[DEFEATED] Against Destructive Raiding Practices

[Goobergunchia]

This declaration was drafted in a personal capacity as me, my own person, not in any official capacity at all in any of my offices or positions. This is not officially endorsed by either of my home regions any more than it is endorsed by any other region.

The Security Council,

Defining “destructive raiding practices” as any act intended to harm a region or its native community during an invasion by invading forces, by irreversible or hardly reversible actions including, but not inherently limited to:

1. Banning or ejecting native nations,
2. Instituting a regional password without consent of the native community,
3. Refounding the region without consent of the native community, or
4. Closure of embassies opened by natives,

Believing these acts to be widely immoral and staunchly against the principles of the World Assembly,

Asserting that a stance must be taken against this deplorable practice in order to facilitate and express support for their opposition within the international community,

Hereby:

1. Condemns destructive raiding practices with the full diplomatic weight of the Security Council;
2. Entreats regional militaries that participate in invasions to not participate in any such operation employing destructive raiding practices, whether or not they are responsible for the practices themselves;
3. Exhorts the use of Security Council Liberations to protect regions against destructive raiding practices; and
4. Establishes exceptions to these proscriptions in cases where targeted regions routinely engage in destructive raiding practices or where targeted regions are displayed to be openly fascist, in the latter case actively encouraging such action.

Co-Authored by Apatosaurus

[Alfonzo]

Why would you do something so controversial yet so brave?

[The Python]

Why would you do something so controversial yet so brave?

Because region griefing is bad and theoretically all raiders and indies should avoid doing it? :P

Anyway it was great to help in this! ^-^

[The Imperium Empires]

This is a great idea, was technically in a raider region once….more so it turned into a raider region rather quickly.

[Quebecshire]

The Security Council,

Defining “region griefing” as any act intended to destroy a region or its native community during an invasion by invading forces, by irreversible or hardly reversible actions such as:

Perhaps replace "such as" with "including but not inherently limited to" or something along those lines. I'll try to see if there's anything I can think of to add to the list, but regardless, I want to make sure we don't let anything slip.

[Aivintis]

The Security Council,

Defining “region griefing” as any act intended to destroy a region or its native community during an invasion by invading forces, by irreversible or hardly reversible actions such as:

Perhaps replace "such as" with "including but not inherently limited to" or something along those lines. I'll try to see if there's anything I can think of to add to the list, but regardless, I want to make sure we don't let anything slip.

o7

[RiderSyl]

I feel like the established exemption in 6 isn't necessary, as SR358 "Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action" is already on the books and has no chance of ever being repealed. Plus, I have some concern for the inclusion of "or else morally reprehensible regions". In practice, it'll allow griefing of regions that are simply unpopular.

[Great Algerstonia]

I feel like the established exemption in 6 isn't necessary, as SR358 "Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action" is already on the books and has no chance of ever being repealed. Plus, I have some concern for the inclusion of "or else morally reprehensible regions". In practice, it'll allow griefing of regions that are simply unpopular.

I agree with RiderSyl.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

I think you should remove the exceptions to be consistent.

[WayNeacTia]

Why would you do something so controversial yet so brave?

Because region griefing is bad and theoretically all raiders and indies should avoid doing it?

Anyway it was great to help in this! ^-^

Are you involved in the raid on NWA? If so, your statement is just a tad hypocritical.

[Astrobolt]

Because region griefing is bad and theoretically all raiders and indies should avoid doing it?

Anyway it was great to help in this! ^-^

Are you involved in the raid on NWA? If so, your statement is just a tad hypocritical.

Bad take. Python is a co-author on this proposal, and said proposal actually encourages the destruction of fascist and OOC problematic regions.

[Quebecshire]

Are you involved in the raid on NWA? If so, your statement is just a tad hypocritical.

This is an astronomically stupid thing to say, and I would encourage you to engage your critical thinking skills and actually read the proposal.

Establishes exceptions in cases where targeted regions routinely engage in region griefing or where targeted regions are displayed to be openly fascist or else morally reprehensible regions; in the latter case, encourages the griefing of said regions.

Wayne, you should really lay off Python, for Christ's sake.

[RiderSyl]

Are you involved in the raid on NWA? If so, your statement is just a tad hypocritical.

Bad take. Python is a co-author on this proposal, and said proposal actually encourages the destruction of fascist and OOC problematic regions.

The destruction of fascist regions is already encouraged by the SC via "Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action", so that's a needless part of this that only serves to make the declaration seem inconsistent.

Also I'll say again, encouraging the griefing of "problematic regions" sounds great on paper until you realize how loosely the word "problematic" has been used in the past, as well as how popular opinion can overrule the facts on whether a region is actually problematic.

As for Python raiding NWA... NWA is factually awful, so there's no hypocrisy there.

[The Python]

For the record, I never actually piled in NWA, and while I supported the offensive liberation, my WA has been on Apatosaurus the whole time due to the endorsement day. That said, I do not have any problems with the offensive liberation and subsequent invasion of NWA due to the fact that it is an OOC problematic region.

Bad take. Python is a co-author on this proposal, and said proposal actually encourages the destruction of fascist and OOC problematic regions.

The destruction of fascist regions is already encouraged by the SC via "Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action", so that's a needless part of this that only serves to make the declaration seem inconsistent.

Also I'll say again, encouraging the griefing of "problematic regions" sounds great on paper until you realize how loosely the word "problematic" has been used in the past, as well as how popular opinion can overrule the facts on whether a region is actually problematic.

How would that be clarified however? Because it would be problematic for this proposal to oppose the griefing of regions like... yes, NWA, or say, the Wolf Clan.

[Great Algerstonia]

For the record, I never actually piled in NWA, and while I supported the offensive liberation, my WA has been on Apatosaurus the whole time due to the endorsement day. That said, I do not have any problems with the offensive liberation and subsequent invasion of NWA due to the fact that it is an OOC problematic region.

The destruction of fascist regions is already encouraged by the SC via "Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action", so that's a needless part of this that only serves to make the declaration seem inconsistent.

Also I'll say again, encouraging the griefing of "problematic regions" sounds great on paper until you realize how loosely the word "problematic" has been used in the past, as well as how popular opinion can overrule the facts on whether a region is actually problematic.

How would that be clarified however? Because it would be problematic for this proposal to oppose the griefing of regions like... yes, NWA, or say, the Wolf Clan.

Going into detail would be impossible, as it would almost certainly break the 4th Wall rule.

[Anagonia]

If I could endorse this I would. I have seen raiders give excuse after excuse, protected by the arbitrary and archaic rules, as they ruined and destroyed vibrant and loving regions. I genuinely hope and wish this passes to vote and I sincerely thank those who proposed this.

Edit
To clarify I realize this is simply a "heavily worded letter" on the issue, and in no way do I condemn or antagonize the players who raid.

[Andusre]

I have a couple of thoughts on this.

First and foremost, can we please stop engaging with and reacting to people who (a) are suspect as hell, (b) have proven in every single post they make in these forums that their presence is to be negative, toxic and generally unhelpful, and (c) have no idea what they're talking about? I know it's tempting, and I've done it myself a few times regretfully, but it would be much appreciated if we could snuff those people out by not giving them any political oxygen. Thanks.

Secondly, I think 6. should be included despite the passage and unlikely repeal of Advancement of Anti-fascist Action. I don't think it's necessary or wise to rely on SCR#358 to do the work in the fight against fascism because should it ever be repealed for whatever reason, the SC would then find itself in a situation with no existing declaration against fascism. Besides, I see no harm in once again restating the inter-regional community's opposition to fascism - it's not like this particular section is a make-or-break deal for this proposal.

Thirdly, I'm torn on whether or not this is something I actually would like to see the SC implement. Whilst I am no massive fan of region griefing, I have yet to figure out if I believe this is contained within what is essentially the SC's remit over gameplay. For example, the 2. section would push regions to diplomatically and militarily isolate militaries which have been in existence for decades and have regularly provided a wildcard to the game which non-region griefers, by their very nature, cannot do. I am specifically referring to Lone Wolves United and The Black Hawks and to now-extinct regions & organisations which practiced region griefing.

TLDR - stop engaging with people acting in bad faith, keep the exception to fascism, and I am genuinely not sure if this is a principle I can support the SC implementing.

[A Bloodred Moon]

The Security Council,

Defining “region griefing” as any act intended to destroy a region or its native community during an invasion by invading forces, by irreversible or hardly reversible actions including, but not inherently limited to:

1. Banning or ejecting native nations,
2. Instituting a regional password without consent of the native community,
3. Refounding the region without consent of the native community, or
4. Closure of embassies opened by natives,

This list is what you'd usually expect. Completely reversible actions such as native ejections construed as "intending to destroy" or something similarly hyperbolic, no definition given of native anywhere in the proposal so we are left to simply assume whatever that means, who gets to be a native and who doesn't, etc. What is a relatively new development, however, is the inclusion of embassy closures as "griefing". This has, in my experience, never been the case before the Embassy was raided, and is complete nonsense. Embassies are neither of vital importance nor part of any ill-defined 'native community', they are easily established, and their opening or closure hardly impacts any region, with the exception of the Embassy.

Believing these acts to be widely amoral and against the principles of the World Assembly,

I like how you define specifically these acts as "amoral and against the principles of the World Assembly". The irony here is that with the exception of anti-fascist efforts, the same can be said for all raids - they are not frequently intended to spread peace and goodwill. This proves nothing. If you're going to make this argument, you might as well go for raiding in general instead of a weak definition of "griefing".

Asserting that a stance must be taken against this deplorable practice in order to facilitate and express support for opposition to them within the international community,

Meaning "encourage defenders more than we already do"?

Hereby:

1. Condemns the practice of region griefing with the full diplomatic weight of the Security Council;
2. Objects to diplomatic and cultural relations maintained with regions who employ such practices, urging regions to impose proportionate diplomatic, military, or other sanctions against regions and organizations that willfully disregard this declaration;
3. Encourages regional militaries that participate in invasions to forbid the practice of region griefing;
4. Entreats regional militaries that participate in invasions to not participate in any such operation that would result in the griefing of a region, whether or not they are responsible for the griefing themselves;
5. Exhorts the use of Security Council Liberations to protect regions that are being griefed;
6. Establishes exceptions in cases where targeted regions routinely engage in region griefing or where targeted regions are displayed to be openly fascist or else morally reprehensible regions; in the latter case, encourages the griefing of said regions.

The second seems to be somewhat... off to me. I am obviously biased, but I fully agree with Andy's point on the matter.

Not to say that a condemnation of griefing wouldn't necessarily make sense given the SC's history, but the inclusion of embassy closures is bizarre and the part that seems to be encouraging blacklisting raider organisations with no policies barring these things is something that seems to be determining what organisation sovereign regions should work with. I am (unsurprisingly) opposed.

[RiderSyl]

Also I'll say again, encouraging the griefing of "problematic regions" sounds great on paper until you realize how loosely the word "problematic" has been used in the past, as well as how popular opinion can overrule the facts on whether a region is actually problematic.

How would that be clarified however? Because it would be problematic for this proposal to oppose the griefing of regions like... yes, NWA, or say, the Wolf Clan.

There's no need to clarify, due to the nature of the Security Council. If the exemption regarding griefing OOC-shitty regions is simply removed, and 6 is left as an exemption regarding griefing fascist regions, then this Declaration still won't be opposing the griefing of OOC-shitty regions, because SC proposals are written from the perspective of the IC Security Council.

In that state, this Declaration couldn't be used as an excuse to grief unpopular regions, nor as a tool to turn actual OOC-shitty regions into poor little victims.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

This is a silly resolution.

Region griefing can be and is legitimate in certain circumstances, and a blanket resolution such as this one, ignores such things.

[Haganham]

Yeah I don't see the exception in 6. to be particularly necessary. The advantage of declarations is we can speak of general principles without the need to dig into those specifics. It's well understood that some regions aren't deserving of the protection of the international community.

[Astrobolt]

This is a silly resolution.

Region griefing can be and is legitimate in certain circumstances, and a blanket resolution such as this one, ignores such things.

When is region griefing legitimate? Aside from fascist and OOC problematic regions, I’m struggling to find an example.

[Aivintis]

Wow a lot to cover.

1.. Andy and A Bloodred Moon make a good point about the relations clause thing - I really just shoehorned that in based on the Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action declaration. What baffles me is that I didn’t realize how dumb it was to compare the two in that manner.

2.. For the OOC bad region exception, I agree with Syl and Andy, but tbh Haganham’s point sold it better for me personally.

3.. Regarding the fascist exception, I agree completely with Andy about why this is necessary. Even though another resolution covers it, this one should affirm that it is in line with that by establishing that exception.

4.. Regarding the "encourage defenders more than we already do" comment, I see this as encouraging defenders the same amount because the Security Council as an IC body is fenda. It’s why raiders are condemned and defenders are commended. Going for a declaration against raiding in general is just redundant because we have well over a hundred past resolutions expressing that principle.

5.. Regarding A Bloodred Moon’s comment about “intending to destroy”, I personally cannot attest to the “intention to destroy” because that was Python’s edit. My version said “intending to harm” or something along those lines. We also had the conversation about what a native is, but since that’s an age old debate I really see no need in bringing it here. I left it in because I personally believe that the rhetoric implies that “native” is anyone not considered “invaders from an invading force” which is part of the definition, and calls to define it more than that are quite frankly extremely unproductive. Since this is a declaration, not actual legislation, we can infer the meaning of native from the spirit of the declaration without reading too much into it. As for the whole “embassy closure wasn’t griefing until the Embassy” thing, I’m fairly certain that’s wrong because I remember that TEP at least considered it griefing before that with its anti-griefing bill, because I remember being point in a raid and being told not to close embassies. Now this has been since edited out, but the point is that The Embassy isn’t the beginning of people thinking of embassy closure as griefing. But what I think you really mean is that this clause is only part of the declaration because of The Embassy, and that would be true, because it established precedent for when mass closure of embassies was damaging to a community, something fundamentally against the spirit of this declaration.

[Aivintis]

This is a silly resolution.

Region griefing can be and is legitimate in certain circumstances, and a blanket resolution such as this one, ignores such things.

How much of a “blanket resolution” is it if it’s establishing exceptions?

[Aivintis]

The OP has been edited, removing the clause on diplomatic sanctions, removing the OOC bad exception, and changing “destroy” to “harm” in order to better define griefing.