[PASSED] Commend 10kI - The Revival, The Conclusion.

[Mahaj]

Ok, Mr Grumpy, I voted against the commend 10ki as well. I have nothing good to say about the bureaucratic dictatorship of 10000 Islands, (well not much at least the current delegate Ananke II is more open than Grub). TITO is sanctioned bullying, the words hypocrisy and 'social chauvinism' spring to mind. To top it off, the founder only wants compliant, agreeable sheep in his region, that's where the contempt lay, not with Mike's message.

Well, that's an entirely different argument than "GO USE THE GA TO PAT EACH OTHER ON THE BACK NOT THE SC," isn't it?

it wasn't HIM that said that.

but yeah.

[Reseda Island]

they don't deserve it

[A mean old man]

it wasn't HIM that said that.

Yes, although he was quoting it.

[Kulaloe]

Not voting in this one as it involves a key player in the defender community. Since the Grandnarfolium of Kulaloe wishes to remain neutral in defender/invader relations, we cannot vote to commend this region, as noble as their other actions are.

[A mean old man]

Not voting in this one as it involves a key player in the defender community. Since the Grandnarfolium of Kulaloe wishes to remain neutral in defender/invader relations, we cannot vote to commend this region, as noble as their other actions are.

You sound like me when I first appeared in the SC.

Except I was blasting this sort of thing through a bullhorn repeatedly rather than just modestly stating my opinion and sitting down afterwards. I don't know as that has part of me has really changed all that much, to be honest.

[Unibot]

Not voting in this one as it involves a key player in the defender community. Since the Grandnarfolium of Kulaloe wishes to remain neutral in defender/invader relations, we cannot vote to commend this region, as noble as their other actions are.

Now who is being biased? I'll argue the same thing as I argued with A Mean Old Man, back when he was conducting his "neutrality" campaign: Is it not a biased position to not consider the many contributions of a nominee because of their involvement in the R/D subgame? Is that not discriminative? To not consider the contributions of a nominee on the basis of what area of the game they made them in, instead of the consequences and intent of those contributions? By not commending a nominee based on the fear of "picking a side", you discriminate between the hard work of defenders and the hard work of any other contributing demographic of nations on NationStates.

[The Travuersan Union]

they don't deserve it

The Travuersan Union mocks your lack of evidence.

[Reseda Island]

they don't deserve it

The Travuersan Union mocks your lack of evidence.

there founder is a hypocrite, who holds a region as his trophy now I know this game has been around for a while, but have people forgotten the game play so much that they think that a founder stopping a raid on his region is impressive, which is grub's big reason for why he claims to hold on to that region, because its not that hard for a region with a founder to stop it self from being taken over, in fact its so easy, I don't get why its 10,000 islands big historical rally point, grub is a hypocrite, and for that his entire cause is corrupt as long as he holds that region what ever its called as a trophy, but if that's ok for him to do, but no one else, then it proves just how hypocritical defenders are, which of course makes me Right.

[Naginii]

Not voting in this one as it involves a key player in the defender community. Since the Grandnarfolium of Kulaloe wishes to remain neutral in defender/invader relations, we cannot vote to commend this region, as noble as their other actions are.

Now who is being biased? I'll argue the same thing as I argued with A Mean Old Man, back when he was conducting his "neutrality" campaign: Is it not a biased position to not consider the many contributions of a nominee because of their involvement in the R/D subgame? Is that not discriminative? To not consider the contributions of a nominee on the basis of what area of the game they made them in, instead of the consequences and intent of those contributions? By not commending a nominee based on the fear of "picking a side", you discriminate between the hard work of defenders and the hard work of any other contributing demographic of nations on NationStates.

Bias is one of those things that seems to be based on your point-of-view, and here it would seem over 2k WA nations don't perceive there to be any. That doesn't invalidate the claim of bias, however, just because you can't see it. You're not the most objective lot in here.

" By not commending a nominee based on the fear of "picking a side", you discriminate between the hard work of defenders and the hard work of any other contributing demographic of nations on NationStates."

Sure, I agree. So, how about commending all the hard work of Raiders in acquiring a region, awakening it from it's stupor, getting the defenders something to do, and elevating the game as more a contest and competition -- that's what RL geopolitics is all about, or at least it was the last time I listened to NPR, the Beeb or read the papers. Raiders have been largely excluded from these efforts to get similar resos through, which makes this reso, or at least parts of it, very biased -- and that taint affects the SC as well.

Please consider: The commend 10,000 Islands reso can be seen to be biased because it's been co-authored by at least one member of the subject region, and uses successes against raiders as a key piece of it's justification. In doing so, it therefore places the SC squarely on the Defender side of the R/D game -- when this body is supposed to be neutral.

Raiding is, say it with me here, legal. Covered in the FAQ. Supported by the game's creator. I know, broken record...but in allowing defender SC Commendation resos, while steadfastly excluding raiders from the ability to be similarly appropriately recognized for their contributions on the gamemap, means that this WA body is supporting one side of the game, one group of players, above the rest. It's beatifying one group, demonizing another -- and BOTH are playing within the purview of the game.

That's bias.

However, despite voting against this reso, none of the above means I'm opposed to commending 10k Islands -- having battled with them for years, I've come to have a great respect and admiration for their dedication, discipline and their battlefield capability. They're some of the finest operators in the game and they've earned my raider-respect. Having said that, what they do in competition against me and my fellow raiders shouldn't be part of this resolution for all the reasons I've tried to lay-out above.

For as long as this group refuses to recognize my side, the raiding side, of the R/D game, there is no reasonable, logical, ethical or fair justification that can be made for the WA's SC commending of a region that is synonymous, indeed defines, the defending side.

10,000 Islands is a robust, essential, vital and creative member of the NS community, made up of dedicated and disciplined nations. Only a fool would argue against that. In my opinion, they should be commended for those qualities, rather than be endorsed because they're defenders. Pass this resolution written as it is, and you set this group up to be a viewed, legitimately, as a defender-biased organization.


*chucks two cents into tip-jar*

[Socialist EU]

Now who is being biased? I'll argue the same thing as I argued with A Mean Old Man, back when he was conducting his "neutrality" campaign: Is it not a biased position to not consider the many contributions of a nominee because of their involvement in the R/D subgame? Is that not discriminative? To not consider the contributions of a nominee on the basis of what area of the game they made them in, instead of the consequences and intent of those contributions? By not commending a nominee based on the fear of "picking a side", you discriminate between the hard work of defenders and the hard work of any other contributing demographic of nations on NationStates.

Bias is one of those things that seems to be based on your point-of-view, and here it would seem over 2k WA nations don't perceive there to be any. That doesn't invalidate the claim of bias, however, just because you can't see it. You're not the most objective lot in here.

" By not commending a nominee based on the fear of "picking a side", you discriminate between the hard work of defenders and the hard work of any other contributing demographic of nations on NationStates."

Sure, I agree. So, how about commending all the hard work of Raiders in acquiring a region, awakening it from it's stupor, getting the defenders something to do, and elevating the game as more a contest and competition -- that's what RL geopolitics is all about, or at least it was the last time I listened to NPR, the Beeb or read the papers. Raiders have been largely excluded from these efforts to get similar resos through, which makes this reso, or at least parts of it, very biased -- and that taint affects the SC as well.

Please consider: The commend 10,000 Islands reso can be seen to be biased because it's been co-authored by at least one member of the subject region, and uses successes against raiders as a key piece of it's justification. In doing so, it therefore places the SC squarely on the Defender side of the R/D game -- when this body is supposed to be neutral.

Raiding is, say it with me here, legal. Covered in the FAQ. Supported by the game's creator. I know, broken record...but in allowing defender SC Commendation resos, while steadfastly excluding raiders from the ability to be similarly appropriately recognized for their contributions on the gamemap, means that this WA body is supporting one side of the game, one group of players, above the rest. It's beatifying one group, demonizing another -- and BOTH are playing within the purview of the game.

That's bias.

However, despite voting against this reso, none of the above means I'm opposed to commending 10k Islands -- having battled with them for years, I've come to have a great respect and admiration for their dedication, discipline and their battlefield capability. They're some of the finest operators in the game and they've earned my raider-respect. Having said that, what they do in competition against me and my fellow raiders shouldn't be part of this resolution for all the reasons I've tried to lay-out above.

For as long as this group refuses to recognize my side, the raiding side, of the R/D game, there is no reasonable, logical, ethical or fair justification that can be made for the WA's SC commending of a region that is synonymous, indeed defines, the defending side.

10,000 Islands is a robust, essential, vital and creative member of the NS community, made up of dedicated and disciplined nations. Only a fool would argue against that. In my opinion, they should be commended for those qualities, rather than be endorsed because they're defenders. Pass this resolution written as it is, and you set this group up to be a viewed, legitimately, as a defender-biased organization.


*chucks two cents into tip-jar*

Well, you become what you oppose. I cannot see much difference between 10ki and raider regions, because as far as I can see it is all black and white as 10ki raids regions, but oh yes, somehow their raids are good raids, benevolent raids even, raider region raids bad ones. Sure 10000 Islands does not password protect their region, but if they were smaller I'm sure it would be password protected, the sheer quantity of course renders that action unnecessary. As I think I said before, the region has nothing but contempt for dissenting opinions so no one should not be surprised to hear that Banjection is more frequent in 10ki than many people realise; it is just less noticeable due the greater quantity of nations in that region than in raider regions, (in some cases banjection may be even more frequent). In fact I have personally witnessed gloating by other 'nations' in 10ki about 'banjection' with posts on the RMB such as 'get the banjection cannon ready', hardly the saints that people may have been led to believe.

And the last time I checked, only 2,263 vote for the commendation out of 11,203 WA members therefore, it doesn't take a mathematician to see that this is well under 50%, in fact, only about a fifth approve of the resolution.

In RL Lenin said: 'The social-chauvinists repeat the bourgeois deception of the people that the war is being waged to protect the freedom and existence of nations, and thereby they go over to the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. In the category of social-chauvinists are those who justify and embellish the governments and bourgeoisie of one of the belligerent groups of powers, as well as those who, like Kautsky, argue that the Socialists of all the belligerent powers have an equal right to ―defend the fatherland‖. Social-chauvinism, being actually defence of the privileges, advantages, robbery and violence of one‘s ―own‖ (or every) imperialist bourgeoisie, is the utter betrayal of all socialist convictions and of the decision of the Basle International Socialist Congress.' Lenin, socialism and war.
http://www.marxists.de/war/lenin-war/ch1.htm
We can see parallels between RP and RL as the real bias is ideological bias within this game.

[Ballotonia]

So, how about commending all the hard work of Raiders in acquiring a region, awakening it from it's stupor, getting the defenders something to do, and elevating the game as more a contest and competition [...]

That's what Condemns are for. If you choose to play the part of the barbarian pillaging and plundering invader, do not expect a Commend. BTW, your rhetoric strikes me as highly odd... In my mind I'm seeing the image of a viking carrying a blood-stained axe and a bag full of loot strolling out of the smoking remnants of a raided peaceful village, wondering why none of the victims ever thanked him for 'livening up the place'.

[...] it therefore places the SC squarely on the Defender side of the R/D game -- when this body is supposed to be neutral.

Neutral?!? Of course the SC isn't supposed to be neutral. It's a body politic dishing out the majority opinion of thousands of WA nations. The majority opinion seems to me that Invaders receive Condemns and Defenders receive Commends. If you wish to change that, I suggest improving your PR. Admittedly a difficult thing to do, considering the image of a viking carrying a blood-stained axe...

Ballotonia

[Socialist EU]

So, how about commending all the hard work of Raiders in acquiring a region, awakening it from it's stupor, getting the defenders something to do, and elevating the game as more a contest and competition [...]

That's what Condemns are for. If you choose to play the part of the barbarian pillaging and plundering invader, do not expect a Commend. BTW, your rhetoric strikes me as highly odd... In my mind I'm seeing the image of a viking carrying a blood-stained axe and a bag full of loot strolling out of the smoking remnants of a raided peaceful village, wondering why none of the victims ever thanked him for 'livening up the place'.

[...] it therefore places the SC squarely on the Defender side of the R/D game -- when this body is supposed to be neutral.

Neutral?!? Of course the SC isn't supposed to be neutral. It's a body politic dishing out the majority opinion of thousands of WA nations. The majority opinion seems to me that Invaders receive Condemns and Defenders receive Commends. If you wish to change that, I suggest improving your PR. Admittedly a difficult thing to do, considering the image of a viking carrying a blood-stained axe...

Ballotonia

Majority vote for 'Commend 10Ki'? Only one fifth WA members voted for this resolution, the majority abstained. The turnout for voting is barely 30%, Around 70% consistently do not vote on SC resolutions, (including GA resolutions). Clearly not a 'body politic dishing out the majority opinion of thousands of WA nations', like you say.

[Ballotonia]

Majority vote for 'Commend 10Ki'? Only one fifth WA members voted for this resolution, the majority abstained. The turnout for voting is barely 30%, Around 70% consistently do not vote on SC resolutions, (including GA resolutions). Clearly not a 'body politic dishing out the majority opinion of thousands of WA nations', like you say.

Yes, it's the majority of those who bother to vote at all. If this vote has a statistically significant lower turnout than other votes, then you may have a point and there may be some conclusion to be reached. Right now it seems to me to be voting as regular (with Ananke II abstaining being the only difference from other votes).

WA nations (right now 3300+ votes recorded, from 1700+ WA Members and 190 Delegates) who care to be involved in the voting process ARE providing their opinion through a majority vote. It's the majority of voters who decide, which is always the case when a vote takes place. It's a pity not more WA members/delegates are involved in the process, but that's their choice and we'll have to accept that. We do not know what the non-voters opinions are, just the opinions of the ones which DID cast a vote.

Ballotonia

[Unibot]

Now who is being biased? I'll argue the same thing as I argued with A Mean Old Man, back when he was conducting his "neutrality" campaign: Is it not a biased position to not consider the many contributions of a nominee because of their involvement in the R/D subgame? Is that not discriminative? To not consider the contributions of a nominee on the basis of what area of the game they made them in, instead of the consequences and intent of those contributions? By not commending a nominee based on the fear of "picking a side", you discriminate between the hard work of defenders and the hard work of any other contributing demographic of nations on NationStates.

[...]Sure, I agree. So, how about commending all the hard work of Raiders in acquiring a region, awakening it from it's stupor, getting the defenders something to do, and elevating the game as more a contest and competition -- that's what RL geopolitics is all about, or at least it was the last time I listened to NPR, the Beeb or read the papers. Raiders have been largely excluded from these efforts to get similar resos through, which makes this reso, or at least parts of it, very biased -- and that taint affects the SC as well.
[...]

I didn't say that, I said that just become someone contributes in the "R/D" game, doesn't mean they don't deserve a commendation, because the "consequences and intent" of those contributions is what the Security Council focuses on. I don't see how the consequences and intent of most raider's actions are inline with what the Security Council had in mind when it said it stood for peace and goodwill between regions.. however if I'm wrong, I'd be the first to support a commendation.

[Darkesia]

TWP will abstain

[Informing the Masses]

The Travuersan Union mocks your lack of evidence.

there founder is a hypocrite, who holds a region as his trophy now I know this game has been around for a while, but have people forgotten the game play so much that they think that a founder stopping a raid on his region is impressive, which is grub's big reason for why he claims to hold on to that region, because its not that hard for a region with a founder to stop it self from being taken over, in fact its so easy, I don't get why its 10,000 islands big historical rally point, grub is a hypocrite, and for that his entire cause is corrupt as long as he holds that region what ever its called as a trophy, but if that's ok for him to do, but no one else, then it proves just how hypocritical defenders are, which of course makes me Right.

Informing the Masses joins The Travuersan Union in its mocking Reseda Island for its lack of evidence.

Mainly because when 10000 Islands was raided THERE WERE NO FOUNDERS IN NATIONSTATES.

[Reseda Island]

there founder is a hypocrite, who holds a region as his trophy now I know this game has been around for a while, but have people forgotten the game play so much that they think that a founder stopping a raid on his region is impressive, which is grub's big reason for why he claims to hold on to that region, because its not that hard for a region with a founder to stop it self from being taken over, in fact its so easy, I don't get why its 10,000 islands big historical rally point, grub is a hypocrite, and for that his entire cause is corrupt as long as he holds that region what ever its called as a trophy, but if that's ok for him to do, but no one else, then it proves just how hypocritical defenders are, which of course makes me Right.

Informing the Masses joins The Travuersan Union in its mocking Reseda Island for its lack of evidence.

Mainly because when 10000 Islands was raided THERE WERE NO FOUNDERS IN NATIONSTATES.

how childish can you be? it's still hypocrisy on there part, but hey I guess they are allowed to be that way, because most of you probably don't even know what the word means.

[Wanjestay]

Informing the Masses joins The Travuersan Union in its mocking Reseda Island for its lack of evidence.

Mainly because when 10000 Islands was raided THERE WERE NO FOUNDERS IN NATIONSTATES.

how childish can you be? it's still hypocrisy on there part, but hey I guess they are allowed to be that way, because most of you probably don't even know what the word means.

If the delegate from Resada Island can provide so evidence of poorly worded assertations, the mockery may stop. Until then however, whilst I see no reason to join in the mockery, I shall not seek to stop it.

On a more related note, I shall say this of 1000 Islands: Since creating and locating a puppet of mine there in July, I have had no reason to complain. I have seen no evidence of the tyranny indicated by the delegate. Nor have I seen anyone 'banjected'.

Now, if the delegate can provide evidence for the otherwise in the next 19 hours of voting, I may be convinced to change my vote. Until then, we shall consider the matter settled.

I cede the floor.

Lawrence Aims, WA Delegate from Wanjestay

[Reseda Island]

how childish can you be? it's still hypocrisy on there part, but hey I guess they are allowed to be that way, because most of you probably don't even know what the word means.

If the delegate from Resada Island can provide so evidence of poorly worded assertations, the mockery may stop. Until then however, whilst I see no reason to join in the mockery, I shall not seek to stop it.

On a more related note, I shall say this of 1000 Islands: Since creating and locating a puppet of mine there in July, I have had no reason to complain. I have seen no evidence of the tyranny indicated by the delegate. Nor have I seen anyone 'banjected'.

Now, if the delegate can provide evidence for the otherwise in the next 19 hours of voting, I may be convinced to change my vote. Until then, we shall consider the matter settled.

I cede the floor.

Lawrence Aims, WA Delegate from Wanjestay

the fact remains grub holds control of the region "empire of power" as a trophy, while preaching that anyone who trys to take over regions is evil, and they defenders must stop the evil, that alone should be unacceptable, he's passing judgment on others while committing the same crime.

[Parti Ouvrier]

how childish can you be? it's still hypocrisy on there part, but hey I guess they are allowed to be that way, because most of you probably don't even know what the word means.

If the delegate from Resada Island can provide so evidence of poorly worded assertations, the mockery may stop. Until then however, whilst I see no reason to join in the mockery, I shall not seek to stop it.

On a more related note, I shall say this of 1000 Islands: Since creating and locating a puppet of mine there in July, I have had no reason to complain. I have seen no evidence of the tyranny indicated by the delegate. Nor have I seen anyone 'banjected'.

Now, if the delegate can provide evidence for the otherwise in the next 19 hours of voting, I may be convinced to change my vote. Until then, we shall consider the matter settled.

I cede the floor.

Lawrence Aims, WA Delegate from Wanjestay

As you can see here quite clearly: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=grub
Grub ejected and banned me for 'flippant' comments and my 'attitude', perhaps you should check on Grubs page and you will see Severania has recently been removed from the ban list at roughly the same time as Severania voted for the 'Commend 10Ki' resolution, coincidence, I think not!

[NERVUN]

The acting Sec. General would like to remind the delegates to please mind the heated rhetoic less the automatic fire system come on and proceeds to send the delegates into the reflecting pool purely for their own safety.

(Mod OOC: Stay frosty gang, don't let the heat of the moment drive you to something you would later have cause to regret).

[Kalibarr]

People do realize that Grub isn't all of 10KI right?

[A mean old man]

People do realize that Grub isn't all of 10KI right?

Obviously not.

I would like to remind the debaters here that there are currently around 570 other WA nations in this region, and that, while Grub is a prominent influence in the region, his actions and decisions do not speak for the opinions of all his regionmates, and can often contradict the opinions of 10kI's members (and even some of its senior members! OMGWTFBBQ! The region is not a hivemind, you know).

I either don't know enough of Grub's methods or am not having the spiritual visions of his true, dark nature, which some of the others here appear to be subject to, so I can't verify or deny any of the claims made regarding him here besides the ones regarding his possession of an empty former raider region. I can say that I casually disagree with his decision to hold Empire of Power in the way that he is doing so, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over it. He's decided to hold onto the region and that decision probably won't change any time soon if at all. All I can say for sure is that voting against the commendation of 10000 Islands simply because of what one believes to be a few poor decisions made by the region's founder is utterly absurd.

[Parti Ouvrier]

People do realize that Grub isn't all of 10KI right?

Obviously not.

I would like to remind the debaters here that there are currently around 570 other WA nations in this region, and that, while Grub is a prominent influence in the region, his actions and decisions do not speak for the opinions of all his regionmates, and can often contradict the opinions of 10kI's members (and even some of its senior members! OMGWTFBBQ! The region is not a hivemind, you know).

I either don't know enough of Grub's methods or am not having the spiritual visions of his true, dark nature, which some of the others here appear to be subject to, so I can't verify or deny any of the claims made regarding him here besides the ones regarding his possession of an empty former raider region. I can say that I casually disagree with his decision to hold Empire of Power in the way that he is doing so, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over it. He's decided to hold onto the region and that decision probably won't change any time soon if at all. All I can say for sure is that voting against the commendation of 10000 Islands simply because of what one believes to be a few poor decisions made by the region's founder is utterly absurd.

Of course Grub isn't all 10Ki. I know I certainly did not say that, and I certainly did not say 10Ki is totalitarian. What I did say earlier is that as Grub as sole administrator, he has bureaucratic control, hence the lack of self-criticism and triumphant-ism. It Is well to remember that Ananke II has popular support, Grub does not, it should be Ananke II that makes more decisions through a democratic decision making process. And what is wrong with voting to eject nations on an inclusive forum in a region( unless more seriously, they are a known raider)? You say nations contradict Grub, but Grub makes the decisions, they do not, I think you missed the point there.

And I criticized Grub's forum for not being inclusive, (I found it impossible to register on it). I also thought the TITO battle stars requirement and 50 forum posts to run for delegate was restrictive,(that is why they only have pathetic two nations running for the delegacy) couple that with me being unable to register and thus vote in the elections I was effectively disenfranchised. When I made these criticisms on the RMB I was ejected and banned. Thus, through Grub I was censored, disenfranchised and not allowed free speech, freedom to criticize, nor freedom of expression. This is the same Grub that talks highly of freedom, 'Long live freedom' is his slogan(see his final post in Empire of Power ), except he does not practice it. Bad decisions you may say, but I would say it is about being unprincipled, authoritarian and bureaucratic, there is nothing absurd about that, controlling, yes, absurd, no. I think the fact that he holds 'Empire of power' is telling, because it is connected to that other 'Empire of power' 10ki, an imperialist region, the word imperium is in fact Latin for Empire. 'his actions and decisions do not speak for the opinions of all his regionmates,' which surely proves that 10Ki is undemocratic.

Conceit leads to complacency.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The Security Council resolution "Commend 10000 Islands" was passed 3,482 votes to 1,330.

With the passage of the resolution Ms. Harper hopes that the reinstatement of the commendation will resolve the issues once and for all.

Yours etc,