NationStates

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Good intentions, but we know what road is paved with those.

Luca makes some excellent and pertinent points in their post, enough to persuade me that this Declaration really should be abandoned or to oppose it should it come to vote.

Me personally, I'm not going for this! He's basically saying that your proposal should'nt even be tried! That's crazy. Unbelievable! Kuriko are you going for this!

Refuge Isle wrote:The position that natives have to specifically say they DON'T want a liberation is zero percent better. You are literally now adopting a "silence is consent" approach. They're still not your property.

This issue Luca raised seems intentionally unaddressed by the decision to keep negative wording in the Liberation clause like so (emphasis mine):

Lenlyvit wrote:Taking a stance against any Liberation resolution that the native population has not given their permission to be passed on their behalf or passed by they themselves.

This conveniently leaves a loophole to permit the forcible Liberation of the region if its native community can't deny permission for some reason. That is still, as it has been from the start, a violation of the region's sovereignty. The submitted rewrite is no better than any previous versions that attempt to justify Liberating regions without regard for their native community simply because the region is a historical novelty.

Grea Kriopia wrote:

Refuge Isle wrote:The position that natives have to specifically say they DON'T want a liberation is zero percent better. You are literally now adopting a "silence is consent" approach. They're still not your property.

This issue Luca raised seems intentionally unaddressed by the decision to keep negative wording in the Liberation clause like so (emphasis mine):

Lenlyvit wrote:Taking a stance against any Liberation resolution that the native population has not given their permission to be passed on their behalf or passed by they themselves.

This conveniently leaves a loophole to permit the forcible Liberation of the region if its native community can't deny permission for some reason. That is still, as it has been from the start, a violation of the region's sovereignty. The submitted rewrite is no better than any previous versions that attempt to justify Liberating regions without regard for their native community simply because the region is a historical novelty.

I don’t understand where you all are getting this from. It literally states that if they don’t give their permission then vote against it. By not giving their permission they’re not giving it, meaning vote against and not for. Where is the loophole in that?

Edit:

It's also not intentionally unaddressed. I don't see it as a loophole, and I was pretty specific in the wording to that end. I'll use some analogies. If you come to my house, and I'm not there, and I haven't given you permission to enter my house, you can't enter my house legally. I haven't given you consent to enter, and I'm not there to give it. Therefore, you don't have automatic permission to do so just because I'm not there to give it.

Another analogy is a car. You go to my car, but you don't have my permission to get into it and I'm not there. Just because I'm not there to say no doesn't mean you can go into my car. I'm not there, I haven't given you permission to do so, so you can't.

This actually looks pretty good!!!

I see you've done your research and listed a number of interesting regions.

I hope this one passes.

Contrary to some comments, I don't see any "risk" this resolution poses to native communities. Even if it's opinionated, it's informative, that's what resolutions are usually.

I could not agree more with GK and Luca's concerns. I remain firmly opposed, and hope to see this fail for good.

Defeated once, defeat it again.

Tim-Opolis wrote:I could not agree more with GK and Luca's concerns. I remain firmly opposed, and hope to see this fail for good.

I've done my best to rebuff their argument that there's a loophole in the proposal, because there isn't a loophole. I've even asked someone from TNP whether or not the loophole exists, and they've agreed that my wording doesn't allow for this fictional loophole they seem to think exists within the proposal. But I doubt any arguments I make will sway the three of you.

Botlikhs wrote:Defeated once, defeat it again.

The first proposal was defeated at my request and on my campaign against so that I may fix the problems people had with the proposal, which I did.

Lenlyvit wrote:

Tim-Opolis wrote:I could not agree more with GK and Luca's concerns. I remain firmly opposed, and hope to see this fail for good.

I've done my best to rebuff their argument that there's a loophole in the proposal, because there isn't a loophole. I've even asked someone from TNP whether or not the loophole exists, and they've agreed that my wording doesn't allow for this fictional loophole they seem to think exists within the proposal. But I doubt any arguments I make will sway the three of you.

Botlikhs wrote:Defeated once, defeat it again.

The first proposal was defeated at my request and on my campaign against so that I may fix the problems people had with the proposal, which I did.

Fictional loophole. Holy shit how much does it need to be spelled out?

Your proposal is saying that a native population needs to specifically say they do NOT want a liberation.

So without that, you ASSUME CONSENT to break into their region if they don't specifically tell you no beforehand. You already said you're willing to do this even in non-raid conditions, such as the population CTEing

What do you think that language means otherwise??

Refuge Isle wrote:

Lenlyvit wrote:I've done my best to rebuff their argument that there's a loophole in the proposal, because there isn't a loophole. I've even asked someone from TNP whether or not the loophole exists, and they've agreed that my wording doesn't allow for this fictional loophole they seem to think exists within the proposal. But I doubt any arguments I make will sway the three of you.


The first proposal was defeated at my request and on my campaign against so that I may fix the problems people had with the proposal, which I did.

Fictional loophole. Holy shit how much does it need to be spelled out?

Your proposal is saying that a native population needs to specifically say they do NOT want a liberation.

So without that, you ASSUME CONSENT to break into their region if they don't specifically tell you no beforehand. You already said you're willing to do this even in non-raid conditions, such as the population CTEing

What do you think that language means otherwise??

After reading it for the thousandth time, I’ve finally identified where the loophole is I believe. If I’m correct, it’s where I stated “on their behalf”, and I’ve withdrawn the proposal to fix that part. If I’m not mistaken, that will get rid of it.

Also, it would have made it a lot easier to identify it if you had pointed out the specific language that caused the loophole in the first place instead of being vague about it.

I don't see why not to vote for it this time. Full support.

Lenlyvit wrote:Also, it would have made it a lot easier to identify it if you had pointed out the specific language that caused the loophole in the first place instead of being vague about it.

You have been rebuffed a dozen times with more competent authors translating what your words mean by direct quotes at every turn, and every time you deflected or ignored the criticism as a non-issue, or worse that it was explicitly your interest to liberate regions just for naturally CTEing.

Hell GK *JUST* quoted the line and you replied that the issue is "fictional" and that unspecific TNPers said it was fine.

NO.

Leader of NationStates Region since Novemner 16, 2003
(with the exception of 10.5 days)

Refuge Isle wrote:

Lenlyvit wrote:Also, it would have made it a lot easier to identify it if you had pointed out the specific language that caused the loophole in the first place instead of being vague about it.

You have been rebuffed a dozen times with more competent authors translating what your words mean by direct quotes at every turn, and every time you deflected or ignored the criticism as a non-issue, or worse that it was explicitly your interest to liberate regions just for naturally CTEing

I would like to point out that I’m a very competent author, having written and passed 18 resolutions and co-authored 7 more on top of that. My competence in writing is not in question, and I do take slight offense at you saying I’m not as competent as the other authors within this body. That being said, I didn’t catch what you were referring to until this point and I do apologize for not catching on sooner. Sometimes we don’t see something that’s right under our noses.

I didn’t deflect nor ignore the criticism, I engaged it with the best of my ability as can be seen here in this thread by the posts between us. You never identified the exact language, just quoted the clause, and that lead to me not seeing the issue sooner than this. Also, it is not nor has never been my interest to liberate regions just for naturally ceasing to exist. My interest was to preserve the regions of ancient history on NS, and to that end I completely changed my proposal to reflect yours and others concerns to correct that. Did I have the wrong language? Yes. Did I fix it to the best of my ability? Yes, I did. Hopefully this may be the last fix needed.

Lenlyvit wrote:

Refuge Isle wrote:You have been rebuffed a dozen times with more competent authors translating what your words mean by direct quotes at every turn, and every time you deflected or ignored the criticism as a non-issue, or worse that it was explicitly your interest to liberate regions just for naturally CTEing

I would like to point out that I’m a very competent author, having written and passed 18 resolutions and co-authored 7 more on top of that. My competence in writing is not in question, and I do take slight offense at you saying I’m not as competent as the other authors within this body.

Passing whatever boilerplate liberation defending needed at the time is not a mark of skill and the ego it has given you has corrupted you mindset absolutely, as evidenced by how you're more than prepared to die on this hill, where native consent has been a daunting task to get you to prioritise.

Speaking of which, I see Mikeswill has already arrived. May we presume there will follow a similar volume of natives in the target regions who opposed this, as did last time?

I agree with GK & Luca - the loophole does exist. The issue is it really depends on how one interprets the clause - seems some people simply don't see the issue, others do. It seems both interpretations can be held simultaneously valid by SC voters - so it may be a good idea to take further steps to ensure this disparity is avoided.

My suggestion in this regard would (and i've seen this suggested else where) be to say the SC will support any liberation granted explicit permission by natives - i.e. basically reversing the clause from saying (we're against if there's no permission" to "we support if there is permission"). This will make it more clear. It may also be a good idea to explicitly say that if no native community exists, then the Security Council will oppose any liberation of such region (with maybe an exception if a community has explicitly said somewhere that it will always support liberations of itself in specific situations before it disbanded, though I find that unlikely).

Although there's also the fact that offensive liberations exist and may also warrant an exception, maybe.

Or it may be better to just not talk about liberations in this resolution xD

Lenlyvit wrote:

Refuge Isle wrote:You have been rebuffed a dozen times with more competent authors translating what your words mean by direct quotes at every turn, and every time you deflected or ignored the criticism as a non-issue, or worse that it was explicitly your interest to liberate regions just for naturally CTEing

I would like to point out that I’m a very competent author, having written and passed 18 resolutions and co-authored 7 more on top of that. My competence in writing is not in question, and I do take slight offense at you saying I’m not as competent as the other authors within this body. That being said, I didn’t catch what you were referring to until this point and I do apologize for not catching on sooner. Sometimes we don’t see something that’s right under our noses.

...

I'm not much of a competent WA author. I'm currently writing a commendation for Kringalia, however, I must say this. You are a stellar WA author, though, don't call yourself, "competent." You may be, and you probably are, however, it comes off as snobby to people. And, a withdrawn-to-resubmit? Did you change the third bulletin point, I'd think?

Refuge Isle wrote:

Lenlyvit wrote:I would like to point out that I’m a very competent author, having written and passed 18 resolutions and co-authored 7 more on top of that. My competence in writing is not in question, and I do take slight offense at you saying I’m not as competent as the other authors within this body.

Passing whatever boilerplate liberation defending needed at the time is not a mark of skill and the ego it has given you has corrupted you mindset absolutely, as evidenced by how you're more than prepared to die on this hill, where native consent has been a daunting task to get you to prioritise.

Speaking of which, I see Mikeswill has already arrived. May we presume there will follow a similar volume of natives in the target regions who opposed this, as did last time?

As it stands, out of the 18 resolutions I’ve written and passed 9 of them are commendations or condemnations. 4 of them are defender related liberations and 1 liberation is anti-fascist in nature. 3 resolutions were repeals, 2 of those repealing 2 out of the 5 liberations I’ve passed. On my coauthorships, 2 were commendations and two condemnations as well as 1 being a defender related liberation and 2 being repeals. My resolutions and writing is not infallible, I’ve never said it wasn’t.

I have a lot more under my belt than just liberations, and I’m sad to see them referred to as “boilerplate” when they were used to help native communities or to stop raiders from destroying innocent regions. As to Mikeswill, he and NationStates the region will always be against everything that goes through the SC. As to the founderless regions, I reached out to all of them earlier this month and had support from St Abbaddon and Carioch on the original draft of the resolution. Xanthal said I should make it clear that the fate of the region is with the native community, and I think I addressed that in the third bullet point.

Zukchiva wrote:I agree with GK & Luca - the loophole does exist. The issue is it really depends on how one interprets the clause - seems some people simply don't see the issue, others do. It seems both interpretations can be held simultaneously valid by SC voters - so it may be a good idea to take further steps to ensure this disparity is avoided.

My suggestion in this regard would (and i've seen this suggested else where) be to say the SC will support any liberation granted explicit permission by natives - i.e. basically reversing the clause from saying (we're against if there's no permission" to "we support if there is permission"). This will make it more clear. It may also be a good idea to explicitly say that if no native community exists, then the Security Council will oppose any liberation of such region (with maybe an exception if a community has explicitly said somewhere that it will always support liberations of itself in specific situations before it disbanded, though I find that unlikely).

Although there's also the fact that offensive liberations exist and may also warrant an exception, maybe.

Or it may be better to just not talk about liberations in this resolution xD

I’m just wondering if my rewrite on that particular bullet point fixed the loophole? I honestly don’t see how it’s open to different interpretations now, is there any chance you can go into greater detail on how it can now be interpreted differently than I have written it??

Lile Ulie Islands wrote:

Lenlyvit wrote:I would like to point out that I’m a very competent author, having written and passed 18 resolutions and co-authored 7 more on top of that. My competence in writing is not in question, and I do take slight offense at you saying I’m not as competent as the other authors within this body. That being said, I didn’t catch what you were referring to until this point and I do apologize for not catching on sooner. Sometimes we don’t see something that’s right under our noses.

...

I'm not much of a competent WA author. I'm currently writing a commendation for Kringalia, however, I must say this. You are a stellar WA author, though, don't call yourself, "competent." You may be, and you probably are, however, it comes off as snobby to people. And, a withdrawn-to-resubmit? Did you change the third bulletin point, I'd think?

Yes, I did change the third bullet point slightly. That’s where I had identified the possible loophole to be.

Lenlyvit wrote:As to Mikeswill, he and NationStates the region will always be against everything that goes through the SC.

As you, once again, reaffirm that any opinion contrary to yours doesn't matter, note that he's presently voting for the current Security Council resolution. I can't believe you're still parroting the "innocent regions" slogan when it's clear that you don't actually give a shit about sovereign regions' positions on legislation that declares what should happen with them.

Lenlyvit wrote:As to the founderless regions, I reached out to all of them earlier this month and had support from St Abbaddon and Carioch on the original draft of the resolution. Xanthal said I should make it clear that the fate of the region is with the native community, and I think I addressed that in the third bullet point.

So two regions said yes to a different version of the proposal and the other twenty two have either opposed you or not responded. I guess presumed consent never dies with you. Safe to say few have seen the current version which was drafted in six minutes.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Lenlyvit wrote:I would like to point out that I’m a very competent author, having written and passed 18 resolutions and co-authored 7 more on top of that. My competence in writing is not in question, and I do take slight offense at you saying I’m not as competent as the other authors within this body.

Passing whatever boilerplate liberation defending needed at the time is not a mark of skill and the ego it has given you has corrupted you mindset absolutely, as evidenced by how you're more than prepared to die on this hill, where native consent has been a daunting task to get you to prioritise.

Speaking of which, I see Mikeswill has already arrived. May we presume there will follow a similar volume of natives in the target regions who opposed this, as did last time?

This post is unnecessarily hostile. The author didn’t see the clause you were referring to, and you’re jumping right to personal attacks.

Also, Mikeswill would oppose the sky if he could find the “nay” button on it. He’s opposed to every WA Liberation, especially the ones that regional natives want! You can’t make him out to be a hero for native self-determination — he’s consistently voted against the will of native communities for a decade. He has zero interest in affirming or even acknowledging the will of occupied communities or their interests.

Lenlyvit wrote:I’m just wondering if my rewrite on that particular bullet point fixed the loophole? I honestly don’t see how it’s open to different interpretations now, is there any chance you can go into greater detail on how it can now be interpreted differently than I have written it??

I think the phrase "has not given their permission" is the issue causing the discrepancy - some people view it (as you intended) as saying unless explicit permission has been given, the SC will oppose a liberation - regardless if the natives explicitly denied permission or just never commented. Others view that specific phrase as implying permission was explicitly denied - thus implying that the clause does not come into effect in situations wherein explicit denial is not given.

I can't tell you why the phrase reads that way , though - honestly I find both interpretations of the clause to be valid and kinda flip flop between them whenever I read that clause. :x But that's why I suggested what I did.

Lenlyvit wrote:I’m just wondering if my rewrite on that particular bullet point fixed the loophole? I honestly don’t see how it’s open to different interpretations now, is there any chance you can go into greater detail on how it can now be interpreted differently than I have written it??

To recap, much of this thread and previous iterations of this proposal have been spent arguing that it is okay to pass a Liberation in absence of native consent.

The past wording of the Liberation clause had stated a Liberation was viable "when and if the last remaining nation within the region is about to CTE", presuming auto-consent if there are no natives left to give consent.

The new language as submitted now states "Taking a stance against any Liberation resolution that the native population has not given their permission to be passed or passed by they themselves." It's an odd negative word choice focusing on the absence of something which could either be (up to interpretation!) the absence of native consent or the absence of objection to the Liberation. It could be interpreted as saying the SC only has to take a stance against any Liberation that the native population has explicitly opposed. This would, for example, leave an opening to argue that if a region no longer has a native population, then it cannot object to the Liberation. It's a loophole, given this thread has spent so much time arguing how to justify Liberating a region without native consent, but one that is simply fixed as Zuk has already said

Swapping the clause to a positive wording, that the SC will support any Liberation the native population has given permission, would remove the issue entirely.

I'll be the devil's advocate here. I find the loophole to not exist under the interpretation I view as correct. However, since clearly there is so much confusion about which interpretation is correct, the proposal ought to eliminate confusion to prevent raiders from potentially abusing a potential loophole.

Refuge Isle wrote:Fictional loophole. Holy shit how much does it need to be spelled out?

Your proposal is saying that a native population needs to specifically say they do NOT want a liberation.

So without that, you ASSUME CONSENT to break into their region if they don't specifically tell you no beforehand. You already said you're willing to do this even in non-raid conditions, such as the population CTEing

What do you think that language means otherwise??

If that is what Lenly's proposal says, then that would be correct. And what Lenly has said does indeed suggest and support that that is what his proposal says. That is not what his proposal says. Hell, I don't even think it's what the proposal said when it contained "on their behalf".

Taking a stance against any Liberation resolution that the native population has not given their permission to be passed or passed by they themselves.

This can be broken down to "Against Liberations that natives don't permit". Let's remove the double negative. "(Only) For Liberations that natives permit". Meaning consent isn't assumed and the onus isn't on the natives to say no to a Liberation. This says Liberations need permission from natives.

Let's take a different approach. "Against Liberations that natives don't permit". Permit is, at its core, a yes signal. So my interpretation of "don't permit" is not "say no", it's "not say yes". The difference is important. The former means permission needs to be expressly denied by the natives to stop a Liberation, which may be impossible. The latter, that permission needs to be expressly granted by the natives to allow a Liberation. The latter is the ideal of everyone save seemingly Unibot or Lenly, but it's also what Lenly's proposal is saying.

The conclusion? Both sides need to calm down. I think Lenly is correct but Luca and GK are not necessarily incorrect, since their concern is more about the implications of such an up-to-interpretation clause. As I stated at the beginning of this post, it would be best if any competing interpretations were thoroughly eliminated, and the language is both clear and perhaps clarified to avoid any future trouble.

Thank you all for your very informative posts on what is wrong with the wording, I finally have an understanding of what to do and what is wrong with the wording interpretation. I’ve withdrawn the proposal again to fix this issue you’ve identified, and will wait awhile before submitting again. I don’t want to push my luck with the delegates and barraging them with telegrams. I really appreciate all of you taking the time to clearly lay out the issues, it really helped me finally understand. I did rush the resubmission, and I’m sorry on that. I should have waited longer.

Unibot III wrote:This post is unnecessarily hostile. The author didn’t see the clause you were referring to, and you’re jumping right to personal attacks.

Really? Because the author was responding to Grea, who was quoting that clause (and nothing else). The author went into detail about why he felt that clause and its liabilities were non-issues.

Somehow in spite of this, both you and Lenly still believe it's possible to be revisionist and say he simply did not see the message that he was literally responding to in this quote. It's difficult to believe he did not see the criticism earlier since I first raised this issue in the last defeated resolution on approximately the same grounds. But THIS one PRECISELY received direct comment from the author. Course was not correct until he saw that TNP was unanimously slated to vote against.

For more instances of poor revisionism, the author states:

Yet the author also states:


Wordplay acrobatics are not sufficient, nor is the author stating for the thousandth time how many resolutions the passed a get out of jail free card for a declaration that undermines the sovereignty regions. Founderless regions deserve no more or less autonomy than any other region on NationStates, regardless of how novel the author feels the reason for their founderless state is. Once again, this endeavour is best left to die.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Unibot III wrote:This post is unnecessarily hostile. The author didn’t see the clause you were referring to, and you’re jumping right to personal attacks.

Really? Because the author was responding to Grea, who was quoting that clause (and nothing else). The author went into detail about why he felt that clause and its liabilities were non-issues.

Lenlyvit wrote:I don’t understand where you all are getting this from. It literally states that if they don’t give their permission then vote against it. By not giving their permission they’re not giving it, meaning vote against and not for. Where is the loophole in that?

Edit:

It's also not intentionally unaddressed. I don't see it as a loophole, and I was pretty specific in the wording to that end. I'll use some analogies. If you come to my house, and I'm not there, and I haven't given you permission to enter my house, you can't enter my house legally. I haven't given you consent to enter, and I'm not there to give it. Therefore, you don't have automatic permission to do so just because I'm not there to give it.

Another analogy is a car. You go to my car, but you don't have my permission to get into it and I'm not there. Just because I'm not there to say no doesn't mean you can go into my car. I'm not there, I haven't given you permission to do so, so you can't.

Somehow in spite of this, both you and Lenly still believe it's possible to be revisionist and say he simply did not see the message that he was literally responding to in this quote. It's difficult to believe he did not see the criticism earlier since I first raised this issue in the last defeated resolution on approximately the same grounds. But THIS one PRECISELY received direct comment from the author. Course was not correct until he saw that TNP was unanimously slated to vote against.

For more instances of poor revisionism, the author states:

Lenlyvit wrote:Also, it is not nor has never been my interest to liberate regions just for naturally ceasing to exist. My interest was to preserve the regions of ancient history on NS, and to that end I completely changed my proposal to reflect yours and others concerns to correct that. Did I have the wrong language? Yes. Did I fix it to the best of my ability? Yes, I did. Hopefully this may be the last fix needed.

Yet the author also states:

Lenlyvit wrote:When the last native nation(s) is about to CTE, there is no more native consent left to give. I don't view these as preemptive Liberations, only as trying to preserve what the original inhabitants originally built before it's lost forever. That's something that I would think the natives would want, to preserve their legacies.

Wordplay acrobatics are not sufficient, nor is the author stating for the thousandth time how many resolutions the passed a get out of jail free card for a declaration that undermines the sovereignty regions. Founderless regions deserve no more or less autonomy than any other region on NationStates, regardless of how novel the author feels the reason for their founderless state is. Once again, this endeavour is best left to die.

I 1000% honestly did not see what the problem was until today. I'm not lying, I'm not being revisionist, and I didn't see it just because of TNP. I see it because some people have taken the time to fully explain it to me so that I can finally understand it. I wouldn't call two votes for and two votes against in TNP as a unanimous against vote.

I've made a revision to the draft in order to fix the wording, although I'm unsure if that's the kind of wording everyone is looking for?