As the game reacted and adjusted to the Raider menace the Liberation function was added to the game. At this point, I became vocally and staunchly opposed to this function of the game as it potentially removed my region’s last line of defense against any raid ~ the ability to password protect the region. Over the years my disdain for this mechanic has proven correct as both sides have manipulated its use for selfish reasons.

With the advent of the Security Council came the Condemn and Commend functions which I have characterized as a beauty contest. Moreover, I had personal experience of how easily these votes could be manipulated having been Commended and then having said Commendation repealed out of spite. And so I added Condemn-Commend Resolutions to my Anti-Liberation stance and asked the Moderators to create the Anti-Security Council Tag.

This past year the Cards application of the game brought me renewed interest in gameplay and into contact with numerous players across the JenniferGovernment landscape. Numerous Regions have created highly sophisticated Forums and Governments with monthly features and admirable web designs. Noteworthy of these Regions is The North Pacific.

Now comes the current Commendation. Typically I would arbitrarily vote Against as is our Region’s policy but in careful reading of the Commendation it is apparent that Crushing Our Enemies has a legitimate body of work to warrant notice. I find myself in admiration of those individual Nations who dedicated their talents to the game. In this case the nominee has two chapters to consider: one of Raiding, the second of Region development.

Whereas I still believe that the Security Council is dominated by the old prejudices and biases of the self-absorbed righteous, the opportunity to recognize meaningful contributions to the game can take place within this body. And thus I hereby rescind NationStates blanket Against Vote on all Condemnations and Commendations By Voting FOR the current Resolutions as said Nation is worthy of the recognition.

Mikeswill
WA Delegate
NationStates Region

Bears Armed wrote:

Aumeltopia wrote: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.

My apologies, thank you for correcting me! I’ve edited.

Mikeswill wrote:In the course of time... [snip]

TL;DR: Mikeswill has broken with tradition to vote in favour of Commending CoE. Incredible! (Alas, the resolution is currently losing by a 54-46 margin.)

It's great to see Mikeswill taking a more nuanced approach to the Security Council. If only defenders + TWP and IDU were capable of nuance.

Jakker (and COE) does the impossible once again (by accident)

Mikeswill wrote:-Snip-

Well here's something I never expected to see. I genuinely have to thank you for that.

I am going to break my self-imposed exile from posting for a moment, solely out of my belief that COE deserves to be commended. While I have only had limited interaction with him throughout the years he strikes me as an honorable individual, and his accomplishments and service outlined in this proposal ought to speak for themselves.

While I feel that, from a rhetorical perspective, Jakker may have made a mistake by leading with COE's service to the Black Hawks, I fail to understand the objections that are being raised against the inclusion of those four clauses. Apparently in the months since I last checked in with NationStates the definition of raiding has been expanded to encompass any act of participation in a raider region.
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,[/quote]
This is probably the least necessary (and by extension the most objectionable) of the raiding related clauses; it is a summary of COE's service to one of his home regions, similar to those included in nearly all commendations. At the same time it is different from those included in most condemnations of nations involved in raiding because it fails to mention involvement in raiding itself. All actions listed in clause are administrative or community related.

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,
-snip-
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,

Again, these arguments have nothing to do with the act of raiding itself but rather the administrative decisions that went into domestic/foreign policy regarding the R/D community. In the weeks and months following the Predator scandal the Black Hawks were the primary source of reform amongst the entire raider faction; as a member of the leadership in one of the many fragments of the DEN community in the scandal's aftermath, I felt that TBH were fully within their rights to distance themselves from us (especially after that class-region fiasco). Yet TBH were willing to engage in dialogue with us and provided us with the conditions that evolved into the guiding principles of the reforms in how we went about engaging with the community as a whole: I believe that their influence over the raider sphere overall reduced further problems and benefitted the broader NS community. While COE was not solely responsible for these policies his contributions to them cannot be denied, and in my opinion to overlook them in the name of an extremely loosely applicable principle of 'not commending people for raiding' is a damn shame.

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

Were it not for the inclusion of the phrase "for their integrity and leadership" I would agree that this clause is citing COE's raiding activities as a reason for commending him. However this clause is very specific that its argument is "noting" (note the neutral verb, rather than a complimentary one) the reasons that COE was admitted into the Raider Hall of Fame rather than just the status of being admitted: it is not commending him on the basis that he is good at raiding but rather on the basis that he is well-known in the gameplay community for and has been awarded for his integrity and leadership skills.

I am, obviously, not of the opinion that mentioning that an otherwise commendable player is good at raiding should preclude a proposal from consideration; thus even if this proposal had explicitly included COE's raiding as a reason to commend him I would not have cared. I do not, however, see any reasonable way of interpreting these clauses as unworthy of inclusion in a Commendation on this basis.

On a tangentially related note (that tangent being a lack of reason), I've noticed that the tried and true argument that interpreting the collection of voices exclaiming some variation of "we shouldn't commend them, tHeY'rE a RaIdEr!" as ignorant is elitist has been invoked. What fun; the argument that it is elitist to criticize a blindly followed mob mentality that precludes an entire bloc of players from being considered for commendation regardless of the extent of their positive contributions to the community as a whole. As I have already explained fairly thoroughly there is nothing in this proposal that argues that COE's status as a a raider or the acts of raiding that he participated in are reasons for him to be commended; furthermore, the vast majority of the arguments provided in this proposal have nothing to do with COE's status as a raider and as I have implied easily outweigh that status. And yet we still hear the spear-rattling of those who feel that this proposal should be shot down solely on the basis that the nominee is a raider, and since raiders are bad then that means that the nominee is bad (nevermind the extensive list of contributions to the community provided just a few lines down, which I'm sure everyone read). I think that Cormac's characterization of the playerbase making up the bulk of the mob as "ignorant of and hostile to" Gameplay is a fair assessment.

All that out of the way:

Acknowledging that the nominee also controls General COE of The North Pacific; the largest region in NationStates,

Impressed with General COE’s years of dedication to the security of The North Pacific through their involvement in the region’s Security Council; both as a member and as the Vice-Delegate which oversees the council,

I don't think you're using those semicolons correctly.

The delegate from Jhalpharezi would like to commend the body's majority in swiftly voting down the commendation. Orators can make whatever argument they like in favor of nominee's related organization. Let it be known the group has been a disruptive nuisance. The organization has destroyed the work of as many people as they could. It is not cute, nor is it funny. Raiding is a menace by any definition. Perhaps raiders should stop wrecking people's work with a game mechanic (that should not be allowed) and write out conflicts by participating in the forum.

No reforms made by said organization can erase years and years of disruption. Allowed? Fine. Commendable? No!

Jhalpharezi wrote:and write out conflicts by participating in the forum.

You assume we don't

Well I did warn you from the start but COE only has the author to blame for this failing to pass, I’d like to see a TNP only commend for General COE come forward.

And Mikeswill suddenly changing their Security Council voting as soon as a raider-related Commend reaches the floor is laughable, as if COE is any more notable than the existing Commendees. Stop feigning neutrality, everyone knows your allegiances.

Side note: people need to take on board comments made here, rather than just getting aggressive when they can’t bully a proposal commending their friend through the Security Council.

Gorundu wrote:I can't even count how many times I see hate against raiders from those who have no ideas what raiders even do.

Honestly, the bigger problem is that raiders generally have no idea what they do. We see the impact of occupations on native communities and the number of players who give up on the game because of them. And that 100% includes the occupations that the NPA takes part in where natives aren’t even getting ejected.

Numero Capitan wrote:Honestly, the bigger problem is that raiders generally have no idea what they do. We see the impact of occupations on native communities and the number of players who give up on the game because of them. And that 100% includes the occupations that the NPA takes part in where natives aren’t even getting ejected.

I think you would be surprised with that. For many of the mainstream organizations that raid and occupy regions, there is a lot of intentionality behind how interactions with natives go. I would say there are even repeated moments where the interactions are quite positive. You can even look at the current occupation of Asean Region, where multiple natives have endorsed TBH's point. Point is there is a TON of nuance to raiding. I get the whole "raiding is bad" as a great talking point for defenders and has simplicity to it, but there is a lot more to it than that.

Anyways, this was quite the exciting vote and I hope it helped to progress some thought a bit forward. Thanks for all of those who engaged in conversation and voted for. Perhaps one day, COE will be able to be recognized by this body in some fashion.

Jakker City wrote:For many of the mainstream organizations that raid and occupy regions, there is a lot of intentionality behind how interactions with natives go.

Of course there is: Whenever somebody suggests that raiders would be less unpopular if they just competed against each other to take over regions that had been created for that purpose, like the Warzones, we get admitted raiders -- sometimes well-known ones -- saying that there'd be no point to them doing that because raiding is no fun unless it makes the natives suffer. There's those raiders' "intentionality" when interacting with natives...

Numero Capitan wrote:Well I did warn you from the start but COE only has the author to blame for this failing to pass, I’d like to see a TNP only commend for General COE come forward.

And Mikeswill suddenly changing their Security Council voting as soon as a raider-related Commend reaches the floor is laughable, as if COE is any more notable than the existing Commendees. Stop feigning neutrality, everyone knows your allegiances.

Side note: people need to take on board comments made here, rather than just getting aggressive when they can’t bully a proposal commending their friend through the Security Council.

Gorundu wrote:I can't even count how many times I see hate against raiders from those who have no ideas what raiders even do.

Honestly, the bigger problem is that raiders generally have no idea what they do. We see the impact of occupations on native communities and the number of players who give up on the game because of them. And that 100% includes the occupations that the NPA takes part in where natives aren’t even getting ejected.

People need to take on board comments made here, rather than just getting aggressive when they can’t bully people into accepting their propaganda talking points to block a commendation of someone they don’t like getting through the Security Council. Oh wait no... that worked! It’s amazing what is possible when you’re willing to do whatever it takes!

Likewise, everyone knows your allegiances - that are to an ideology, rather than to any kind of objective assessment of a nominees contributions to the game.

Bears Armed wrote:

Jakker City wrote:For many of the mainstream organizations that raid and occupy regions, there is a lot of intentionality behind how interactions with natives go.

Of course there is: Whenever somebody suggests that raiders would be less unpopular if they just competed against each other to take over regions that had been created for that purpose, like the Warzones, we get admitted raiders -- sometimes well-known ones -- saying that there'd be no point to them doing that because raiding is no fun unless it makes the natives suffer. There's those raiders' "intentionality" when interacting with natives...

Warzones have never been used by raiders in the way you suggest and they are unlikely to ever be used that way. Probably best to concede defeat on that point.

However given the extremely misinformed comments by you on your regional RMB recently, I am not surprised to see you out of touch on this issue as well.

McMasterdonia wrote:umm

Have you even read my comments on this proposal? Not sure how any of them can be taking as blocking the proposal for ideological propaganda, but keep trying to sling mud at individuals rather than being reasonable.

Bears Armed wrote:

Jakker City wrote:For many of the mainstream organizations that raid and occupy regions, there is a lot of intentionality behind how interactions with natives go.

Of course there is: Whenever somebody suggests that raiders would be less unpopular if they just competed against each other to take over regions that had been created for that purpose, like the Warzones, we get admitted raiders -- sometimes well-known ones -- saying that there'd be no point to them doing that because raiding is no fun unless it makes the natives suffer. There's those raiders' "intentionality" when interacting with natives...

I cannot speak for everyone's motivations to raid. With that said, as someone who is against raiding warzones, it is not because I want to find opportunity to hurt natives. It is because isolating raiding to a built-in playground defeats a lot of the purpose. For many raiders, raiding is not about destruction, but about fun and disrupting the status quo. Being confined to a small section of NationStates is anything but that. So I get that a potential by-product of that is that it may negatively impact some people, but again for many that is not the direct goal. Natives are largely not the focus, it is beating defenders.

Edit: Just to add to this, as I noted before many natives in the current occupation of Asean Region are enjoying the raid and endorsing the raiders. This kind of raid is super fun and I'm not seeing any natives suffering as a desire or effect.

Jakker City wrote:Just to add to this, as I noted before many natives in the current occupation of Asean Region are enjoying the raid and endorsing the raiders. This kind of raid is super fun and I'm not seeing any natives suffering as a desire or effect.

Not a good example at all, they locked down that region two months ago and moved to a new one so of course they don’t care as much

Numero Capitan wrote:

Jakker City wrote:Just to add to this, as I noted before many natives in the current occupation of Asean Region are enjoying the raid and endorsing the raiders. This kind of raid is super fun and I'm not seeing any natives suffering as a desire or effect.

Not a good example at all, they locked down that region two months ago and moved to a new one so of course they don’t care as much

I think it is kind of strange that you seem to be determining how much the natives' feelings matter or why they feel the way they do. I have seen raids where regions who have existed for years have had enjoyment during it. As I have said multiple times, it is all much more nuanced.

It's interesting to see members of two of The North Pacific's allied regions, the South Pacific and International Democratic Union, going after the Delegate of The North Pacific, the region's raiding practices, and in the case of the IDU member, their region's WALL membership, so aggressively.

Given how lopsided the benefits are for these two allies, but especially IDU, you'd think they might be a little more respectful.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:It's interesting to see members of two of The North Pacific's allied regions, the South Pacific and International Democratic Union, going after the Delegate of The North Pacific, the region's raiding practices, and in the case of the IDU member, their region's WALL membership, so aggressively.

Given how lopsided the benefits are for these two allies, but especially IDU, you'd think they might be a little more respectful.

Not sure how you've even manufactured TNP as being the subject of the discussion, even Kuriko said they'd support a Commend for COE's contributions to TNP from the very beginning - which is the topic under discussion.

Numero Capitan wrote:

Cormactopia Prime wrote:It's interesting to see members of two of The North Pacific's allied regions, the South Pacific and International Democratic Union, going after the Delegate of The North Pacific, the region's raiding practices, and in the case of the IDU member, their region's WALL membership, so aggressively.

Given how lopsided the benefits are for these two allies, but especially IDU, you'd think they might be a little more respectful.

Not sure how you've even manufactured TNP as being the subject of the discussion, even Kuriko said they'd support a Commend for COE's contributions to TNP from the very beginning - which is the topic under discussion.

You were the one raid-shaming the NPA and attacking TNP's Delegate, I just made an observation about it.

I'll believe Kuriko, et al., will support a commendation of COE's contributions to TNP when I see it, but aside from that, I don't see any reason his other commendable contributions should be omitted to appease you. His commendation should be about him, not what defenders want it to be about.

If you hadn't noticed, his commendation unfortunately doesn't exist after input on the proposal was selectively dismissed.

It's not about appeasing me at all, its about writing a commendation that can secure majority support, and in my personal opinion they should all be strong enough to secure some kind of super-majority when it comes to a vote. I have tried to constructively contribute towards that in this discussion, to an end that would see someone I have mutual respect for commended. People will make their own minds up from the information presented to them within the proposal and only a handful give a toss about who any of us are or what we personally think.

I am not sure how or why you think asking someone to read my posts rather than dismissing me out of hand is attacking them "so aggressively', or why pointing out a side to raids that those who aren't actively liaising with natives don't see is 'raid-shaming', but your apparent and unexplained hostility towards me has been boring since the start so I really don't care for it anymore.

I have a great deal of respect for COE and the tone of this discussion, and people hijacking it for their own personal axe-grinding does them a disservice.

Numero Capitan wrote:It's not about appeasing me at all, its about writing a commendation that can secure majority support, and in my personal opinion they should all be strong enough to secure some kind of super-majority when it comes to a vote.

If in securing majority support, a large number of commendable things he's done and is proud of has to be omitted, what would be the point? I can't speak for him, but I wouldn't even want a commendation watered down to appease my opponents. I would rather not be commended at all at that point.

I'm confident this proposal could achieve majority support further down the road, i.e., when defenders inevitably relapse into one of their periodic comas.

In regard to axe-grinding, blah blah blah, I'm not sure what axe you imagine I have to grind against you, or 10000 Islands, or whoever you imagine this is about, but frankly I couldn't care less about any of you and I'm just annoyed COE didn't get the commendation he deserves. Full stop.