[PASSED] Historical Region Act

[Refuge Isle]

I wouldn't call two votes for and two votes against in TNP as a unanimous against vote.

My mistake. On my mobile browser, I apparently opened the window for Repeal: “Minimum Standard Of Living Act”, which was 0-7.

[Unibot III]

Who’s against minimum standards of living anyhow?

[Minskiev]

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?

Would revise "Taking a stance of being for any Liberation resolution that the native population has given their explicit permission to be passed or passed by they themselves." to "Supporting only the Liberation resolutions that the relevant native population has given their explicit permission to be passed."

Sorry for your troubles. I really do sympathize, this was kind of brutal.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I wouldn't call two votes for and two votes against in TNP as a unanimous against vote.

My mistake. On my mobile browser, I apparently opened the window for Repeal: “Minimum Standard Of Living Act”, which was 0-7.

Okay, this cracked me up. A coffee-snorting-through-nose moment in what has been an unusually tense thread.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

Withdrawn...again?

[Hustlertwo]

If something takes this many drafts to avoid causing riots, it seems like it's not worth pursuing. What are the odds it can even pass?

[Lenlyvit]

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?

Would revise "Taking a stance of being for any Liberation resolution that the native population has given their explicit permission to be passed or passed by they themselves." to "Supporting only the Liberation resolutions that the relevant native population has given their explicit permission to be passed."

Sorry for your troubles. I really do sympathize, this was kind of brutal.

Thank you Minskiev for the suggestion, I've implemented it into my draft. I appreciate your help!

Withdrawn...again?

Yes. I'll admit that I rushed the resubmission earlier today and I withdrew it in order to implement the suggestions of Grea and Minskiev on how to fix the writing. This actually isn't the first time I've done this, I've done it at least once before I think.

If something takes this many drafts to avoid causing riots, it seems like it's not worth pursuing. What are the odds it can even pass?

The submission and withdrawal two times this time is my fault, and could have been avoided if I had comprehended the advice being given better than I did. I do have my faults as an author, and this is one of them. That being said, I'd rather submit and withdraw multiple times to fix it rather than have it fail at vote or be repealed later on down the road.

As to the likelihood of this passing, I think it's pretty high. The very first version had major support before I asked the voters to tank it. This rewrite could also possibly expand the support into defender regions, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

[Lenlyvit]

I wouldn't call two votes for and two votes against in TNP as a unanimous against vote.

My mistake. On my mobile browser, I apparently opened the window for Repeal: “Minimum Standard Of Living Act”, which was 0-7.

That happens! I can't tell you the amount of times I've opened something I didn't mean to open on my phone.

[Xanthal]

There's going to be gray area no matter which way you turn it- 'twas ever thus with Founderless regions. Who counts as a native? Who gets to speak for those natives? How do you choose who to listen to when the natives don't agree? How long do you wait for an answer before you have to assume one isn't coming? What course do you choose when on the one hand you risk handing raiders a permanent victory and on the other you risk becoming like a raider yourself to stop them? It's hard. I know. Defenders have always had the shaft end in this game, and this is just one of several ways in which that's true.

As to the matter of when Liberations are appropriate, I don't think you're ever going to satisfactorily write a comprehensive answer into a WA Resolution with all that potential ambiguity. Take SPACE: I've been the only mouthpiece for that region for over ten years. If I go on vacation, am I supposed to leave a living will to tell defenders what they're allowed to do while I'm absent? Are they supposed to ask the 25 sleeper puppet nations who have contributed nothing to the region since they arrived, logging in just often enough not to CTE? Does using us as a parking space earn them a say?

I have occasionally mentioned, lest it be lost to history, that it was defenders who installed me as Delegate of SPACE in the first place. Perhaps telling the story again will shed some light on my perspective. I'll put it in a spoiler for those who aren't interested in story time and prefer to get right to the point.

SPACE was founded by pirate-themed nations who ran the region under an ideology they called Paradise Law- complete openness and freedom. Part of this policy was refusing to implement any regional protections. These were the Wild West days before the Influence system existed and any complaints of abuse had to go through the moderation team. Defenders were in and out of the region on an almost weekly basis trying to keep the raiders under control. Everyone was frustrated by the situation, yet the pirates refused to act. I, a relative newcomer at this point, began to campaign against them in a bid to implement more restrictive policies, but after several weeks (or months, perhaps, my memory dims) still fell short of the pirate Delegate in Endorsements.

It was at this point that yet another raid occurred. The Defenders managed to get enough Endorsements in play to take back the Delegacy, but they were tired of being rebuffed by the pirates. Instead of Endorsing The Tritanium Tochiro- who had been seated as Delegate before the raid- they Endorsed me. They knew that I had stood in opposition to the pirate regime and they knew that I hadn't had enough support to supplant them with native Endorsements, but they preferred to deal with me and made the choice to place me in power.

I'd put in the time and effort- it was almost certain that if the matter came before the mods I'd be ruled a native. With no Influence system, I could have done whatever I wanted from that point, but I didn't want to stage a coup: I had sought power democratically, and repealing Paradise Law on behalf of outsiders- however well intentioned- didn't sit right with me. I decided to position myself as a caretaker administration. I figured that once the dust had settled, the pirates would retake control and I could go back to campaigning on my own platform- try to take power legitimately. Unfortunately, that never happened. Defenders lingered, pirate supporters were slow to return, and I began to attract Endorsements from natives old and new for my caretaker policies rather than the policies I had originally wanted to implement. In hindsight I should have left, reset the counters and come back, but I didn't, and my temporary caretaker administration became a permanent one. How things ended up is on me, but I never forgot that how they began was a Defender bid to usurp the native will because they thought they knew better.

The bottom line is this: Founders are an important element of the current game system. Regions that lack that element are always going to be problematic. Keeping them both healthy and secure requires considerable time and dedication. We need to draw a distinction in our thinking between regions, which are just digital places and have no will of their own, and players who have built a stake in a region by residing and positively contributing there- natives. Just because a nation has been in a region for a long time does not make its player a native, and just because a region has nations in it does not mean it has a community.

If a threatened historical region does not have a native community that is sufficiently active and engaged to express an opinion- explicit or implied- about its fate, it is not the responsibility of outsiders to intervene nor is it their responsibility to forbear. The region is an abandoned lot, a castle with an empty throne. In that respect, Unibot is correct. Raiders recognize such regions for what they are and will happily take them. If they mean to intervene successfully, Defenders would be wise to share that understanding. I would much rather an outsider take control who had a vision for redevelopment than a raider who just wanted another trophy for their shelf. What I do not support is using defenders or Liberation to keep those regions in limbo without expending the effort to make them viable communities again. That's like saving an old building from being torn down and then leaving it to rot. It's not preservation, it's blight.

[Unibot III]

If a threatened historical region does not have a native community that is sufficiently active and engaged to express an opinion- explicit or implied- about its fate, it is not the responsibility of outsiders to intervene nor is it their responsibility to forbear. The region is an abandoned lot, a castle with an empty throne. In that respect, Unibot is correct. Raiders recognize such regions for what they are and will happily take them. If they mean to intervene successfully, Defenders would be wise to share that understanding. I would much rather an outsider take control who had a vision for redevelopment than a raider who just wanted another trophy for their shelf. What I do not support is using defenders or Liberation to keep those regions in limbo without expending the effort to make them viable communities again. That's like saving an old building from being torn down and then leaving it to rot. It's not preservation, it's blight.

With respect, this is why I advocated for a neutral historical preservation society that might put some effort into building a community, or at least the structure to support one, in historical founderless regions where there is no community.

To me, the model for this is Christmas.

I understand it’s not a ‘historical’ founderless region, but Christmas was a dead founderless region that was caught in a cycle of being permanently targeted for invasion.

1. It’s since been liberated, and that WA Liberation (still extant) helps to undermine the efficacy of griefing.
2. A neutral association of well-intended outsiders have worked to build the region up to a point where it can support some new growth.
3. Their approach has been sensitive to the culture, symbology, and history of the region — they even did historical research on the region and have linked it to the WFE.
4. The rebuild is neutral and not linked to a specific host region or alliance.

What I envision a historical society doing is more or less what players did in Christmas. The only other options for regions in Christmas’ situation are letting the regions exist in some kind of sad password limbo, or face occupation, destruction, or the possibility of a refound.

I’ll be the first to admit it’s not an ideal answer, the ideal answer is that the regions themselves organically take steps to rebuild their regions. I remember when the initiative in Christmas was launched, it was unconventional and it didn’t square nicely with the ethics that defenders operated on, but I think there has since emerged a common understanding that that was the best response that could have been taken for everyone including Christmas.

As the game matures and time passes, I feel that the ethics surrounding regional and community preservation will have to change — we’re getting to the point where historically significant regions have been dormant or dead for much longer than they were operational, and there may be no survivors and any remaining survivor may be unavailable for comment, with no clear will going forward for the region. And the inheritance of these regions by residents may be mostly arbitrary as the public memory of these regions fade and original members CTE. When I first started defending, the oldest founderless regions were about six years old, today the oldest founderless regions are approaching their twentieth anniversary. My question, in a philosophical sense, is who constitutes the intestate for a historically or culturally significant region? I think the intestate may devolve back to the international community at large as an international responsibility.

Previously, NS had never considered the concept of intestacy because it hadn’t been confronted with today’s reality. It made no sense to talk about outside efforts to preserve regions when there had been active regional governments / forums in these regions only a few years prior; nowadays there are regions that have been dead or dormant longer than some defenders have *been alive.* Which is nuts, by the way!

[Xanthal]

What I envision a historical society doing is more or less what players did in Christmas. The only other options for regions in Christmas’ situation are letting the regions exist in some kind of sad password limbo, or face occupation, destruction, or the possibility of a refound.

I’ll be the first to admit it’s not an ideal answer, the ideal answer is that the regions themselves organically take steps to rebuild their regions. I remember when the initiative in Christmas was launched, it was unconventional and it didn’t square nicely with the ethics that defenders operated on, but I think there has since emerged a common understanding that that was the best response that could have been taken for everyone including Christmas.

As the game matures and time passes, I feel that the ethics surrounding regional and community preservation will have to change — we’re getting to the point where historically significant regions have been dormant or dead for much longer than they were operational, and there may be no survivors and any remaining survivor may be unavailable for comment, with no clear will going forward for the region. And the inheritance of these regions by residents may be mostly arbitrary as the public memory of these regions fade and original members CTE. When I first started defending, the oldest founderless regions were about six years old, today the oldest founderless regions are approaching their twentieth anniversary. My question, in a philosophical sense, is who constitutes the intestate for a historically or culturally significant region? I think the intestate may devolve back to the international community at large as an international responsibility.

Agreed. Also, bonus points for making me look up a word. I remain not wholly convinced of the premise for this proposal, but if it's happening then let's try to do it right. Maybe I'll dare to dream that what we do here can provide the basis for re-opening SPACE.

As a native with a longstanding attachment to my own region, and in light of my extensive history dealing with defenders and raiders, I'll be among the first to jump to the defense of native rights. Unfortunately, the business of preservation being to keep something around as long as possible, success inevitably means you become more and more distant from the originators of the thing you're preserving. The proposal should acknowledge that where no clear native will exists, someone is empowered to make choices. A framework for that process would be welcome.

I'd also like it if we shifted our articulated goal from "preservation" to "conservation." The former is about keeping something unchanged. The latter is about keeping it vital and perpetuating it. We should be giving these regions a future that honors their past, not trapping them in the past.

[Lenlyvit]

What I envision a historical society doing is more or less what players did in Christmas. The only other options for regions in Christmas’ situation are letting the regions exist in some kind of sad password limbo, or face occupation, destruction, or the possibility of a refound.

I’ll be the first to admit it’s not an ideal answer, the ideal answer is that the regions themselves organically take steps to rebuild their regions. I remember when the initiative in Christmas was launched, it was unconventional and it didn’t square nicely with the ethics that defenders operated on, but I think there has since emerged a common understanding that that was the best response that could have been taken for everyone including Christmas.

As the game matures and time passes, I feel that the ethics surrounding regional and community preservation will have to change — we’re getting to the point where historically significant regions have been dormant or dead for much longer than they were operational, and there may be no survivors and any remaining survivor may be unavailable for comment, with no clear will going forward for the region. And the inheritance of these regions by residents may be mostly arbitrary as the public memory of these regions fade and original members CTE. When I first started defending, the oldest founderless regions were about six years old, today the oldest founderless regions are approaching their twentieth anniversary. My question, in a philosophical sense, is who constitutes the intestate for a historically or culturally significant region? I think the intestate may devolve back to the international community at large as an international responsibility.

Agreed. Also, bonus points for making me look up a word. I remain not wholly convinced of the premise for this proposal, but if it's happening then let's try to do it right. Maybe I'll dare to dream that what we do here can provide the basis for re-opening SPACE.

As a native with a longstanding attachment to my own region, and in light of my extensive history dealing with defenders and raiders, I'll be among the first to jump to the defense of native rights. Unfortunately, the business of preservation being to keep something around as long as possible, success inevitably means you become more and more distant from the originators of the thing you're preserving. The proposal should acknowledge that where no clear native will exists, someone is empowered to make choices. A framework for that process would be welcome.

I'd also like it if we shifted our articulated goal from "preservation" to "conservation." The former is about keeping something unchanged. The latter is about keeping it vital and perpetuating it. We should be giving these regions a future that honors their past, not trapping them in the past.

The only qualm I have in empowering others to make a decision where no native community exists anymore is who will have that power? It’s not so easy on an international stage to just say “so and so should decide these regions fates”, that would ultimately lead to a lot of fighting I think. I could try to fit conservation into the resolution somewhere, although I’m unsure where to put it, maybe in the bullet points? I’ll have to think on it.

[Xanthal]

The only qualm I have in empowering others to make a decision where no native community exists anymore is who will have that power? It’s not so easy on an international stage to just say “so and so should decide these regions fates”, that would ultimately lead to a lot of fighting I think. I could try to fit conservation into the resolution somewhere, although I’m unsure where to put it, maybe in the bullet points? I’ll have to think on it.

You can pass a resolution that avoids the controversial aspects of this topic, but that doesn't avert the controversy; it just kicks the can down the road. Regions without clear native leadership are the ones that can benefit the most from your resolution, but only if you provide a basis for helping them.

Stepping back on the Liberation issue was the right call, but it's also left your proposal light on substance. You could pass it as is and put another feather in your cap, but it's not going to have any real impact. A framework for intervention has the potential to make a real difference by empowering concerned players to take coordinated action.

[Lenlyvit]

The only qualm I have in empowering others to make a decision where no native community exists anymore is who will have that power? It’s not so easy on an international stage to just say “so and so should decide these regions fates”, that would ultimately lead to a lot of fighting I think. I could try to fit conservation into the resolution somewhere, although I’m unsure where to put it, maybe in the bullet points? I’ll have to think on it.

You can pass a resolution that avoids the controversial aspects of this topic, but that doesn't avert the controversy; it just kicks the can down the road. Regions without clear native leadership are the ones that can benefit the most from your resolution, but only if you provide a basis for helping them.

Stepping back on the Liberation issue was the right call, but it's also left your proposal light on substance. You could pass it as is and put another feather in your cap, but it's not going to have any real impact. A framework for intervention has the potential to make a real difference by empowering concerned players to take coordinated action.

I've tried working it into the draft, as well as the idea of a historical society and conservation instead of preservation. I don't really know how it flows, so any ideas on it would help.

[Xanthal]

Segregating it would be advisable, to emphasize the special circumstances to which such actions are applicable. Perhaps after the end of the current text with a preamble to the effect of "In the event no legitimate native leadership of a Historical Region exists, the Security Council sanctions et cetera, et cetera."

[Lenlyvit]

Segregating it would be advisable, to emphasize the special circumstances to which such actions are applicable. Perhaps after the end of the current text with a preamble to the effect of "In the event no legitimate native leadership of a Historical Region exists, the Security Council sanctions et cetera, et cetera."

That was actually a good idea. I’ve tried to do this suggestion, and if the wording flows really well while reading it I think it might work.

[Lenlyvit]

I'm just going to gently bump this...

[Xanthal]

I don't hate it, but I think we can do better. I don't know how much of a hurry you're in at this point, but I'm going to have a ton of free time next week if you're interested in collaborating.

[Lenlyvit]

I don't hate it, but I think we can do better. I don't know how much of a hurry you're in at this point, but I'm going to have a ton of free time next week if you're interested in collaborating.

I can wait if you have ideas, just telegram me when you have time.

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

I think the whole draft would be better if you delved into the history of some of these regions and show why they're so significant aside from just being old, and just reduce all the stating this society that to a singular clause at the end to fulfill the operative clause requirements.

[Lenlyvit]

I think the whole draft would be better if you delved into the history of some of these regions and show why they're so significant aside from just being old, and just reduce all the stating this society that to a singular clause at the end to fulfill the operative clause requirements.

I don't have any room to do that. As it sits now, the proposal has 4,573 characters. That's 427 characters short of the limit of 5,000 characters. That's not enough room to delve into any regional history, let alone all of the regions I've listed. If you have some way to do it without losing content in the proposal I'm all ears, but I don't see a way myself. The whole premise around this resolution is the age of the regions in question and conserving them and their histories.

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

I think the whole draft would be better if you delved into the history of some of these regions and show why they're so significant aside from just being old, and just reduce all the stating this society that to a singular clause at the end to fulfill the operative clause requirements.

I don't have any room to do that. As it sits now, the proposal has 4,573 characters. That's 427 characters short of the limit of 5,000 characters. That's not enough room to delve into any regional history, let alone all of the regions I've listed. If you have some way to do it without losing content in the proposal I'm all ears, but I don't see a way myself. The whole premise around this resolution is the age of the regions in question and conserving them and their histories.

You don't have to do it to all, but maybe to some. Also, you can save character count by purging all the region tags and like I said all the 'establish this society' preservation guidelines. But up to you

[Xanthal]

Here's something I threw together tonight. Probably in need of refinement, but it should give you a basic idea of where my brain is at.

Sanctions the creation by concerned nations of Caretaker Conservation Administrations (CCAs) to govern regions of historical interest where no legitimate native leaders exist, subject to the following conditions.

• CCAs may include nations not native to the region they govern, but these must move to the region for the duration of their participation in the CCA.
• CCAs must operate independently and membership cannot be limited or denied based on outside affiliations or lack thereof.
• CCAs are obliged to recruit for and promote active participation in the region to establish new native stakeholders.
• The express end goal of a CCA is to establish a healthy region with independent native leadership. Once conditions for such are met, the CCA must subordinate itself to the native administration.
• To avoid the appearance of nepotism, members of the CCA and their affiliates are discouraged from claiming native status.
• The Security Council may pass additional resolutions to define or expand the framework for regional conservation.
• The Security Council may pass resolutions enforcing compliance with these and whatever other conditions it may set for the conduct of CCAs, which are required to abide by its decisions.

[Unibot III]

Just a few thoughts on Xanthal’s post:

- I like it! It will need some vetting but the important points are there, and the creation of such a workgroup is very necessary to accomplish the goal of effective and purposeful historical conservation. When there isn’t much more than a grain of a community left in these regions, the conservation effort must be taken on instead by willing international volunteers.

- I think the name may need a rethink. The group may be more successful in its goals and encounter less resistance/opposition if its name appears “friendly” and “soft” rather than “hard” and “technical.” I hope that makes sense. Stuff like “… Administration” or “… Authority” or “…Agency” or “… Caretaker” conjures up an image of a top-down bureaucracy, where something lighter like, I dunno, “Friends of NationStates” or the “World Conservation Society” is more disarming and conjures up images of volunteers, NGOs, and grassroots mobilization.

- The length of these paragraphs may be a problem simply for the sake of word count. Perhaps you’d want one smaller clause in this resolution as an enabling clause, then a resolution co-authored by Xanthal and Lenylvit (? — any volunteers ) spelling out the wider framework for the group which made use of some of the language above? Provided the resolutions could work independent of one another, it wouldn’t amount to a “House of Cards.”

[Lenlyvit]

I kind of like Xanthals general idea, but Unibot is correct that it won't fit within the resolution unless I cut out all of the bbcode within it. The best I can think of is adding a clause at the end that states:

Observes that a resolution should be written after the passage of this one in order to outline the creation of an interregional historical society referenced above since such guidelines cannot be included within this resolution.