NationStates

The Security Council,

1. Understanding that The Embassy has been secured from hostile forces,
   
2. Believing that this Council should allow the nation in the region the ability to establish barriers of entry to prevent future invasions,
   
3. Acknowledging that The Embassy must reimpose said barriers so as to remain protected,
   
4. Hereby Repeals SCR# 344 "Liberate The Embassy".

Co-authored by Balkede

Edit: submitted
Edit: at vote!

This is in case defenders liberate it right? Full support (I was about to do a similar proposal until I saw this). Because it hasn't been liberated just yet.

Not enough information here.

The Python wrote:This is in case defenders liberate it right? Full support (I was about to do a similar proposal until I saw this)

Yep! I'm glad to have your support, I've been wanting to write a WA proposal for a while now

Aredita wrote:Not enough information here.

Do you have any suggestions as to what I might add?

Natives will not be the ones organising or leading a liberation. As the person who organised the (failed) liberation attempts earlier, I can say for certain, there is only 1 native in the region and they did not help in the liberation, only defenders participated

The Python wrote:Just some quick suggestions:

- Natives will not be the ones organising or leading a liberation. As the person who organised the (failed) liberation attempts earlier, I can say for certain, there is only 1 native in the region and they did not help in the liberation, only defenders participated
- Add information about the raider orgs participating - for example, the Black Hawks and Lone Wolves United both helped in the raid and both have been previously condemned by the WA
- The raiders found the password by founding Traveling Wilburys, so that's something else you could add.

Also don't submit until defenders liberate, otherwise it'll just help the raiders.

Okay, I'll hang on to it until it's been liberated

The Python wrote:Just some quick suggestions:

- Natives will not be the ones organising or leading a liberation. As the person who organised the (failed) liberation attempts earlier, I can say for certain, there is only 1 native in the region and they did not help in the liberation, only defenders participated
- Add information about the raider orgs participating - for example, the Black Hawks and Lone Wolves United both helped in the raid and both have been previously condemned by the WA
- The raiders found the password by founding Traveling Wilburys, so that's something else you could add.

Also don't submit until defenders liberate, otherwise it'll just help the raiders.

Actually none of that information is necessary. All you want to state are the reasons why the Liberation should be repealed. Anything else is superfluous. Have a look at previous liberation repeals and you will see that they are stripped down proposals compared to the original.

The second clause doesn’t make sense by the way. Reads like you want to stop them from raising a password.

Believing that in order to fulfill the mission of spreading peace and goodwill, this Council should allow the nations in the region from establishing barriers of entry to prevent future invasions,

Maybe should read “this Council should allow the nations in the region to establish barriers of entry...”

Alcala-Cordel wrote:Okay, I'll hang on to it until it's been liberated

Also would want to wait for native consent and co-ordination among defender militaries.

I won't claim exclusive right to submit the Repeal, although I was planning to. But please do due diligence communicating with others that the draft is submitted when the correct other conditions are met to secure The Embassy's long term security after the Liberation is repealed.

Aredita wrote:Not enough information here.

Do you have any suggestions as to what I might add?


Yes. My apologies.

This needs more evidence to support your claim. If you want to win people over to your side, they need to know that you are very knowledgeable on this topic. But, yes, what I meant by "information" was "evidence." Does that make sense?

Aredita wrote:

Aredita wrote:Not enough information here.

Do you have any suggestions as to what I might add?


Yes. My apologies.

This needs more evidence to support your claim. If you want to win people over to your side, they need to know that you are very knowledgeable on this topic. But, yes, what I meant by "information" was "evidence." Does that make sense?

That makes sense. Editing now

Aredita wrote:

Aredita wrote:Not enough information here.

Do you have any suggestions as to what I might add?


Yes. My apologies.

This needs more evidence to support your claim. If you want to win people over to your side, they need to know that you are very knowledgeable on this topic. But, yes, what I meant by "information" was "evidence." Does that make sense?

Shame you didn’t apply the “knowledgeable on the topic” to your Condemnation attempt.

To the OP: HumanSanity has given good advice: I suggest you listen to it.

HumanSanity wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:Okay, I'll hang on to it until it's been liberated

Also would want to wait for native consent and co-ordination among defender militaries.

I won't claim exclusive right to submit the Repeal, although I was planning to. But please do due diligence communicating with others that the draft is submitted when the correct other conditions are met to secure The Embassy's long term security after the Liberation is repealed.

Of course, I will reach out to other parties involved.

Y'all eyo we gotta liberate The Embassy bc deez r my allies and they don't deserve to get invaded by hostile forces

Suport

Hopefully I've fixed most of the major errors at this point

Alcala-Cordel wrote:Hopefully I've fixed most of the major errors at this point

Short, sweet and does what it says on the label. I would nitpick over the use of the word “nations”. There is currently only one native nation in the region, but apart from that it looks fine.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:Hopefully I've fixed most of the major errors at this point

Short, sweet and does what it says on the label. I would nitpick over the use of the word “nations”. There is currently only one native nation in the region, but apart from that it looks fine.

aaand fixed!

Personally I'd like to see mention in this repeal criticism of the below clause from the Liberate

"Further noting that there resides within The Embassy an expressed native desire for the occupation to end and retain the regional message board"

as there is at best one native, who offered barely tepid support towards a liberation. Making this at minimum hyperbolic and or at worst a pretty out right and purposefully misleading statement. I think it lands somewhere in between the two.

Just suggesting it as right now the current version of the repeal looks a little small.

but that's just my humble opinion.

Either way best of luck my friend!

TheMothman wrote:"Further noting that there resides within The Embassy an expressed native desire for the occupation to end and retain the regional message board"

as there is at best one native, who offered barely tepid support towards a liberation. Making this at best a hyperbole and or at worst a pretty out right and purposefully misleading statement.

That's false. A Goblinoid Merchant clearly expressed:

A Goblinoid Merchant wrote:A few people put a lot of time and effort into what it is today and there is/was much more community than in other big regions that I have seen getting a SC liberation (ie. because of a name resembling a RL country). So I don't see why this one should be damned to vanish. It had things to offer for old and new players.

and

A Goblinoid Merchant wrote:1. I don't want The Embassy to be refounded by anybody. Not even by myself. (I think I kinda had the chance once or twice).

2. I know that The Ambassadors Reception has/had as well no interest in a refounded region. (From the start, we totally agreed regarding this topic).

3. I hope that The Embassy will have a chance to restart / continue what the original founder had in mind and what The Ambassadors Reception developed to such a unique and lovely thing over the last few years.

Thus, I think I should endorse a SC liberation of The Embassy. If it happens that I get back the delegacy before a SC liberation passes, cancelling it somehow would probably be preferable, right?

These statements, which are consistent with telegrams between myself and A Goblinoid Merchant which I will not share because they are confidential one-on-one communications, clearly support the idea that the region should not be refounded and that an SC Liberation is necessary.

The only moderating part in here is confusion about the complicated mechanic of an SC Liberation, which no one has ever misrepresented to A Goblinoid Merchant, and their posts demonstrate they understand the core concept clearly. I reject this bad faith effort to take someone's admission that they have imperfect knowledge of a situation, while they clearly understand the essentials of it, and spin that into a reason why the Liberation is unnecessary.

Lastly, you say there is only one native. There is one native currently active, there have been other natives in the past (who, in bullet point #2 above it should be noted also care about there not being a refound). There are also others who care about The Embassy as a shared space.

I am working on getting confirmation from AGM about when they want the Repeal submitted and how.

I think it looks good. Very direct and concise, the kind of liberation repeal you want to have.

HumanSanity wrote:

TheMothman wrote:"Further noting that there resides within The Embassy an expressed native desire for the occupation to end and retain the regional message board"

as there is at best one native, who offered barely tepid support towards a liberation. Making this at best a hyperbole and or at worst a pretty out right and purposefully misleading statement.

That's false. A Goblinoid Merchant clearly expressed:

A Goblinoid Merchant wrote:A few people put a lot of time and effort into what it is today and there is/was much more community than in other big regions that I have seen getting a SC liberation (ie. because of a name resembling a RL country). So I don't see why this one should be damned to vanish. It had things to offer for old and new players.

and

A Goblinoid Merchant wrote:1. I don't want The Embassy to be refounded by anybody. Not even by myself. (I think I kinda had the chance once or twice).

2. I know that The Ambassadors Reception has/had as well no interest in a refounded region. (From the start, we totally agreed regarding this topic).

3. I hope that The Embassy will have a chance to restart / continue what the original founder had in mind and what The Ambassadors Reception developed to such a unique and lovely thing over the last few years.

Thus, I think I should endorse a SC liberation of The Embassy. If it happens that I get back the delegacy before a SC liberation passes, cancelling it somehow would probably be preferable, right?

These statements, which are consistent with telegrams between myself and A Goblinoid Merchant which I will not share because they are confidential one-on-one communications, clearly support the idea that the region should not be refounded and that an SC Liberation is necessary.

The only moderating part in here is confusion about the complicated mechanic of an SC Liberation, which no one has ever misrepresented to A Goblinoid Merchant, and their posts demonstrate they understand the core concept clearly. I reject this bad faith effort to take someone's admission that they have imperfect knowledge of a situation, while they clearly understand the essentials of it, and spin that into a reason why the Liberation is unnecessary.

Lastly, you say there is only one native. There is one native currently active, there have been other natives in the past (who, in bullet point #2 above it should be noted also care about there not being a refound). There are also others who care about The Embassy as a shared space.

I am working on getting confirmation from AGM about when they want the Repeal submitted and how.

First off, " I reject this bad faith effort to take someone's admission that they have imperfect knowledge of a situation, while they clearly understand the essentials of it, and spin that into a reason why the Liberation is unnecessary. " wasn't my intention and I never brought up AGM's knowledge of how the liberation works. I've never doubted AGM's understanding of the situation.

My point is that characterizing AGM's reaction, two to three posts and a decision to remain offline unless they get the WAD position by the only native around to voice their opinion as a "Desire" is purely hyperbolic.

If AGM comes in here and says it their truest wish that he as the native will take the reigns and try to rebuild the region, then hell yes I am wrong and I'll eat crow on this statement offer my apologies.

lso genuine question, because I was kind of busy at the time but reviewing the thread on your proposal it seems like this was already in quorum with that line written into it before you got their approval?

and another note I wasn't aware we could leave wills in NS, for when we CTE, or are you a medium? Cause as far as I can tell native who aren't there aren't natives anymore. Cte'd folx don't vote.

TheMothman wrote:If AGM comes in here and says it their truest wish that he as the native will take the reigns and try to rebuild the region, then hell yes I am wrong and I'll eat crow on this statement offer my apologies.

A Goblinoid Merchant wrote:3. I hope that The Embassy will have a chance to restart / continue what the original founder had in mind and what The Ambassadors Reception developed to such a unique and lovely thing over the last few years.

I have no idea what more you could possibly want.

HumanSanity wrote:I have no idea what more you could possibly want.

First off just so it's answered an answer to this question would be nice:

TheMothman wrote: So genuine question, because I was kind of busy at the time but reviewing the thread on your proposal it seems like this was already in quorum with that line written into it before you got their approval?

Because your own thread makes it seem like it hit quorum about 10 to 15 minutes after you posted you got their approval, which means there was no expressed desire until after you wrote it.

and secondly not an I hope, but an I will from AGM is what I want. There is no native commitment in the statement you quote. That's what I want is native commitment, that's I would call a Desire. To know that this liberation isn't a knotch in y'alls bed post. That you're not handing it back for nothing to happen just so y'all can go eagle screech "Sovereignty" from a mountain top only for it to disappear a couple months out or for y'all to leave your folx there and take it over and claim "Mission accomplished" like that's any better than The Embassy's current situation.

Are you willing to guarantee that AGM plans to be the long term delegate again and will actively try to return it to it's purpose and that no defenders associated with your organization will become natives?

If you say AGM and y'all have a desire to do just that then full support, and I retract my statements and will encourage others to vote against this repeal. If AGM says that the deal, even better.

But right now I feel like y'all are going in there to either give AGM it, and hoping it fails and I hope I'm wrong or you're going in there to say "we're natives now" and claim it, both are pyrrhic victories for that region that y'all could turn in to a roman Triumph for defenders.

So that what I want I want genuine desire from the Native, and to make sure they're going to be the one who take charge afterwards. Other wise your time table for repeal is a slightly less sly way to leave the place in ruins then what they're currently facing.

I’ll respond to the rest of this later due to RL, but this is important and I apologize for missing this:

TheMothman wrote:

HumanSanity wrote:I have no idea what more you could possibly want.

First off just so it's answered an answer to this question would be nice:

TheMothman wrote: So genuine question, because I was kind of busy at the time but reviewing the thread on your proposal it seems like this was already in quorum with that line written into it before you got their approval?

Because your own thread makes it seem like it hit quorum about 10 to 15 minutes after you posted you got their approval, which means there was no expressed desire until after you wrote it.

I contacted AGM early in the day after The Embassy raid, I first telegrammed them in the 10-11 AM EST hour. I heard back at 1:45 PM EST. In that response they said they wanted the opportunity to explain to me what they wanted, which I appreciated because it would allow me to best respect their wishes.

They listed 3 priorities and their #1 priority was that The Embassy not be refounded. They did not give consent to a Liberation immediately because they wanted a better understanding of the mechanics of one, which is reasonable, and I explained the process to them from proposal, to SC Liberation, to in game liberation, to Repeal. I explained the relevant risks (a possible failure to pass the Repeal) and gave them a candid assessment of the risk of those things. I also explained that if at any point they decided they did not want a SC liberation, I would counter-campaign to kill my own proposal and that until the very last moment it was likely I would be able to do so successfully as the author of the proposal. I went ahead with pushing a SC Liberation because the influence base of the region is self evidently quite thin, and it was yet unclear how high the pile would be able to go, and thus how fast raider influence would grow. I also understood from their tone that they were likely to be available on a daily basis to actively give or withdraw consent, and knew I would also be available to campaign for or against in line with their wishes.

The draft reflects this. AGM listed as their first priority that the region not be refounded - even in a friendly refound - to avoid destroying the RMB. I chose my words carefully in the clause you reference. At the point when the draft was written (around 5 PM EST on that day), I had received a direct statement that resounding was very bad—this is what the proposal reflects.

A little before the major update where this went to vote, I received affirmative consent via telegram. AGM offered of their own accord (not at my request) to post on the forum, so I did not announce this, instead allowing them to do so themselves, which they did shortly after the vote began in the other thread.

If you read the other threads in their entirety, you will find a painstakingly clear record of this laid out by me as much as possible without jeaprodizing confidential communications. If after reviewing this post and those threads, you have specific questions, feel free to ask. I’m open to the possibility I am imperfect, but thus far feel comfortable with my handling of the situation.

Hi

I feel very well represented by HumanSanity. Just listen to him/her, please.

I get a bit lost what I have to hope, desire, commit to satisfy expectations but I try my best to give The Embassy a fair chance.

This repeal seems good.

Thank you!