[PASSED] Liberate Eastern Europe

[Naivetry]

All that's missing is for those people looking to enforce the resolution to call themselves "The WA Army"

This.

The WA SC has diverted from it's original goals, it now seems that annoyed former delegates use the SC to try and punish their replacements. I'm quite sad that I did not vote against this horrible and wrong 'liberation'

Let's keep some perspective, folks. Despite its name, a Liberation (the resolution category) is not the same as a liberation (the military maneuver). A Liberation resolution does one thing and one thing only: it opens regional borders. The SC plays no role in liberations (the military maneuver) whatsoever, just as it plays no role in raiding.

No one can claim to enforce anything about these resolutions; the game code enforces them completely. There was a password. Now there isn't. And that is where the SC's involvement begins and ends.

[Dinkamana]

This.

The WA SC has diverted from it's original goals, it now seems that annoyed former delegates use the SC to try and punish their replacements. I'm quite sad that I did not vote against this horrible and wrong 'liberation'

Let's keep some perspective, folks. Despite its name, a Liberation (the resolution category) is not the same as a liberation (the military maneuver). A Liberation resolution does one thing and one thing only: it opens regional borders. The SC plays no role in liberations (the military maneuver) whatsoever, just as it plays no role in raiding.

No one can claim to enforce anything about these resolutions; the game code enforces them completely. There was a password. Now there isn't. And that is where the SC's involvement begins and ends.

Hes right so stop acting like the SC just took over the region

[Warzone Codger]

Let's keep some perspective, folks. Despite its name, a Liberation (the resolution category) is not the same as a liberation (the military maneuver). A Liberation resolution does one thing and one thing only: it opens regional borders. The SC plays no role in liberations (the military maneuver) whatsoever, just as it plays no role in raiding.

No one can claim to enforce anything about these resolutions; the game code enforces them completely. There was a password. Now there isn't. And that is where the SC's involvement begins and ends.

Heh, I said the "WA Army" thing in jest, it's not meant to be a serious insult some make it to be.

By "enforce" I'm alluding to nice grand reasons people like give as motivation for the liberation (open it up and let freedom ring, end the opression! let's bring peace to this region! etc) which removing the password through this resolution is only just one step in a overall plan.

It's probably more clear in cases like Belgium, the liberation's effect is rjust emoving passwords, but the resolution states stuff like "allow the rightful inhabitants of Belgium to reclaim their home." which requires more than just the liberation of password removal but the actual "enforcement" of driving the invaders out. These groups that are doing that based on the resolution, are kind of a "WA Army" don't you think?

[Naivetry]

He

First of all (and because I suspect controlling Kandarin's nation with its unique Commendation isn't going to help this any...):

Heh, I said the "WA Army" thing in jest, it's not meant to be a serious insult some make it to be.

By "enforce" I'm alluding to nice grand reasons people like give as motivation for the liberation (open it up and let freedom ring, end the opression! let's bring peace to this region! etc) which removing the password through this resolution is only just one step in a overall plan.

It's probably more clear in cases like Belgium, the liberation's effect is just removing passwords, but the resolution states stuff like "allow the rightful inhabitants of Belgium to reclaim their home." which requires more than just the liberation of password removal but the actual "enforcement" of driving the invaders out. These groups that are doing that based on the resolution, are kind of a "WA Army" don't you think?

No. That would be a serious misrepresentation of the relationship between the Security Council and defenders. Liberation resolutions are tools, whether for raiders, defenders, mercenaries, or regional politicians; they do not set the agenda of military organizations in the game, but rather are often authored by members of those organizations.

The WA doesn't have an army. The armies of NationStates have a legislature.

Sorry if that comes across as combative and/or needlessly pedantic; but I think the difference is important. There is and can be no plan expressed or implied in Liberation proposals beyond the immediate effects of removing the password; that's what Rule 3 is all about. But the players who initiated the proposal - as well as anyone else who feels so inclined - are perfectly free to construct their own plans around it should it pass.

[Darkesia]

Nai, it doesn't matter what language is inside a "Liberation" proposal. It is very simply the first step in an invasion plan. The rest is just smoke.
Institutionalized cheating; WA proposals that change mechanics; first step in an invasion plan...

Doesn't matter how you look at it. The words don't matter except in moderation's mind. They want you to put the bribe in a plain paper envelope instead of sending strippers to their home in broad daylight. *shrugs*
As it turns out morally ambiguous "defender" types are ok with that situation.

[A mean old man]

Wow! We've added strippers into the equation, now? Where are the strippers at? I'd like a few.

[Dinkamana]

Nai, it doesn't matter what language is inside a "Liberation" proposal. It is very simply the first step in an invasion plan. The rest is just smoke.
Institutionalized cheating; WA proposals that change mechanics; first step in an invasion plan...

Doesn't matter how you look at it. The words don't matter except in moderation's mind. They want you to put the bribe in a plain paper envelope instead of sending strippers to their home in broad daylight. *shrugs*
As it turns out morally ambiguous "defender" types are ok with that situation.

Last I checked this wasn't some huge super secret invasion planned by flobos with help from the SC

[Unibot]

Wow! We've added strippers into the equation, now? Where are the strippers at? I'd like a few.

Me too. *looks around*

Oh, heh -- can't help it! :

[Naivetry]

Nai, it doesn't matter what language is inside a "Liberation" proposal. It is very simply the first step in an invasion plan. The rest is just smoke.
Institutionalized cheating; WA proposals that change mechanics; first step in an invasion plan...

Doesn't matter how you look at it. The words don't matter except in moderation's mind. They want you to put the bribe in a plain paper envelope instead of sending strippers to their home in broad daylight. *shrugs*
As it turns out morally ambiguous "defender" types are ok with that situation.

Dark, you know as well as I do what the rules of region griefing used to be. You know that the SC comes nowhere close to evening out the massive shift in favor of password-imposing imperialists (whether raider or 'defender') that Influence introduced.

Resolutions that mess with game mechanics? Very true. So? Better that than leaving a crippled and stagnating system in place, unaltered and unalterable. First step in an invasion plan? Not necessarily, but very possibly... and why is that a bad thing? Raider, defender, or native, it doesn't matter - a Liberated region is equally open to everyone. When it comes to Liberations, the reasons for not passing one are relatively few... though again, this is coming from someone who would prefer that secret passwords be utterly abolished.

[Krioval]

Let me first begin by saying that I'm interested in hearing about the outcome of this resolution on this forum (or, if the discussion is on Gameplay, if somebody could TG me with the relevant threads when they are available). Until that point, I will try to keep my prejudice against this liberation in check. I might even (gasp!) change my mind. That said...

When it comes to Liberations, the reasons for not passing one are relatively few... though again, this is coming from someone who would prefer that secret passwords be utterly abolished.

I disagree with this. A liberation proposal amounts to a popular vote on the immigration status of a region. In a region with an active founder, I certainly don't see the harm, though I don't really see the benefit either, so that's a wash. In a region without an active founder, I can see why some would choose to limit who can and cannot enter their region as a way to "opt out" of the invasion/defense aspect of NS. The idea that "secret passwords" (I suppose there can be public passwords, but do those really count?) should be abolished completely seems extreme, and attempts to negate a particular style of gameplay. If there were only malicious use of secret passwords, I might be more inclined to agree, but one's idea of "openness" is another's experience of "my region is constantly trashed and I can't safely refound it".

I tend to think that the most appropriate use of liberation proposals is when a region is invaded by a hostile outside force, with subsequent secret passwording (and the implicit threat of region destruction if it continues for too long). There can be appropriate uses in internal conflicts as well, but the bar should be set high before imposing outside (SC) control over who can come and go - at the very least, I would expect extremely strong evidence that the internal conflict was started with malicious intent, that the current controller expects to do next to nothing productive with the region, and that a reasonable number of long-term residents of that region (a majority, and preferably more than two or three) are unduly harmed by the shift in power. The third reason by itself is at best questionable justification for liberation proposals.

Finally, the imposition of a liberation should improve the "quality of life" in the region, and updates as to the status of the region should be made accessible to the SC. This way, the voting public can determine which liberations "worked" and to what extent things improved.

[Warzone Codger]

No. That would be a serious misrepresentation of the relationship between the Security Council and defenders. Liberation resolutions are tools, whether for raiders, defenders, mercenaries, or regional politicians; they do not set the agenda of military organizations in the game, but rather are often authored by members of those organizations.

The WA doesn't have an army. The armies of NationStates have a legislature.

Sorry if that comes across as combative and/or needlessly pedantic; but I think the difference is important. There is and can be no plan expressed or implied in Liberation proposals beyond the immediate effects of removing the password; that's what Rule 3 is all about. But the players who initiated the proposal - as well as anyone else who feels so inclined - are perfectly free to construct their own plans around it should it pass.

GA Resolutions have the "URGES" clause, which allows writers of resolutions to say stuff about what they want to see happen, but has no effect on what nations are "REQUIRED or MANDATED" to do in the resolution. In the case of liberations the only thing they are allowed to be "REQUIRED" to do is remove passwords, but they can still do urges.

So following the same guide, the Liberation resolution has states reasons why the liberation is required is usually mixed with a whole lot of "urging", then the final operative clause to remove passwords.

Sure, the "urging" clauses don't have to be carried out. Whether they are carried out depends on the player. But when they are carried out, the group can claim they are carrying it out because of what's said in the resolution. Thus your "WA Army".

More generally though, I tend to agree with your position that there shouldn't be an "end-game" scenario - there has got to be a way to fight back as long as one is dedicated, or at least the end-game should be very difficult, so they really must intend to colonise it long term, and liberations help that.

[Metania]

I was half-tempted to try and repeal this based on the weasel words and questionable logic used therein, but the person it would benefit has already decided to accept it. So it would just be silly.

But I will be looking out for more weasel-worded, sort of questionable SC legislation to try and repeal in the future. Methinks some logic should be employed against the 'Outrage' rhetoric people like to throw around.

[Unibot]

But I will be looking out for more weasel-worded, sort of questionable SC legislation to try and repeal in the future.

You realize that almost all of the instances where there has been a confuffle about a "questionable" SC liberation at-to-vote.. things are better the day after it passes practically, and those who were claiming to be the long lost founders and the raider-supportive natives, are never heard of again. The majority of the questionableness is raised by invaders or people who unwittingly help them to create distrust in a resolution.

[Metania]

Oh, I don't doubt in the slightest that the refounding thing was questionable.

But it bugs me that the resolution goes "Yay, refounding" then goes "REFOUNDING BY THESE GUYZ IS EVIL, MUST STOP NOW" and then... doesn't suggest in the slightest that its plan is to, er, allow for refounding in the future.

The irony just kind of pokes me in the eye. It's like... "Refounding is good, but now I'm going to make refounding this region impossible." Then it starts throwing the word "outrage" around like cotton candy.

Of course, it took me far too long to come to this conclusion, so I will wait for another bill throwing those terms around and speak then, rather than now that all the people have left, the candles have burned out, and the fish has turned rotten.

[Unibot]

Oh, I don't doubt in the slightest that the refounding thing was questionable.

But it bugs me that the resolution goes "Yay, refounding" then goes "REFOUNDING BY THESE GUYZ IS EVIL, MUST STOP NOW" and then... doesn't suggest in the slightest that its plan is to, er, allow for refounding in the future.

The irony just kind of pokes me in the eye. It's like... "Refounding is good, but now I'm going to make refounding this region impossible." Then it starts throwing the word "outrage" around like cotton candy.

Of course, it took me far too long to come to this conclusion, so I will wait for another bill throwing those terms around and speak then, rather than now that all the people have left, the candles have burned out, and the fish has turned rotten.

Impressed that the natives of Eastern Europe are attempting to secure their region by refounding it,

Just because we're impressed by the moral character of said natives, doesn't mean that we think refounding is actually the safest thing to attempt at the present moment.

[Cinistra]

I hereby want to congratulate the honourable World Assembly Security Council by stripping the powers of a democratically elected WA delegate in favour of an angry minority. As a minister of the most authoritarian region of NS I will use this opportunity for express my gratitude to all the WA nations who took part in this collective act of authoritarianism. Eastern Europe is now at the mercy of any NS nation again, not only their quasi authoritarian WA delegate, Czech Mate.

[Unibot]

I hereby want to congratulate the honourable World Assembly Security Council by stripping the powers of a democratically elected WA delegate in favour of an angry minority. As a minister of the most authoritarian region of NS I will use this opportunity for express my gratitude to all the WA nations who took part in this collective act of authoritarianism. Eastern Europe is now at the mercy of any NS nation again, not only their quasi authoritarian WA delegate, Czech Mate.

This is the kind of half-baked rhetoric, Metania, that I enjoy the most. Personally he lost his credibility for me when, (1) he confused a democracy with a tyranny of majority that is void of minority rights, (2) was proud to refer to himself of the "most authoritarian region of NS", and then revealed that whole sentence was satirical, which suggests that he is the minister of the "most authoritarian region of NS", but is not actually proud with that feat and feels inadequate, (3) he confused "NS nation" with "WA nation" -- I seriously doubt that Eastern Europe has to be afraid of the Skeleton Army... (4) he admitted that Czech Mate was quasi authoritarian, which -- although true -- contradicts his earlier description of Czech as a "democratically elected WA delegate."

If the newbies are wondering, yes, these guys show up for every liberation.

When, "Liberate Free Thought" passed with a faulty time clock, Cinistra was there!

Who did manipulate with the time? Scandalous. It should been approx. 7 hours left! This is indeed fishy. So, this resolution must go back into the queue for another vote.

Known glitch?! I didn't know about it until I read all those posts. To withhold information from players, except all you insiders is indeed manipulation. Also, to let this glitch to continue influence game play is dishonesty. So, this is the way defenders cooperate with the Mods, biasing the gameplay to suit their own nefarious schemes.

And he had lots to say about that proposal!

[..] Defenders use arbitrary definitions to in order to give them a morally upper hand. An upper hand they don't deserve as stripping the WA delegate for his/hers legislate powers is tinkering with game mechanics, which I consider cheating. It would be equivalent to have a "Resurrect the king" in chess, after a check mate. So instead of admitting defeat, their method of reasoning is to label their opponents with morally biased nouns as "griefers", thus degrading their fellow players to "villains".

I personally weep for all those poor raiders, heh, fellow players who have been degraded to "villains".

When Utopia was being liberated from, heh, him... he protest furiously.

[..] As basis for their unrealistic claims, the nations of Ocean Pride, Debenture and Acacallis have
repeatedly named themselves "native", thus claimed that nations of this category holds superior rights
in regional life, as opposed to "non-natives". There exists no such term at all in NationStates. It's use
stems from pure ignorance and prejudice. The widespread use of the term is by no means any guarantee
for its correctness.The Alliance of Dictators' government refuses to base it's dealings with other parts,
who base their claims on pure fabrication! Thus, their claims being treated as "special cases" have no
basis in reality, and they will not be treated a "specials", but as the liars and villains they truly are.

Wait a second, we shouldn't call raiders out as villians, but it's totally okay to call natives out as liars and villians.. but.. but.. you just said..., alright fine, continue:

[..] The Honourable World Assembly Security Council may vote as they please
concerning the so-called "Liberate Utopia" resolution. The Alliance of Dictators'
government doesn't cave in to the bickering of liberals and hippies, their petty plotting
and politicing, and their decisions originated of such actions. On the contrary, The Alliance
of Dictators' government promise you that our glorious army of will stay in Utopia regardless
of the outcome of the vote.

The Honourable WA delegate of Utopia, Lustous Lemurs, has been given the following orders:

Termination of the so called "native" opposition in Utopia.
Termination of Utopia.
Termination of all foreign intruders not approved by the government of The Alliance
of Dictators.

Thanks for that promise, eh, and one other question, if intruders are "foreign" does that mean you're a native?

When we were repealling "Liberate Feudal Japan" to restore the power to the natives to refound, he had some words of wisdom to say as well:

The SC res #6 "Liberate Feudal Japan", clearly stated the any future pw protecting would be regarded as illegal (last period). The WA nations apparently did sleep when they let The SC res #7 pass. Regardless the motive of KoZ for pw protecting FJ, his actions is clearly illegal.

*pats Cinistra* It's okay, I know it isn't fair.

This jolly fellow has tons of wisdom for us, and I'm sure he'll continue to share it everytime he loses another attempt at trying to shut down a liberation, oh, and here's your moment of zen..

Regional sovereignty is no right. It's an effect caused by vigilant residents. Careless regions will be conquered. The weak die, the strong prevail. It's the law of nature.

Nice try, Krioval. I don't think you will succeed though. Unibot is the clever a manipulator.

[A mean old man]

After viewing the absurdity of some of the arguments against this liberation, I couldn't stop myself from making this.

I can has Pulitzer Prize?

On a different note, some of the arguments for it are pretty wacky as well. This post is just my casual reminder for some of us to maintain a firmer grip on reality.

[Metania]

Cinistra could certainly use the same coat of logic the proposal could have used before it was sent, heh.

Words like that are just kind of silly, as anyone can throw around a bunch of really serious words and go "...And that is why you must do what I say."

That said, Cinistra, if you really feel that way, what's stopping you from trying to repeal it? I mean, if it bugged me that much, I would try to repeal it, but of course, it doesn't, because I've seen zillions of worse WA/SC/UN proposals in my time.

[A mean old man]

While I do think the situation in Eastern Europe is a bit odd and while I can see how the wording of the resolution could be considered hypocritical in a few minor fashions and certainly rather preachy, I believe that the end result (or what I have seen of it so far) of this particular liberation has been one unique to the end results of all other liberations, and, ultimately, highly successful.

Yes, this resolution targeted what was mainly an internal dispute in a region rather than a disturbance in a region caused by foreign invaders. While this may be something that some of us, thinking superficially yet practically, may see as a situation that is unnecessary for a council such as the World Assembly to deal with, I beg to differ. What causes a region to be overrun by foreign invaders? Most often it is the apathy, inactivity, and/or small number of nations "native" to the region which are incapable of properly managing it and defending it from foreign threats.

However, in Eastern Europe, the warring factions were both "native" groups. It is questionable whether the group (led by Delegate Czech Mate) which this liberation acted against was aiming to demolish the region or refound it under its own control, and the liberation has now made it impossible for us to know the truth of Czech Mate's original intentions, but really -- what is the big problem there?

The fate of the region, had the liberation not been passed, whether Czech Mate intended to destroy Eastern Europe or claim it himself and rebuild it, was most likely that of stagnation and, in the end, dissolution. Had Czech refounded it himself, there would have been an enforced and/or voluntary schism between the two groups of nations residing in the region, the region's activity would have been significantly damaged, and the resulting turmoil would slowly but surely lead the region down a path of petty internal disputes, migrating members, CTEs, and a dull and pathetic demise. I've seen it happen so many times and know the situation far too well. I've built up and destroyed small regions myself for years, and only recently decided to become deeply involved in large regions like the Pacifics. I think I've got a fairly concrete understanding of how things work in the average small region.

This liberation prevented all that from happening, however. Instead, Czech Mate has little choice but to run the now liberated region alongside his former (and possibly still current; one can never know what's lurking behind the text on the screen) enemy, Flobos. The region is active. Nations are migrating both in and out. The story continues, rather than dies at the hands of stagnation. This, in my opinion, is a success. The WA has promoted activity and has ensured the continuation of the story of Eastern Europe. It did not sit aside and watch as the region imploded.

It wouldn't have been a cataclysmic loss if EE had disbanded. But I think what we've done has created a much better, much more interesting situation, and has ultimately been a good thing.

Back to my idea on "apathy, inactivity, and/or small number of nations "native" to the region which are incapable of properly managing it and defending it from foreign threats:" Most of the liberations since Feudal Japan and Belgium have been because of situations like this, and have been either highly or just slightly disappointing to me in their results. The liberated regions' "natives" continue to maintain their original level of apathy and inactivity, and their regions either stagnate, or they are adopted and controlled by nations from outside the region who simply want to be involved in something that the WA has recently been involved in.

This liberation was a success. Sure, it had its flaws, but so does everything else.

[Unibot]

I couldn't agree more, A Mean Old Man. A particularly excellent result, so far, for this liberation. Perhaps, one of the best results I've seen from a liberation. I suppose our worry should be if invaders intend to invade the region to make an anti-liberation statement -- which is indeed, becoming as boring and overused an expression of a statement, as wearing a dress made of meat.

[Evil Wolf]

That's a lovely idea, Uni.

[Unibot]

That's a lovely idea, Uni.

*cough* You guys need to a new shtick. It's getting repetitive.

Unless you meant the dress made of meat, in which case, feel free to prance around the Assembly in one. You'll probably fit right it.

[Cinistra]

Everybody is just so agreeable and cozy at this thread. Really good blokes, patting each other backs. Now people even bother to quote some of my old posts for amusement. People really have too much time on their hands. BTW, hasn't the resolution passed? Is there really any need for this thread?