[DEFEATED] Against Destructive Raiding Practices

[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.

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

Regions your region is at war with? Regions that have attacked your region? Their allies? Plenty of options out there.

[The Python]

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.

Rebuilding the Embassy took 5 RO's, a whole script made only to help rebuild embassies, and a few months. And regardless, rebuilding embassies can still be difficult in a non-embassy collecting region as you don't even know if the other regions you were embassied with will accept.

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".

You're trying to imply I'd (at least personally) oppose a declaration against raiding, even though it's not going to pass :P

Meaning "encourage defenders more than we already do"? :p

[/quote]
Yes.

[Lord Dominator]

Amoral is a lack of concern on wether something is moral, I think you mean immoral.

[Imperium of Josh]

Amoral is a lack of concern on wether something is moral, I think you mean immoral.

Perhaps they dislike that nobody cares about moralist nonsense arguments

To the proposal itself: "hahahahaha, nope."

[A Bloodred Moon]

Rebuilding the Embassy took 5 RO's, a whole script made only to help rebuild embassies, and a few months.

I daresay no one would’ve been worse off had you not bothered with any of that.

And regardless, rebuilding embassies can still be difficult in a non-embassy collecting region as you don't even know if the other regions you were embassied with will accept.

So of what value is the embassy, then?

You're trying to imply I'd (at least personally) oppose a declaration against raiding, even though it's not going to pass

I am not doing anything of the sort, I am pointing out that any sovereign region in support of this would possibly be supporting an argument that might be used against their own interests.

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.

Not by definition.

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.

Condemnations and liberations alike condemn griefing as well.

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.

Is a defender sleeper a native? A defender switcher, even? You might see it as unproductive, but your resolution prohibits us from taking action against a group you don’t even make an attempt at defining. It’d certainly help if you at least gave a more established definition of what it is you’re condemning.

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.

I’m saying I disagree with it being labelled griefing at all. It’s such a harmless move that labelling it “griefing” is absurd. Banning natives, sure, passwording and refounding, all of those can do lasting damage and have previously been defined as griefing. Closing and embassy? Unless you’re the Embassy, you likely won’t even notice.

[RiderSyl]

Thanks for listening to the feedback, Aiv. This is a draft I can get behind. Support.

I’m saying I disagree with it being labelled griefing at all. It’s such a harmless move that labelling it “griefing” is absurd. Banning natives, sure, passwording and refounding, all of those can do lasting damage and have previously been defined as griefing. Closing and embassy? Unless you’re the Embassy, you likely won’t even notice.

Sorry, but that's just not true. As a former raider and current indie-org fangirl, I can tell you that there have been countless times that embassy closures were noticed and bothered the heck out of natives. Raiding alongside Atagait back in the day pretty much qualifies me as an expert witness on the effects of closing embassies.

I know that as a Lone Wolf you're obligated to argue certain points, Armaros. Defining embassy razing as "griefing" is a point you obviously have to contest. However, I truly believe that if you had some way of speaking to me about this issue with an indisputable guarantee that what you said would stay in that conversation forever, you'd agree with me.

[HumanSanity]

I am generally in support of a declaration against destructive raiding practices. I think the emphasis on the term "griefing" is causing some issues and is perhaps an opportunity to reframe the resolution and the debate (particularly with regards to the embassy closure clause). I think reframing towards a Declaration Against Destructive Raiding would perhaps remove some of the baggage around the term griefing (baggage which may be causing unease for some defenders and is allowing raiders to split hairs over a set of practices where they are in the minority) around passing this kind of resolution.

On the part of defenders, I've noticed a hesitancy to label specific acts as "griefing" because there is a concern that would become an exhaustive list of actions that can be defined as "griefing" -- by not using this polarizing historical term and instead simply using the resolution to oppose "certain destructive raiding practices", the concern about an exhaustive "defines as" list for what griefing is can be resolved. The resolution then becomes "a restriction on some of the most destructive forms of raiding" rather than an exhaustive list of practices which are griefing. On the part of raiders (well, mostly Jo, since other raiders have abandoned actual ideological debates), we're seeing a lot of whining about defining acts which are certainly destructive as "griefing" because griefing is considered to have a specific NS-historical meaning. Things can be unreasonably destructive without being griefing, and I think a reframe of the resolution away from the term "griefing" would force raiders to actually advocate why their more destructive practices present value to the international community rather than engaging in shallow one-liners about the historical understanding of griefing.

Regions your region is at war with? Regions that have attacked your region? Their allies? Plenty of options out there.

I do think an exception has to be added for regions that are in a declared state of war. "Raiding and defending" exists in a state of perpetual skirmishes below fully declared states of "war" between legitimate interregional actors themselves and, in many ways, defining raiding as unable to engage in extreme destructive practices would recognize the fact that raiding (as conflict below the level of declared war) is not supposed to rise to that point. If two (or more) parties are in a mutually recognized/acknowledged state of war, then their ultimate goal is destruction of their opponents, and the SC should not impede that.

As it relates to griefing/attacking those who have engaged in war against an ally, perhaps language could reflect that a military may "support its allies in engaging in destructive practices if they are related to a state of war" or some such.

Rebuilding the Embassy took 5 RO's, a whole script made only to help rebuild embassies, and a few months.

I daresay no one would’ve been worse off had you not bothered with any of that.

If anything, the debate over The Embassy's griefing has revealed raiding's deceit in attempting to define the value that other regions get out of their foreign relations. While to many inside the "gameplay bubble", The Embassy was a vanity collector project with little value, this does not reflect the experiences of others. Thousands of regions had established ties with it prior to closure (and thousands have renewed those ties since the end of the raid) which should on its own be enough to demonstrate the value of the region to other players.

The very point of this is that it is not the place of raiders, or any GP pundit, to determine the relative value of another region's embassies or foreign affairs practices -- rather, it is the role of natives to make their own sovereign determinations.

You're trying to imply I'd (at least personally) oppose a declaration against raiding, even though it's not going to pass

I am not doing anything of the sort, I am pointing out that any sovereign region in support of this would possibly be supporting an argument that might be used against their own interests.

All declarations which effect game mechanics involve nations/regions potentially going against their own unlimited sovereign prerogatives under the notion that agreeing to certain restrictions on a region's otherwise unlimited ability to act produces a more prosperous international system overall. Moreover, a fundamental tenet of international law is the forfeiture of sovereignty for the collective benefit of all member nations or regions and the notion that your nation/region specifically will benefit from being able to participate in a broader international system regulated by rules and norms, even if those specific norms are not always to your region's benefit.

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.

I’m saying I disagree with it being labelled griefing at all. It’s such a harmless move that labelling it “griefing” is absurd. Banning natives, sure, passwording and refounding, all of those can do lasting damage and have previously been defined as griefing. Closing and embassy? Unless you’re the Embassy, you likely won’t even notice.

After regaining control of a region, natives in the raided region do not have the sole power to restore their embassies, instead those embassy rebuilds must be confirmed by the embassy regions. This is distinct from other practices, such as editing the World Factbook Entry, which can be summarily reversed by the restored native Delegate.

You will argue that an embassy which does not promptly agree to restore embassies with a targeted region is not a valuable embassy for the targeted region in the first place. This is wrong for two reasons.

First, it once again represents an effort (from the skewed perspective of a raider attempting to gain additional operational leeway) to define the relative value of a region's foreign affairs based on the definition of the occupier and ignores the possible diversity of reasons a region may have for even an embassy (i.e. cultural/social significance for that specific region, that the leaders of the embassy region are friends of the targeted region, that the embassy region was a former home for the native residents which they no longer have access to, that the native residents like the symbolism of a certain embassy with a region that is not necessarily active, etc.). The existence of this diversity of reasons for having an embassy is demonstrated by some of your own region's embassies -- such as its embassy with Gatesville Inc, Ile de France, Nohbdy, or The World of Remnant -- none of which remains an active community with which LWU regularly engages in military, political or cultural activities but all of which clearly provide some form of value to your region (symbolic, cultural, historical, or otherwise) and which may be unlikely to restore ties (or restore ties quickly) with Lone Wolves United if its embassies were closed.

Second, it ignores the confusion that often surrounds raids for natives and their embassy partners. While this can (and often is) overcome by strong communication (on the part of defenders) with natives, it creates both an additional time burden and an additional explanation burden for natives to jump through in restoring their region by requiring them to go explain the reasons for the closure to each of their embassy partners.

[Guess and Check]

I support this resolution overall.

But I do agree with HS, in that it may be better to reframe this as against more destructive practices of raiding, to avoid toying with having to define what griefing explicitly is.

[Aivintis]

Not by definition.

By hundreds of resolutions as precedent, though, so practically if not technically.

Condemnations and liberations alike condemn griefing as well.

Cool, which means this is in line with those principles.

Is a defender sleeper a native? A defender switcher, even? You might see it as unproductive, but your resolution prohibits us from taking action against a group you don’t even make an attempt at defining. It’d certainly help if you at least gave a more established definition of what it is you’re condemning.

That's a fair point against my perceived definition, but it also proves the difficulty in defining the term, which is solved by allowing the SC to interpret it on a case by case basis. So like, if a condemnation tried to condemn a raider specifically for banning a defender sleeper or switcher, citing this declaration, it would allow the argument that that isn't what the declaration meant. If we define it, in my opinion that just allows for people to manipulate the definition.

I’m saying I disagree with it being labelled griefing at all. It’s such a harmless move that labelling it “griefing” is absurd. Banning natives, sure, passwording and refounding, all of those can do lasting damage and have previously been defined as griefing. Closing and embassy? Unless you’re the Embassy, you likely won’t even notice.

You mean unless you're the embassy or another region with more than like three embassies or you have diplomatic relationships with regions based on those embassies?

Thanks for listening to the feedback, Aiv. This is a draft I can get behind. Support.

Thanks, Syl.

I am generally in support of a declaration against destructive raiding practices. I think the emphasis on the term "griefing" is causing some issues and is perhaps an opportunity to reframe the resolution and the debate (particularly with regards to the embassy closure clause). I think reframing towards a Declaration Against Destructive Raiding would perhaps remove some of the baggage around the term griefing (baggage which may be causing unease for some defenders and is allowing raiders to split hairs over a set of practices where they are in the minority) around passing this kind of resolution.

On the part of defenders, I've noticed a hesitancy to label specific acts as "griefing" because there is a concern that would become an exhaustive list of actions that can be defined as "griefing" -- by not using this polarizing historical term and instead simply using the resolution to oppose "certain destructive raiding practices", the concern about an exhaustive "defines as" list for what griefing is can be resolved. The resolution then becomes "a restriction on some of the most destructive forms of raiding" rather than an exhaustive list of practices which are griefing. On the part of raiders (well, mostly Jo, since other raiders have abandoned actual ideological debates), we're seeing a lot of whining about defining acts which are certainly destructive as "griefing" because griefing is considered to have a specific NS-historical meaning. Things can be unreasonably destructive without being griefing, and I think a reframe of the resolution away from the term "griefing" would force raiders to actually advocate why their more destructive practices present value to the international community rather than engaging in shallow one-liners about the historical understanding of griefing.

Interesting point. I'll bring it up with Python.

I do think an exception has to be added for regions that are in a declared state of war. "Raiding and defending" exists in a state of perpetual skirmishes below fully declared states of "war" between legitimate interregional actors themselves and, in many ways, defining raiding as unable to engage in extreme destructive practices would recognize the fact that raiding (as conflict below the level of declared war) is not supposed to rise to that point. If two (or more) parties are in a mutually recognized/acknowledged state of war, then their ultimate goal is destruction of their opponents, and the SC should not impede that.

As it relates to griefing/attacking those who have engaged in war against an ally, perhaps language could reflect that a military may "support its allies in engaging in destructive practices if they are related to a state of war" or some such.

That was discussed in drafting, but I opposed it because of how easy it is for someone to say "We're at war now" and grief, unless there's already a specific legal procedure within that region for wars, like in TEP, for example, but also like not in TBH, for example, afaik.

The very point of this is that it is not the place of raiders, or any GP pundit, to determine the relative value of another region's embassies or foreign affairs practices -- rather, it is the role of natives to make their own sovereign determinations.

Agreed

I support this resolution overall.

But I do agree with HS, in that it may be better to reframe this as against more destructive practices of raiding, to avoid toying with having to define what griefing explicitly is.

Hi Zuk I'm an SC draft person now, isn't that so cool?

Now that more than one person has affirmed this belief, I am more inclined to perform such a change.

[A Bloodred Moon]

On the part of raiders (well, mostly Jo, since other raiders have abandoned actual ideological debates), we're seeing a lot of whining about defining acts which are certainly destructive as "griefing" because griefing is considered to have a specific NS-historical meaning.

It’s less about the term itself as it is about the whining about an embassy being withdrawn. You’re not wrong that griefing has an established definition which embassy closures are not traditionally a part of, but I disagree with labelling embassy closures as destructive in general.

Things can be unreasonably destructive without being griefing, and I think a reframe of the resolution away from the term "griefing" would force raiders to actually advocate why their more destructive practices present value to the international community rather than engaging in shallow one-liners about the historical understanding of griefing.

This is assuming that we care, and that you’d care for any argument we’d possibly make. There are, of course, several beneficial effects of the actions you define as “destructive” - refounding and building an actual community in place of a dead one, taking out dead and dying regions from draining away resources - ironically, even your own region benefits from destructive raiding, labelling whatever we do as evil and driving your military activity with such a narrative. In a way, it’s in your own interests to encourage destruction - but I digress. Raiders drive activity, as they always have, and as they always will.

I do think an exception has to be added for regions that are in a declared state of war. "Raiding and defending" exists in a state of perpetual skirmishes below fully declared states of "war" between legitimate interregional actors themselves and, in many ways, defining raiding as unable to engage in extreme destructive practices would recognize the fact that raiding (as conflict below the level of declared war) is not supposed to rise to that point. If two (or more) parties are in a mutually recognized/acknowledged state of war, then their ultimate goal is destruction of their opponents, and the SC should not impede that.

This sounds very bizarre. The logical step for raiders would be to declare war on everyone and merrily point to this resolution to legitimise it, which is something I’m obviously fine with but which hardly seems like the aim of the resolution. You then add “mutually recognized”, which sounds like a shield a region could easily use against legitimate consequences. Defenders got upset when imperialists declared war on the FRA and when they invaded and refounded Concosia - I have my sincerest doubts you’d stick to anything you say here in regards to recognising wars as legitimate conflict.

If anything, the debate over The Embassy's griefing has revealed raiding's deceit in attempting to define the value that other regions get out of their foreign relations. While to many inside the "gameplay bubble", The Embassy was a vanity collector project with little value, this does not reflect the experiences of others. Thousands of regions had established ties with it prior to closure (and thousands have renewed those ties since the end of the raid) which should on its own be enough to demonstrate the value of the region to other players.

Sounds like a lot of words saying nothing related to the proposal at hand to me. People cared for the Embassy specifically, yet it by no means applies to the vast majority of embassy closures - it is not remotely comparable.

All declarations which effect game mechanics involve nations/regions potentially going against their own unlimited sovereign prerogatives under the notion that agreeing to certain restrictions on a region's otherwise unlimited ability to act produces a more prosperous international system overall. Moreover, a fundamental tenet of international law is the forfeiture of sovereignty for the collective benefit of all member nations or regions and the notion that your nation/region specifically will benefit from being able to participate in a broader international system regulated by rules and norms, even if those specific norms are not always to your region's benefit.

That might be true, but it would be illogical for a sovereign region to harm its own interests. Surely you recognise that in an interregional system it’d be logical for regions to vote in their own interests rather than harming them? You say that a region would benefit from being part of an international system with established rules, and that even if one dislikes specific laws or rules, the benefits outweigh that, but that by no means is an argument not to oppose such laws if they harm your interests.

After regaining control of a region, natives in the raided region do not have the sole power to restore their embassies, instead those embassy rebuilds must be confirmed by the embassy regions. This is distinct from other practices, such as editing the World Factbook Entry, which can be summarily reversed by the restored native Delegate.

You will argue that an embassy which does not promptly agree to restore embassies with a targeted region is not a valuable embassy for the targeted region in the first place. This is wrong for two reasons.

First, it once again represents an effort (from the skewed perspective of a raider attempting to gain additional operational leeway) to define the relative value of a region's foreign affairs based on the definition of the occupier and ignores the possible diversity of reasons a region may have for even an embassy (i.e. cultural/social significance for that specific region, that the leaders of the embassy region are friends of the targeted region, that the embassy region was a former home for the native residents which they no longer have access to, that the native residents like the symbolism of a certain embassy with a region that is not necessarily active, etc.). The existence of this diversity of reasons for having an embassy is demonstrated by some of your own region's embassies -- such as its embassy with Gatesville Inc, Ile de France, Nohbdy, or The World of Remnant -- none of which remains an active community with which LWU regularly engages in military, political or cultural activities but all of which clearly provide some form of value to your region (symbolic, cultural, historical, or otherwise) and which may be unlikely to restore ties (or restore ties quickly) with Lone Wolves United if its embassies were closed.

There is some validity to this argument - but it is undermined by reality. A significant number of raided region don’t look at what embassies they have at all and just accept them when they are sent an offer - several fascist or OOCly reprehensible regions have embassies with native communities that claim not to agree with their views. Saying that raiders can’t know the natives’ reasoning for maintaining an embassy doesn’t exactly work when the natives outright admit they have none. But even if we accept that natives have a sentimental reason for keeping embassies with dead regions, I still fail to see how it actually harms the native community. Certainly, they might not be spectacularly happy about it, but to my mind destructive raiding would mean doing harm to the region in question. Active embassies and diplomatic relations can be rebuilt, so there’s no real damage done to any functioning foreign affairs or diplomatic relations. The region’s functioning is by no means threatened, harmed or destroyed by a deconstructed embassy - if it was, that says a lot about the region’s community moreso than it does about raiders.

Second, it ignores the confusion that often surrounds raids for natives and their embassy partners. While this can (and often is) overcome by strong communication (on the part of defenders) with natives, it creates both an additional time burden and an additional explanation burden for natives to jump through in restoring their region by requiring them to go explain the reasons for the closure to each of their embassy partners.

Emphasis mine - you do not have much faith in natives fixing their own shit, do you?

Again, if the region chose its embassy partners well this really shouldn’t be an issue. In fact, it helps the region figure out who their friends are and who aren’t worth rebuilding ties with, and it represents an opportunity for the region to rethink their embassy policies - who to be friends with, who to avoid.

By hundreds of resolutions as precedent, though, so practically if not technically.

Several defenders have argued consistently that the SC changes - it’s only what individuals propose and agree on. Saying that the Security Council is defender and therefore a defender agenda must be carried out is silly.

Cool, which means this is in line with those principles.

And HS complains my arguments are short.

Perhaps I didn’t explain my point clearly enough. You argued it was redundant to condemn raiding in general since long-established precedent (for whatever that’s worth) already does such a thing. Yet the argument does somehow not apply to your definition of “griefing” - I am pointing out that such an argument cannot simply apply to raiding but not griefing, when established precedent also condemns griefing. Griefing is defined within my own region’s condemnation, so clearly it is established and condemned already. It seems far more likely to me that you would go after raiding, given your belief that the SC is defender, and given the fact that the same arguments presented here could apply to raiding in general - you simply do not believe it would pass, since it’d be far more obvious that you are attempting to limit sovereign regions’ military policy, which likely wouldn’t work. The resolution and its arguments, however, present a clear step towards that eventual goal - currently it dictates to militaries that they can only do this and that (in and of itself severely limiting whatever actions may or may not be taken), but since you place such an important emphasis on precedent it would be entirely unsurprising if this resolution would be cited as precedent to justify limiting military operations to defending or being in violation of the Security Council’s declaration.

That's a fair point against my perceived definition, but it also proves the difficulty in defining the term, which is solved by allowing the SC to interpret it on a case by case basis. So like, if a condemnation tried to condemn a raider specifically for banning a defender sleeper or switcher, citing this declaration, it would allow the argument that that isn't what the declaration meant. If we define it, in my opinion that just allows for people to manipulate the definition.

So leaving the room for people to make up their own definitions and manipulate the Security Council using your resolution is preferable to taking the effort of even attempting to define what you’re actually opposing? And if you’re such a fan of letting the SC judge it on a case-by-case basis, why even make a declaration at all rather than letting the SC liberate when it sees fit to do so? Then you wouldn’t have to deal with exceptions, or definitions, you could simply liberate when necessary. Your refusal to define “native” demonstrates that you either cannot pin down a definition of what it is or that you’re unwilling to seriously consider what it is you’re condemning. If you think defining the term is so difficult, what even is the point of using the term in the first place? “Banning group X is bad, but we won’t actually tell you who group X even is” is hardly an inspiring and clear declaration.

You mean unless you're the embassy or another region with more than like three embassies or you have diplomatic relationships with regions based on those embassies?

HS at least made an attempt to prevent the logical “little point in having them if they’re not interested enough to rebuild those ties by claiming a region may have a token embassy with a dead region with no practical value, which I acknowledged as a valid reasoning but which I still don’t believe is anywhere near destructive - more an inconvenience.

[The Python]

This is some pro-raider copium, but...

On the part of raiders (well, mostly Jo, since other raiders have abandoned actual ideological debates), we're seeing a lot of whining about defining acts which are certainly destructive as "griefing" because griefing is considered to have a specific NS-historical meaning.

It’s less about the term itself as it is about the whining about an embassy being withdrawn. You’re not wrong that griefing has an established definition which embassy closures are not traditionally a part of, but I disagree with labelling embassy closures as destructive in general.

Well closing embassies is destructive imo because it can be hard to undo :P

Things can be unreasonably destructive without being griefing, and I think a reframe of the resolution away from the term "griefing" would force raiders to actually advocate why their more destructive practices present value to the international community rather than engaging in shallow one-liners about the historical understanding of griefing.

This is assuming that we care, and that you’d care for any argument we’d possibly make. There are, of course, several beneficial effects of the actions you define as “destructive” - refounding and building an actual community in place of a dead one, taking out dead and dying regions from draining away resources - ironically, even your own region benefits from destructive raiding, labelling whatever we do as evil and driving your military activity with such a narrative. In a way, it’s in your own interests to encourage destruction - but I digress. Raiders drive activity, as they always have, and as they always will.

TL;DR the classic "haha you couldn't defend yourself so you don't deserve help from defenders lol" bs. There are many reasons a region wouldn't be able to defend itself from an invasion; for example, if they are still a new region and haven't grown yet, only just went founderless and don't have a strong security system in place, don't know much about R/D (would you seriously expect a *roleplay* region to have BCRO's that have good enough banning speeds to stop a 30+ updater invasion on a 10 second trigger and to be online every single update), got infiltrated like The Embassy etc. So no, just because a region couldn't defend itself from a raid (which is a bonus, not an expectation) doesn't mean that they deserve to be destroyed.

Defenders got upset when imperialists declared war on the FRA and when they invaded and refounded Concosia - I have my sincerest doubts you’d stick to anything you say here in regards to recognising wars as legitimate conflict.

From what I understand (someone can correct me if I'm wrong), the FRA-TNI conflict was over FRA defending an invasion of Valhalla which unfortunately failed and resulted in the region being griefed until GRO managed to refound it.

[Comfed]

I oppose this. Removing the exemptions were a terrible idea and the definition of griefing is overly strict (closing embassies is not griefing). And I oppose the principle of this.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

I still think this exception should be removed:

"Establishes exceptions in cases where targeted regions routinely engage in region griefing or where targeted regions are displayed to be openly fascist."

[The Python]

I still think this exception should be removed:

"Establishes exceptions in cases where targeted regions routinely engage in region griefing or where targeted regions are displayed to be openly fascist."

But fash need to be bashed!

[A Bloodred Moon]

Well closing embassies is destructive imo because it can be hard to undo

Even so, the closure of embassies does not altogether harm the region in question. Destructive raiding, even according to this proposal’s definition of it, implies an attempt to harm said region. The harm done by the closure of embassies is minimal, not really comparable to refounding, and not really intended to harm the region or community. It is therefore strange to see it included on the same list as banjecting natives, passwording and refounding.

TL;DR the classic "haha you couldn't defend yourself so you don't deserve help from defenders lol" bs.

I’m not sure how you read that in anything I said. It’s certainly not what the quote you are seemingly replying to is about. Since I never claimed any of this, your reply isn’t really worth arguing with - might I suggest you read the quotes you reply to?

From what I understand (someone can correct me if I'm wrong), the FRA-TNI conflict was over FRA defending an invasion of Valhalla which unfortunately failed and resulted in the region being griefed until GRO managed to refound it.

I don’t see how this counters my argument, even if we assume that this is the true story (even ignoring that the LKE declared war over an FRA invasion of one of its colonies), because what I was referring to was that the UIAF invaded several FRA regions over the course of its member regions’ war with the FRA. However, even years after the war occurred and the FRA and the UIAF were both dissolved, defenders still didn’t recognise the invasions that were part of the war as legitimate or valid. This casts doubt on the assumption that defenders would make an exception for wars - since they have not done so for wars that occurred years earlier, why would they do so now?

[WayNeacTia]

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.

Did I miss a fucking memo where people decided war and politics had to be fair? This is a political simulator, with a rudimentary was mechanic. Regions are not people’s safe space. You don’t want your region to be griefed, use the game tools to prevent it. Mikeswill seems to have no problems keeping Nationstates nice and safe.

[Imperium of Josh]

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

Did I miss a fucking memo where people decided war and politics had to be fair? This is a political simulator, with a rudimentary was mechanic. Regions are not people’s safe space. You don’t want your region to be griefed, use the game tools to prevent it. Mikeswill seems to have no problems keeping Nationstates nice and safe.

<3

[Aivintis]

Rebranding: Done.

[RiderSyl]

If the rebrand is what it takes to get it away from the semantical argument, then so be it. I imagine that a new one will start over the word "destructive" at some point, though.

[Aivintis]

If the rebrand is what it takes to get it away from the semantical argument, then so be it. I imagine that a new one will start over the word "destructive" at some point, though.

At that point I would just laugh and let it be tbh.

[Doge Land]

I think you should remove the exceptions to be consistent.

No.

I like this proposal. Support.

[Aivintis]

If there’s no major points raised by next Wednesday (22nd) I’ll talk with Python about submitting it.

[Outer Sparta]

The recent changes from griefing to destructive raiding practices and the rebranding gets my support. Section 5 obviously should be kept as a good exception.

[Aivintis]

LAST CALL.

[Great Algerstonia]

OKAY.