NationStates

Current draft (Dec 6 2022, 16:32 UTC):

The Security Council,

Noting that there are a select number of regions known as "Warzones", which differ from standard regions significantly,

Knowing that due to their status as Warzones, they have no Founder, their Delegates cannot impose barriers on regional entry as a whole, and bans on specific nations are only effective for a limited amount of time,

Stating that these traits are made known to any nation wishing to relocate themselves to a Warzone, and that nations that choose to relocate to a Warzone are thus fully aware of these facts,

Believing that the unique traits of the Warzones leads to eternal conflict within them, due to their lack of permanent bans,

Further believing that it is unlikely for the Warzones to ever become threats to world security, due to their eternally raging internal conflicts,

Hereby declares the Security Council's recognition of the unique traits of the Warzones, as well as their status as non-threatening bodies to the Security Council.

Yes, a totally pointless Declaration and most likely illegal for trying to impose conditions on the SC.

new version of draft taking above post into account (see original post)

Jang Er, the Serdequran representative, is in the process of coming to his senses after making the unforgivable mistake of having passed out from exhaustion in the Security Council of all places, when a copy of this draft gets passed to him. Squinting at it, he snorts derisively and grabs for the much-neglected microphone at his desk.

"The multiverse's warzones have both enjoyed long periods of peace and hosted nations which engaged in interregional hijackings, the latter of which I thought this body was supposed to, you know, condemn, rather than preemptively dismantle its sensibilities to. Why should any nation with a delegation here support declaring the SC's ignorance of history and of potential future circumstances which might merit its attentions, simply on account of that history, or the origins of such circumstances, having to do with the warzones?"

Grumbling, he sits back in the horrifically uncomfortable chair a bit before regret sets in.

Mynation wrote:new version of draft taking above post into account (see original post)

What even are you trying to achieve? Declarations should at the very least take into consideration something noteworthy, but your bare-bones draft doesn't seem to have enough content and states the obvious.

Against, please leave us alone! We don't need some declaration that ultimately gets us the wrong kind of attention! You only risk our safety. AND if you actually did look into our regions, you'd notice we have been fairly stable for quite some time. You are putting all of us warzoners in jeopardy.

Warzone Europe Crisis Prevention wrote:Against, please leave us alone! We don't need some declaration that ultimately gets us the wrong kind of attention! You only risk our safety. AND if you actually did look into our regions, you'd notice we have been fairly stable for quite some time. You are putting all of us warzoners in jeopardy.

I wouldn’t worry. Even if the OP manages to campaign it to vote I don’t believe it will get any further. It’s a very low quality proposal and they are generally defeated.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Warzone Europe Crisis Prevention wrote:Against, please leave us alone! We don't need some declaration that ultimately gets us the wrong kind of attention! You only risk our safety. AND if you actually did look into our regions, you'd notice we have been fairly stable for quite some time. You are putting all of us warzoners in jeopardy.

I wouldn’t worry. Even if the OP manages to campaign it to vote I don’t believe it will get any further. It’s a very low quality proposal and they are generally defeated.

I know this isn't going to go anywhere, but it still leaves an annoyance on every warzone region that now has to defend themselves from unnecessary and useless attention, this does nothing but harm the people it's trying to mention about, shameful that they think this is worthy of being submitted. Warzones have been rather peaceful for the past year.

Warzone Europe Crisis Prevention wrote:Warzones have been rather peaceful for the past year.

No idea what this is on about. *Every* Warzone has been raided and cleared out at least once, including the two then-longest delegacies ever in a Warzone (WZSB in March, WZAS in November), and many (all of them sans Asia) were raided and cleared multiple times/successively in the spring as a part of a raider campaign to demoralize their communities.

Whoever is behind this nation should do some research, or at least pay more attention.

- Q

Warzone Europe Crisis Prevention wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:I wouldn’t worry. Even if the OP manages to campaign it to vote I don’t believe it will get any further. It’s a very low quality proposal and they are generally defeated.

I know this isn't going to go anywhere, but it still leaves an annoyance on every warzone region that now has to defend themselves from unnecessary and useless attention, this does nothing but harm the people it's trying to mention about, shameful that they think this is worthy of being submitted. Warzones have been rather peaceful for the past year.

Can’t legislate for badge hunters I’m afraid.

The Flition wrote:

Warzone Europe Crisis Prevention wrote:Warzones have been rather peaceful for the past year.

No idea what this is on about. *Every* Warzone has been raided and cleared out at least once, including the two then-longest delegacies ever in a Warzone (WZSB in March, WZAS in November), and many (all of them sans Asia) were raided and cleared multiple times/successively in the spring as a part of a raider campaign to demoralize their communities.

Whoever is behind this nation should do some research, or at least pay more attention.

- Q

The problem with this is of course it leads to more and more instability. We know we can be targets for raiders, always has and always will be the case, but this leads us to more trouble from a possible campaign again, and opens the door to more people seeking to conquer or raid us, I am more inactive on Warzoning than most but this is not helpful at all.

Frankly this declaration doesn't elaborate on much and isn't that well written. I will not be supporting it.

Savonir wrote:Frankly this declaration doesn't elaborate on much and isn't that well written. I will not be supporting it.

Pretty much stating the obvious about warzones and nothing more. The warzone community also doesn't want the wrong kind of attention in this post:

Warzone Europe Crisis Prevention wrote:Against, please leave us alone! We don't need some declaration that ultimately gets us the wrong kind of attention! You only risk our safety. AND if you actually did look into our regions, you'd notice we have been fairly stable for quite some time. You are putting all of us warzoners in jeopardy.

Personally I am all for bloating the Security Council up with useless declarations. The moderators will have 25% of their work removed .

The Universe World wrote:Personally I am all for bloating the Security Council up with useless declarations. The moderators will have 25% of their work removed .

And then the site makes money off of those who campaign on top of it to get the rubber stampers on board.

Our analysis of this resolution has come to the conclusion it doesn't really do anything. It simply states warzones exist, and defines, vaguely, what a warzone is. This resolution serves no actual nor symbolic purpose. It is just a definition. We see no reason to pass this. There is little more to say. We suggest the resolution be re-drafted, with official recommendations on how we should handle warzones. Or perhaps an official stance on the importance of warzones. Currently, however, this resolution serves seemingly no purpose. We feel passing it would run the risk of contradicting more helpful resolutions about warzones in the future. So we vote against.

This could have been a Dispatch.

Wait, how'd this get through the queue?

RiderSyl wrote:Wait, how'd this get through the queue?

Campaigning to get rubber stamper delegates by a person looking for that sweet badge.

The Warzones are relatively stable. It's not like serious invasions are occurring often there.
I've voted against on my WA nation.

RiderSyl wrote:Wait, how'd this get through the queue?

I'm not even sure how, and I'm not even sure what this is about still, Warzones, they're a region that exists, cool. I just so happen to inhabit one of them for my main, cool.

Yeah, i tried reaching to this guy on Discord, he either ignored me or didn't see it, But I left that discord anyways due to their lack of response.

Also, I have a feeling they just ignored everything said in this thread right before submitting it.

Outer Sparta wrote:

RiderSyl wrote:Wait, how'd this get through the queue?

Campaigning to get rubber stamper delegates by a person looking for that sweet badge.

Mind you I don’t think I’ve ever seen an author get a GA and SC proposal rubber stamped to vote at exactly the same time and then have both of them stomped.

Warms the cockles of your heart it does.

100% support for the hustle

Free Algerstonia wrote:100% support for the hustle

He is a hustler and got what he wanted, I'll give em that. Also wanted that attention as well.

Outer Sparta wrote:

Free Algerstonia wrote:100% support for the hustle

He is a hustler and got what he wanted, I'll give em that. Also wanted that attention as well.

Money is speech. Even in NationStates it seems.....