[DEFEATED] Historical Founderless Region Preservation Act

[Morover]

Is the list of regions given comprehensive of all relevant regions?

[Hulldom]

Is the list of regions given comprehensive of all relevant regions?

It’s the list of regions that are genuinely founderless (I.e. regions that have no founder whatsoever—not a CTE one), so yes. There can’t be new ones obviously.

[Fachumonn]

I see a lot of improvement, but I do believe that there are too many founderless regions listed.

I do not see that as an issue in the slightest.

[Honeydewistania]

'The Blood Cave' is not ancient but just borked, and 'Buckethead land' does not exist

[Lenlyvit]

'The Blood Cave' is not ancient but just borked, and 'Buckethead land' does not exist

Fixed Bucketheadland, removed The Blood Cave. Turns out you're correct, I looked at NS History and see it had a founder in 2012.

[Geopolity]

The SC is horribly empty right now, so I don't really see the harm in a Declaration going to the floor. Even if it is functionally toothless, it's what was so generously granted to us, so might as well use it every so often, I suppose.

[Reventus Koth]

Oh look, more "political isolation" of raiders. I've already secured 2 formerly True Founderless regions and inshallah I will continue to do so as opportunities arise, declaration or otherwise. But I will obviously never support any proposal that says the SC should politically isolate players for basic R/D, and neither should anyone else.

[Tinhampton]

Hereby states that the following steps need to be taken by all other regions

Rule 1e violation.

[Quebecshire]

Oh look, more "political isolation" of raiders. I've already secured 2 formerly True Founderless regions and inshallah I will continue to do so as opportunities arise, declaration or otherwise. But I will obviously never support any proposal that says the SC should politically isolate players for basic R/D, and neither should anyone else.

Why shouldn’t regions that do things against the interregional norm be politically isolated? Isn’t that how diplomacy works? Severing ties with institutions and figures that do things you consider unacceptable?

You can disagree with the exact applications, but you’re being pretty hypocritical about the overall concept. Ironically, there’s a pretty extensive overlap between the people insisting that isolating BoM is unjustified and too far, and the people who actively worked for the political isolation of the New Pacific Order in 2018. Bluntly, you should be appreciative that the world has been kinder to you than your lot were to those people back in the day.

Anyone can agree or disagree with either implementation of isolation, but either way, you’re being hypocritical and nobody should take your words seriously here - isolation was never something your sphere was above doing.

Encouraging diplomatic sanctions against regions which violate the global peace and burn history is sensible and in line with the Security Council’s agenda.

Support, and I encourage Lenlyvit to keep that portion in the draft.

[Reventus Koth]

Oh look, more "political isolation" of raiders. I've already secured 2 formerly True Founderless regions and inshallah I will continue to do so as opportunities arise, declaration or otherwise. But I will obviously never support any proposal that says the SC should politically isolate players for basic R/D, and neither should anyone else.

Why shouldn’t regions that do things against the interregional norm be politically isolated? Isn’t that how diplomacy works? Severing ties with institutions and figures that do things you consider unacceptable?

You can disagree with the exact applications, but you’re being pretty hypocritical about the overall concept. Ironically, there’s a pretty extensive overlap between the people insisting that isolating BoM is unjustified and too far, and the people who actively worked for the political isolation of the New Pacific Order in 2018. Bluntly, you should be appreciative that the world has been kinder to you than your lot were to those people back in the day.

Anyone can agree or disagree with either implementation of isolation, but either way, you’re being hypocritical and nobody should take your words seriously here - isolation was never something your sphere was above doing.

Encouraging diplomatic sanctions against regions which violate the global peace and burn history is sensible and in line with the Security Council’s agenda.

Support, and I encourage Lenlyvit to keep that portion in the draft.

In my interest as a tenant of your mind, I'll leave your latest BoM tantrum for a more relevant thread.

Your claims of hypocrisy make no sense, I never said there's no use case for political isolation. I'm saying that this tool is being overused and Lenlyvit is setting a bad precedent calling for political isolation over the simple and time-tested act of raiding True Founderless regions. A defender, of course, naturally will support any resolution of this sort that pushes that envelope, but I'm doing my part as a member state represented by the Security Council to attest that this is not a universal value held by the SC, and raiding is not an abberation of the interregional norm.

As a side note, I wonder what the implication here is for GCRs. The author's wording *mostly* gets the point across that True Founderless regions are different in origin, but the wiggle room is still there. Lenlyvit, it may be worth trying to finagle a sentence in the draft to distinguish true founderless GCRs from UCRs; the casual reader test works for me but may not for the layman.

[Lenlyvit]

Hereby states that the following steps need to be taken by all other regions

Rule 1e violation.

I figured I might be, so I was hesitant about the wording in the first. I've made an alteration to correct that.

[Lenlyvit]

As a side note, I wonder what the implication here is for GCRs. The author's wording *mostly* gets the point across that True Founderless regions are different in origin, but the wiggle room is still there. Lenlyvit, it may be worth trying to finagle a sentence in the draft to distinguish true founderless GCRs from UCRs; the casual reader test works for me but may not for the layman.

I don't know, I tried to finangle a clause for it but I'm not really sure how it reads.

[Unibot III]

As a side note, I wonder what the implication here is for GCRs. The author's wording *mostly* gets the point across that True Founderless regions are different in origin, but the wiggle room is still there. Lenlyvit, it may be worth trying to finagle a sentence in the draft to distinguish true founderless GCRs from UCRs; the casual reader test works for me but may not for the layman.

I don't know, I tried to finangle a clause for it but I'm not really sure how it reads.

It’s simple. GCRs cannot be destroyed and pre-founder UCRs can be destroyed.

I think I’d try a disclaimer like this…

‘Noting that feeders, sinkers, and Warzone regions, while also founderless, are not subject to the same risk of regional destruction as other regions,’

I think this is a better way to make that distinction because it’s practical (I.e., GCRs don’t need preservation laws in the same way because they can’t be destroyed) and it avoids language like “indigenous peoples” which could be considered in bad taste.

And for the Operative clause, I suggest using ‘should’ rather than ‘ can, if they choose to,’ as in … “Hereby states that regions and organizations should take the,”

I think (there’s not much precedent) that “should” be permissible as it isn’t necessarily obligatory but it sounds stronger than “yeah, like if you can do that, that’d be great? Okay?”

[Unibot III]

In addition to my comments above…

Why not name-drop a prospective interregional treaty in the resolution? You seem to be anticipating that a treaty would be created.

It may give the clause more force to just nail down a name in the resolution - Convention on Pre-Founder Regions — whatever, then call upon the signatories to convene drafting meetings and ultimately support it.

As a measure it might limit the FA ‘cat herding’ and smooth out the actual adoption of the idea.

— I’ll add too that I think the draft has improved and I like what’s it’s shaping up to be. You’ve gone in a creative direction with it!

[Toonela]

Sorry for the delay, Len! Was a bit busier yesterday than I anticipated. I see some others beat me to feedback. I'm going to try and save myself some time and just quote sections of the text, then use strikethroughs followed by my suggested alteration. Reasoning will be given below each quote!

Noting that throughout the NationStates Multiverse multiverse

You probably don't need to capitalize 'multiverse', but it's not a big deal if you do!

Acknowledging that among this group of regions the majority had one nation above them all that took executive powers over the region through many different means, including democratic elections and godly appointments, while a very few never had one nation above all take power a select few did not;

While I understand that the phrase 'above them all' is meant to signify Founder status (in contrast to mere non-founder executive powers), I think it's a bit clunky and redundant in this case. Plenty of text elsewhere in the declaration, such as the clause immediately following this one, communicates that information, so we can cut the 'fat' here, so to speak, IMO.

Believing that these regions hold a significant historical position within the interregional community, due to the fact that as they are among the last of the first regions ever founded within NationStates, and that due to this status these regions should be especially protected from destruction and loss;

These group regions aren't "the last" of the first regions ever founded, right? They are among the last of the first regions; they just happen to not have founders. Unless I'm misunderstanding. Which I might be! Regardless, my suggestions here are meant to clarify this unique aspect of the listed regions and reduce wordiness.

Differentiating the regions listed within this resolution from other truly Founderless regions that hold the name of Sinker and Feeder in so far as the regions with those titles are the only places in the Multiverse where nations come back into existence or are founded from indigenous peoples;

Unibot made a good suggestion above regarding how one might improve this, so I'll refrain from making my own suggestion until you've had the chance to comment on that.

Hereby states that regions and organizations can, if they choose to, should take the following steps to protect these special historical regions from being destroyed and founded under new nations:

Just seconding Unibot's suggestion here! 'Should' sounds like a stronger suggestion and I disagree with Tin that this qualifies as a rule 1e violation. If I were to tell my brother that he should eat healthier, I am not creating a legal obligation for him to do so, I am merely indicating correctness of action. If you're convinced it'd be illegal though (you'd know better than I), I still think something like 'Hereby suggests that regions and organizations . . .' is superior to 'can, if they choose to'.

Encouraging regional governments to take the following actions against military and non-military entities who disregard the protection of these regions and listing them to be:

There's no need to explicitly state that you are listing the "following actions" before doing so, in this case. You are doing the listing and that is enough.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Except like... Why is this opinion needed? Clearly these regions have bene surviving just fine without a declaration telling them how to survive.



Yeah, but why do these special no founder regions need to be differentiated from ones with CTE founders? As far as I know, both still get raided, and the "operative" clauses dont make it so that only that one class of founderless regions are affected.

Of the ones that are for sure still in existence, the only ones with any sort of day-to-day activity are St Abbaddon and South Pacific. And I don’t believe they should be the addressees of this resolution. (If they are, I can’t say it’s a great idea to address them and not those who would take them.)

The reason for the differentiation is because of their uniqueness. These are all regions that predate regional founders (someone can correct me if I’m wrong but late 2003, I think) as a permanent position and thus have stood the test of time. Not all of them are fortunate enough to get passworded for one reason or another. (I recall St Abby was not too long ago.)

A declaration on this topic is at least a public statement that these regions ought to be preserved and not considered targets. (Notwithstanding political reasons that would make some of them unwise targets.)

So...? I mean, sure, they're unique. But implying that their uniqueness makes them less fair game than any region that has a CTEd founder for raiding doesn't sit well with me. I don't see any reason that this uniqueness should allow these regions to have a special declaration of protection when every other founderless region doesn't.

[Lenlyvit]

Sorry for the delay, Len! Was a bit busier yesterday than I anticipated. I see some others beat me to feedback. I'm going to try and save myself some time and just quote sections of the text, then use strikethroughs followed by my suggested alteration. Reasoning will be given below each quote!

Noting that throughout the NationStates Multiverse multiverse

You probably don't need to capitalize 'multiverse', but it's not a big deal if you do!

Acknowledging that among this group of regions the majority had one nation above them all that took executive powers over the region through many different means, including democratic elections and godly appointments, while a very few never had one nation above all take power a select few did not;

While I understand that the phrase 'above them all' is meant to signify Founder status (in contrast to mere non-founder executive powers), I think it's a bit clunky and redundant in this case. Plenty of text elsewhere in the declaration, such as the clause immediately following this one, communicates that information, so we can cut the 'fat' here, so to speak, IMO.

Believing that these regions hold a significant historical position within the interregional community, due to the fact that as they are among the last of the first regions ever founded within NationStates, and that due to this status these regions should be especially protected from destruction and loss;

These group regions aren't "the last" of the first regions ever founded, right? They are among the last of the first regions; they just happen to not have founders. Unless I'm misunderstanding. Which I might be! Regardless, my suggestions here are meant to clarify this unique aspect of the listed regions and reduce wordiness.

Differentiating the regions listed within this resolution from other truly Founderless regions that hold the name of Sinker and Feeder in so far as the regions with those titles are the only places in the Multiverse where nations come back into existence or are founded from indigenous peoples;

Unibot made a good suggestion above regarding how one might improve this, so I'll refrain from making my own suggestion until you've had the chance to comment on that.

Hereby states that regions and organizations can, if they choose to, should take the following steps to protect these special historical regions from being destroyed and founded under new nations:

Just seconding Unibot's suggestion here! 'Should' sounds like a stronger suggestion and I disagree with Tin that this qualifies as a rule 1e violation. If I were to tell my brother that he should eat healthier, I am not creating a legal obligation for him to do so, I am merely indicating correctness of action. If you're convinced it'd be illegal though (you'd know better than I), I still think something like 'Hereby suggests that regions and organizations . . .' is superior to 'can, if they choose to'.

Encouraging regional governments to take the following actions against military and non-military entities who disregard the protection of these regions and listing them to be:

There's no need to explicitly state that you are listing the "following actions" before doing so, in this case. You are doing the listing and that is enough.

Thanks Toonela! I incorporated your changes into my draft, as well as attempted to change the "differentiating" clause like suggested. I didn't want to use Unibot's wording, which is why I spun it my way.

In addition to my comments above…

Why not name-drop a prospective interregional treaty in the resolution? You seem to be anticipating that a treaty would be created.

It may give the clause more force to just nail down a name in the resolution - Convention on Pre-Founder Regions — whatever, then call upon the signatories to convene drafting meetings and ultimately support it.

As a measure it might limit the FA ‘cat herding’ and smooth out the actual adoption of the idea.

— I’ll add too that I think the draft has improved and I like what’s it’s shaping up to be. You’ve gone in a creative direction with it!

Thanks Unibot! I'm still learning on this one, so maybe next time I attempt a declaration it'll come out better.

[Unibot III]

Thanks Unibot! I'm still learning on this one, so maybe next time I attempt a declaration it'll come out better.

I hope that’s sarcasm!??? You did great! There is no template for how a declaration is supposed to work, and very little precedent. The vetting and collaboration that takes place here is natural. Every resolution benefits from a second, third, and ninth set of eyes.

[Lenlyvit]

There isn't too much feedback coming in right now, so I'll go ahead and put it on last call. I'm still looking for feedback though, so hopefully more will come in.

[Lenlyvit]

I've gone ahead and submitted this and plan on campaigning for it later today.

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

'The Blood Cave' is not ancient but just borked, and 'Buckethead land' does not exist

removed The Blood Cave

It's still in the submitted proposal

[Lenlyvit]

removed The Blood Cave

It's still in the submitted proposal

Oh come on >_<. I swore I fixed these things. I think I fixed them in the Google document and not the thread, which is where it's screwed up. It's close to quorum though, is this a thing that might sink the proposal?

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

It's still in the submitted proposal

Oh come on >_<. I swore I fixed these things. I think I fixed them in the Google document and not the thread, which is where it's screwed up. It's close to quorum though, is this a thing that might sink the proposal?

I don't think it should be withdrawn over that. I doubt anyone even cares

[Lenlyvit]

Oh come on >_<. I swore I fixed these things. I think I fixed them in the Google document and not the thread, which is where it's screwed up. It's close to quorum though, is this a thing that might sink the proposal?

I don't think it should be withdrawn over that. I doubt anyone even cares

Thanks Honeydew! To be honest, Tinhampton also caught a mistake with the first submission just before I campaigned. I was able to fix that, just wish I had seen this too. That's what happens when you're shopping for a lawn mower and submitting at the same time

[Comfed]

I don't think it should be withdrawn over that. I doubt anyone even cares

Thanks Honeydew! To be honest, Tinhampton also caught a mistake with the first submission just before I campaigned. I was able to fix that, just wish I had seen this too. That's what happens when you're shopping for a lawn mower and submitting at the same time

Lawn mowers are tricky like that.