[DEFEATED] Against Quorum Raiding

[Varanius]

I mean sure, if being a raider means “literally everyone who’s done a single tag” then yes, there’s some disagreement. But uhh, as someone in an unaligned region I had (apparently incorrectly) assumed you were aware there was a difference between Independent/unaligned regions and raiders.

I was under the impression that not all raider orgs practice region destruction.

Given there are only two purely raider orgs (LWU and TBH) and Osiris being the really only raider GCR, we’re not actually talking about a ton of people here. And uhh, none of those 3 have anything against region destruction as far as I’m aware. And they’re certainly not ideologically opposed to quorum raiding.

Edit: ninja’d by LD :<

[Kylia Quilor]

I mean, I don't know if TGW has actually quorum raided, but given Quorum raiding's previous use in antifascist work, it's certainly something a group like TGW might very well use to oppose fascists or even to oppose raiders and others who raid (the 'darkspawn' of TGWs have your cake and eat it too rhetoric)

[Comfed]

I don't even know whether quorum raiding is popular among raiders as a whole. A good number of them acknowledge it as destructive and oppose it for some of the same reasons they oppose region destruction. The opposition comes almost solely from those who get their kicks out of making the game worse for everyone else.

Yes, because people who want to use legitimate in-game political tactics to advance their in-game political goals only do it to make it worse for everyone else

[The Python]

I mean, I don't know if TGW has actually quorum raided, but given Quorum raiding's previous use in antifascist work, it's certainly something a group like TGW might very well use to oppose fascists or even to oppose raiders and others who raid (the 'darkspawn' of TGWs have your cake and eat it too rhetoric)

I strongly doubt TGW has approval raided. If they have, then yikes.

[Matthew the Man]

I mean, I don't know if TGW has actually quorum raided, but given Quorum raiding's previous use in antifascist work, it's certainly something a group like TGW might very well use to oppose fascists or even to oppose raiders and others who raid (the 'darkspawn' of TGWs have your cake and eat it too rhetoric)

I strongly doubt TGW has approval raided. If they have, then yikes.

I will approval raid your face just for saying this

Anyways, regarding the proposal I am of a tentative support. While I like keeping options open in regards to how one might counteract against “Darkspawn” influence, quorum raiding is annoying enough that I’ll vote for this proposal on principle.

[The Python]

I strongly doubt TGW has approval raided. If they have, then yikes.

I will approval raid your face just for saying this

Dewit

[Jedinsto]

I've decided to continue drafting (when I have the time) and let this run its course.

[Kranostav]

I've decided to continue drafting (when I have the time) and let this run its course.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LegitimateCir ... ricted.gif

[Cormactopia Prime]

I've decided to continue drafting (when I have the time) and let this run its course.

Between your decision to compromise on anti-fascist quorum raiding and then your subsequent reversal to categorically reject all quorum raiding, then your decision to shelve this and subsequent abrupt reversal of that decision, you're rivaling the old me for flip-flopping your position at this point. And in one single thread.

Your fellow moralist defenders are leading you astray. Your first instinct was correct -- this isn't going to pass. PfS doesn't have nearly the voting power to pass it on its own, WALL and independent regions unaffiliated with WALL are very likely to be opposed to anything that limits their military options based on an argument grounded solely in ideological defender moralism, anti-fascists who normally disregard gameplay won't like having their anti-fascist prerogatives limited, raiders gonna raid, etc. Has it escaped your notice that the only voices you're hearing in support of this are coming from PfS regions and a few voices in TEP who may not constitute prevailing opinion, given the close alliance between TNP and TEP and the fact TEP is unaligned rather than defender?

Wasn't it the case that not even all defenders were inclined to defend against quorum raiding? Isn't that why TSP's recent Cabinet candidates had to discuss alternative options to using Libcord to defend against quorum raiding? If you can't even count on all defenders to support it, this proposal is truly dead on arrival.

This is not to mention the likelihood the proposal will be targeted to deny it quorum -- perhaps using a variety of methods to deny it quorum.

[Jedinsto]

I've decided to continue drafting (when I have the time) and let this run its course.

Between your decision to compromise on anti-fascist quorum raiding and then your subsequent reversal to categorically reject all quorum raiding, then your decision to shelve this and subsequent abrupt reversal of that decision, you're rivaling the old me for flip-flopping your position at this point. And in one single thread.

I made the decision for the compromise because there was a good amount of support for such a motion at the time. I only included it to convince more folks, whether or not I really agreed with it. I didn't actually decide to scrap this, I was just wondering whether I should or not. The decision has been made now, though.

Snip

If this fails then so be it, I don't believe I can change the opinions of a majority of the Security Council, so I'll just make it my mission to find out what the majority is.

Your fellow moralist defenders are leading you astray.

Excuse me?

This is not to mention the likelihood the proposal will be targeted to deny it quorum -- perhaps using a variety of methods to deny it quorum.

Is this a threat?

[Varanius]

If this fails then so be it, I don't believe I can change the opinions of a majority of the Security Council, so I'll just make it my mission to find out what the majority is.

Well, if you’ve yet to glean from this thread the likelihood of this proposal passing might I suggest you research how gameplay dynamics and the voting power of various GCR delegates affect Security Council outcomes.

[Jedinsto]

I think you might be surprised how little I care what one person says the likelihood of this passing is. I dunno what the actual likelihood of this passing would be (once it's actually ready), but one thing I do know is that snide comments like that are starting to annoy me.

[Varanius]

I dunno what the actual likelihood of this passing would be (once it's actually ready), but one thing I do know is that snide comments like that are starting to annoy me.

Perhaps reread my comment right above that post, the suggestion it contains should clear up any questions regarding the likelihood of this passing.

[Cormactopia Prime]

This is not to mention the likelihood the proposal will be targeted to deny it quorum -- perhaps using a variety of methods to deny it quorum.

Is this a threat?

I prefer to call it "a hint of mischief with a dash of snark," but if you'd like to call it a threat, by all means feel free!

[Jedinsto]

I saw what you said and deliberately chose to ignore it. If you're right and this fails at vote then you have a pending pat on the back.

[Bears Armed]

WALL and independent regions unaffiliated with WALL are very likely to be opposed to anything that limits their military options based on an argument grounded solely in ideological defender moralism,

The fact that International Democratic Union is focussed largely on the GA, and is not involved in "military options", means that it might well break ranks with the more military-oriented regions among WALL's members to support this measure.

[Cormactopia Prime]

WALL and independent regions unaffiliated with WALL are very likely to be opposed to anything that limits their military options based on an argument grounded solely in ideological defender moralism,

The fact that International Democratic Union is focussed largely on the GA, and is not involved in "military options", means that it might well break ranks with the more military-oriented regions among WALL's members to support this measure.

And while that's interesting, it changes not at all my assertion that this proposal is deeply unlikely to pass, the IDU's very influential support of it notwithstanding.

[Varanius]

I saw what you said and deliberately chose to ignore it.

Well, I suppose ignoring helpful advice would really explain why this declaration is the way it is!

[Jedinsto]

I saw what you said and deliberately chose to ignore it.

Well, I suppose ignoring helpful advice would really explain why this declaration is the way it is!

The advice is not helpful if it is telling me to scrap the proposal, cuz at this point I see no reason not to go through with this and see what happens. I've been taking advice on the actual content of the proposal, though.

[Quebecshire]

Finally getting to this after a bit of time. First off, full support in principle. Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes talking to me on NS knows I'm anti-quorum raiding in nearly every context. Though, I think this draft needs some work.

The World Assembly,

Defining quorum raiding as unseating delegates approving a World Assembly proposal in order to prevent the proposal from reaching quorum and going to vote,

Believing that quorum raiding undermines the democratic right of the collective delegates of the World Assembly and subjects them to be momentarily dethroned,

Asserting that using force in opposition to democracy in this manner is dangerous and may discourage delegates from approving proposals,

Noting that using diplomatic means of preventing a proposal from going to vote (such as counter-campaigning by informing approving delegates of the grievances against the proposal and explaining why their approval should be withdrawn) actually settle conflicts instead of creating new ones,

This all seems sensible enough. I think the wording on the last preambulatory clause could be reworded, I'd suggest something more like this.

Noting that using non-combative means of preventing a proposal from going to vote, including but not limited to informative counter-campaigns and outreach, serve to prevent conflict and alleviate tension regarding World Assembly proposals,

Take or leave that as you will, just one man's opinion. Anyway, now to the operative!

Hereby;

1. Proclaims its unwavering opposition to quorum raiding in all contexts,

Sorry, but this clause needs some serious work. This might not be super easy to address in a Declaration, but you need, in my opinion, caveats for quorum raids that target fascist regions. Note: when I say "target fascist regions", I mean quorum raids which only actually raid fascist regions, as their sovereignty is not recognized by me, or really any mainstream militaries. Considering SC 358 openly endorses military action against fascist regions, this alteration would be ideal, in my opinion. Here's a proposed alteration.

Proclaims the Security Council to be in opposition to quorum raiding in all contexts, excluding cases in which a region maintains hateful or fascistic views,

I'm not the best writer though, so again, just my two cents.

Urges militaries to immediately cease quorum raiding operations and shuns those who continue to practice quorum raiding or generally subverting the will of democracy for any reason whatsoever, as well as those who continue to support such practices,

I think this resolution needs to keep a focus. The "generally subverting..." is still something the World Assembly should discourage, but I think it takes away from the point a bit and makes it too broad. We've already established why they shouldn't do it, now we should just say that they shouldn't. My alternative suggested direction:

Disavows military organizations from quorum raiding in the aforementioned prohibited contexts,

Praises the use of diplomatic means in defeating proposals.

Slight nit-pick,

Praises the use of diplomatic means in seeking to prevent proposals from reaching quorum.

Feel free to use or not use anything, just figured I'd get to giving feedback on this as promised!

[Jedinsto]

Used everything except for exceptions for the stuff about an exception for fascists. I tried that as a compromise before and it didn't go too well. My issue with such an exception is that it's not only punishing the targeted fascists, it's punishing delegates that approved a proposal, likely not having a clue what they were doing.

[WayNeacTia]

I saw what you said and deliberately chose to ignore it. If you're right and this fails at vote then you have a pending pat on the back.

Depends on how much you value your authorship career. Pissing off the wrong people can have long term consequences to anything else you with to accomplish. I only say this as friendly advice.

[Quebecshire]

Used everything except for exceptions for the stuff about an exception for fascists. I tried that as a compromise before and it didn't go too well. My issue with such an exception is that it's not only punishing the targeted fascists, it's punishing delegates that approved a proposal, likely not having a clue what they were doing.

I think you misunderstood my suggestion. I'm saying the exception should be for one it is the delegate of a fascist region being raided. Not likely unknowing delegates approving proposals like in the case of this past January.

[Jedinsto]

Used everything except for exceptions for the stuff about an exception for fascists. I tried that as a compromise before and it didn't go too well. My issue with such an exception is that it's not only punishing the targeted fascists, it's punishing delegates that approved a proposal, likely not having a clue what they were doing.

I think you misunderstood my suggestion. I'm saying the exception should be for one it is the delegate of a fascist region being raided. Not likely unknowing delegates approving proposals like in the case of this past January.

Is it really quorum raiding if you're only targeting fascist regions? To me that seems more like raiding fascists because fascism is bad.

[Jedinsto]

Also I reworded the "shuns" part because I realized it had the unintended effect of shunning innocent people who happen to support quorum raids even if they are never involved in them, which I think is bad.