[PASSED] Liberate Eastern Europe

[Kalibarr]

How exactly are you guys figuring out who is a native and who isn't?

Can you somehow read their minds to figure out their intent for the region?

[Czech Mate]

Okay, a lot of people have a lot of opinions about something they have little to no information on. A while ago, we all decided we needed to re-found Eastern Europe for security reasons. A vote was held, and I was elected to be the one to re-found. Flobos threw a fit, and is now either using well-intentioned people on this forum and in the rest of the world for his own benefit, or somehow honestly thinks he is entitled to something that was fairly and democratically decided to not be in his personal favor, I'm honestly not sure which is the actual case. The Security Council Resolution isn't simply unjustified, it's riddled with errors and in many cases, downright fabrications. This is my point-by-point response to the proposal, which is written on behalf of the 6 of us in Eastern Europe who oppose Flobos and Novobrinsk.

Observing Eastern Europe, a founderless region which has been the victim of numerous raids throughout its history,

True

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

True

Upset that the current delegate of Eastern Europe, Czech Mate, and the previous delegate, Romani Romania, have now taken control of the refounding effort,

True, but this is where it begins to spin off. I, Czech Mate, was elected to be the refounder. So why should it be upsetting? Who else should take control of the refounding effort?

Recognizing that both recent delegates Romani Romania and Czech Mate have ejected natives from behind a hidden password

Okay, two things under this bullet, I'll address them seperately. First, to refound a region, you must eject inactives. Flobos himself agreed that ejections of inactive nations was inevitable. All of the ejections were of inactive players, more than half of whom have already ceased to exist, and the remainder of whom are perpetually in vacation mode, only logging in once every month and half. They were inactive and unresponsive when the refounding effort went into motion.

The second part:

and are working for an unidentified non-native group,

This phrase , with its baseless hysteria and (deliberate?)ignorance of the situation, ought to be reason enough for this proposal to be shot down in and of itself.

Outraged that numerous nations are known to have been ejected from the region by either Czech Mate or Romani Romania,

You said that already, and as I explained, everyone in the region accepted the necessity of ejecting inactive nations from the first day we voted to re-found.

Further outraged that the oppressors have severed the connection between the region and the region’s legitimate forums,

Oh, you have a link to our "legimate" forums, do you? Well then, please share! Because I would be very curious indeed to see what this "legitimate" forum looks like.

Noting that Flobos, a long-time native and former delegate of Eastern Europe, states that Czech Mate is a former member of Eastern Europe from years past attempting to exact revenge upon the region,

Yes, that sounds like how someone with a case of sour grapes about not being the most popular kid in school would interpret it. That, or a self-entitled narcissist who thinks he automatically deserves to get to anything he wants, and that anyone who doesn't go along with his fantasy is "out to get him."

Fearing that, without intervention, the region's destruction is imminent because no new nations may enter the region and because almost every nation not aligned with the region's destroyers has been removed,

No, but WITH intervention, the region's eternal instability is guaranteed, thank you very much. Give me an example of a nation that was ejected for disagreeing with me. Unless you mean the inactives, since obviously dead men tell no tales and inactive nations do not "align" themselves with anyone. If that's what was meant, then it was a very disingenuous way to spin it.

Affirming that the natives of the region support a liberation,

No, only the two guys who lost the vote (to us, the 75% majority, I might emphasize) support this resolution, because that's their only chance to overturn a democratic, internal decision that did not go their way. Heck, Flobos couldn't even muster a 2nd endorsement inside Eastern Europe in order to submit the proposal himself, which is why he had to go to someone outside the region to post it.

Asserting that Flobos and other natives deserve a region where they have the ability to control its fate themselves,

That should be singular, "Flobos and other native," since they the are the only two (2!) who refuse to respectfully concede and respect the democratic process. And they absolutely do not deserve the right to form a minority-led tyranny over Eastern Europe. This proposal actually tramples upon the "ability of the natives to control their fate themselves".

[Flobos]

When exactly where you elected as a chosen refounder. I seem to recall (and have quite a few telegrams to prove) that Novobrinsk was chosen to refound.

Okay, I was just waiting on confirmation from Novobrinsk. I sent Romani Romania a telegram informing him of our decision to eject him, and I gave him an ultimatum to leave the region within 48 hours of his own accord or to face a ban, so we'll see what happens with him. The rest of the region, I telegrammed and told them that we were conducting a "peace and friendship mission" to the region of East Europe (it's an existing region with a small population). So that way they won't know that we're trying to re-found, but then afterward we can invite them all back (and maybe some of the nations from East Europe too). It's a little

The best way to do it will be to have everyone except me and Novobrinsk move to East Europe as soon as possible, and then he and I can coordinate our simultaneous departure 24 hours before he's ready to re-found, so then we would leave either Friday or Saturday, depending on his schedule

So yeah, at this point the wheels are in motion, everyone but Novobrinsk and I will be departing for East Europe shortly. I will contact Novobrinsk to see at what precise time he'll be ready to coordinate our departures.

See you in East Europe in a couple days, here goes nothing...

as well as:

Okay I agree, we shouldn't keep it a secret that we're trying to re-found, and if anyone asks, we can tell them. If they leave thinking it's a peace mission, that's fine too, since keeping it on a need-to-know basis is still safest.

The process has already begun, people are moving out, and fortunately Romani Romania voluntarily left the region after receiving my telegram. I think anyone in doubt about moving is encouraged by seeing other nations go first, I'm sure we can get everyone to move by this weekend. Maybe you can send follow-up telegrams to those who haven't left yet, and set them an example by moving yourself to re-assure them.

Novobrinsk has set a time and a date with me already, we would really like to accomplish everything on schedule, since the longer we drag this out, the more risky it could become.

I responded to the last telegram with a demand to transfer the delegate position to Novobrinsk before I leave. Czech promptly disappeared. I'm not sure how to attach telegrams (if at all possible), but if someone were to tell me how, I'd be glad to add these as well.

In regards to regional forums, Czech removed the link after this proposition was instilled, however, here it is, again: http://z4.invisionfree.invalid.com/Eastern_European_HQ

Note that the last post was created by a previously banned nation, exactly the day that Czech reinvited nations that he had previously kicked. Sounds perfectly normal, no? Further in regards to this, when I emailed Czech about this post, and him having waited 6 years to take revenge, his response was:

It's seven-and-a-half years. Get your facts straight.

Any further bullshit you'd like me to debunk Czech?

[Blue Wolf II]

*watches with amusement as Flobos and Czech Mate argue about who is the more "legit" party both here and on the Eastern Europe RMB*

Hmm, you know what this sort of looks like? An internal argument that the Security Council shouldn't waste its time sorting through, as very entertaining as it is.

[Flobos]

*watches with amusement as Flobos and Czech Mate argue about who is the more "legit" party both here and on the Eastern Europe RMB*

Hmm, you know what this sort of looks like? An internal argument that the Security Council shouldn't waste its time sorting through, as very entertaining as it is.

This is not an argument over who is the more "legit" party. I was asked by Sedge to give my side of the story and I did. Czech only responds now, and untruthfully. I feel it is my duty to point out where, and how, here as well as on the regional boards, since he seems to tell the same lies to both.

The fact remains that Czech ejected mutliple nations before they had any say in such matters, and now claims majority due to having only his supporters and those he couldn't move out in the region. He has been shown to lie to the Security Council, and if this truly were merely an internal issue, he would have no need to make arguments beyond that. He would not need to lie, nor would he have needed to hide until the voting began.

As a side note: If an invader kicks everyone they can, does that give them a democratic consensus of the will of the region? Do note that almost all the nations that support CM arrived in EE after him, and that the two nations they can't move now compromise over 80% of the regional population. It is easy to label something merely as an internal conflict when there are very few consequences to yourself.

[Blue Wolf II]

Cases like yours occur from time to time. Rogue delegates: They happen. We had one in TNP not too long ago, but no one was calling him an invader, no defenders were rushing to our aid. Instead The North Pacific was mocked for our "poor choice in delegates". I personally don't see why defenders like Topid feel that this situation that is occurring in Eastern Europe is in some way different than what happened in TNP not even a month ago.

That being said, this is not an invasion like the defenders who wrote and submitted this proposal are playing it off to be and this. I can say this with abundant amounts of confidence, seeing as I have a "fair amount" of experience in that area. Is Czech being an oppressive jerk? Maybe, but he's undoubted a native even by pre-Influence laws, you know, the ones they used to delete your nation for if you broke them.

[Topid]

Cases like yours occur from time to time. Rogue delegates: They happen. We had one in TNP not too long ago, but no one was calling him an invader, no defenders were rushing to our aid. Instead The North Pacific was mocked for our "poor choice in delegates". I personally don't see why defenders like Topid feel that this situation that is occurring in Eastern Europe is in some way different than what happened in TNP not even a month ago.

That being said, this is not an invasion like the defenders who wrote and submitted this proposal are playing it off to be and this. I can say this with abundant amounts of confidence, seeing as I have a "fair amount" of experience in that area. Is Czech being an oppressive jerk? Maybe, but he's undoubted a native even by pre-Influence laws, you know, the ones they used to delete your nation for if you broke them.

1) TNP wasn't passworded. The password makes it totally impossible for them to do anything without a liberation.
2) Had Durk passworded TNP (which he couldn't do to a feeder because new nations must come in) I would have asked on your old forums if you wanted a liberation.

[Blue Wolf II]

Sure you would have. Now.

Couldn't have cared less when 400 nations were ejected or banned back then, however.

But no, I see your point, this region is far more important, and the injustice put upon them is by far more tragic. The handful of nations ejected from Eastern Europe will forever change the way players look at Nationstates for all time. I am sure of it. [/sarcasm]

[Unibot]

How exactly are you guys figuring out who is a native and who isn't?

Can you somehow read their minds to figure out their intent for the region?

We can't. Hence why preventative liberations are so rare and controversial -- unless we have direct evidence towards "attempted murder", we don't know for sure what's going on inside someone's head. But what we do know, is what the actions 'speak' to us, figuratively. Maybe this natives does think he is doing an absolutely great thing for the region, but he is mislead, and he is abusing his powers as delegate. We're not here to condemn him, we're here to liberate the region.

[Pigea]

As Leader of The National Union I am voting against this resolution and strongly supporting Czech Mates' decisions.
I have read over Czech Mates' rebuttal and find nothing wrong with what is happening in Eastern Europe at this time.

Signed,
Pigea Head State of The National Union

[Presul]

I'm withdrawing my vote because this is silly.

You're all silly.

[Darkesia]

So a "native" is deemed a "native" by his or her contributions to the community rather than by where some specific nation they own is located

Here's a scenario, a Macedon puppet sits in the region for two years, it doesn't say a word, or interacts with anyone, it just sits in the region to build 'influence', so it can assume power with a crash and lock job. If we follow by the philosophy of 'influence', that Macedonian puppet is a native. Do you support that idea, Dark?

Well, Uni, that is the whole point. I don't have to like it, but those are the rules. That is the purpose of influence. And influence says yes, that guy who specifically planted himself in the region and let himself CTE, revived himself for the sole purpose of conquest, is indeed a native.

Just one more reason not to like influence.

Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't happened in a prominent region yet.

[Warzone Codger]

Against. I believe that liberations should only be used to allow regions to be recycled back into the game. So no Macedon tactics of kicking everyone out then passwording it. where they aren't doing anything with it except take a region name away from the game that can be used to house actual communities.

I consider everything else fair game and it's the player's own responsibility to deal with it.

As far I can see, Czech Mate still has plans for the region, even if it is to rebuild it from scratch with his new friends and none of the original bunch. Though others might not like it, it's none of our business.

Though I'm curious: Is it between a communist Eastern Europe vs a medieval/classical one? I'm just looking at the flags

[East Lithuania]

East Lithuania has placed it's support FOR this liberation. Truth is, while there may or may not be concrete proof of an invasion/nation-kicking/horribly done re-founding effort, enough debate is being caused about who should be the Heir Apparent. Put simply, WITH the password protection on, it is impossible for any neutral, unbiased nations to come in and support whoever they wish; it's all in the hands of Czech Mate at this point and with tensions and stakes this high, that's not so good.

My recommendation would be to strike down the password barriers and reopen the region, followed by another election. With hope that either side will be FAIR in the election, those interested in the happenings of EE will see how the event plays out. At this point it is all hearsay, but we have enough suspicion that AT LEAST the region should be re-open. Without that, there will always be this constant struggle for positions and bickering which will drive nations away from the region.

[Unibot]

Here's a scenario, a Macedon puppet sits in the region for two years, it doesn't say a word, or interacts with anyone, it just sits in the region to build 'influence', so it can assume power with a crash and lock job. If we follow by the philosophy of 'influence', that Macedonian puppet is a native. Do you support that idea, Dark?

Well, Uni, that is the whole point. I don't have to like it, but those are the rules. That is the purpose of influence. And influence says yes, that guy who specifically planted himself in the region and let himself CTE, revived himself for the sole purpose of conquest, is indeed a native.

Just one more reason not to like influence.

Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't happened in a prominent region yet.

The rules never said he or she is a native, the rules said he has the ability to abuse his influence... if we applied your sense of morality to real life, you could say, we all have the ability to shoot people, so clearly we have a right to! *Fires his gun directly at Kali*

[Krioval]

The rules never said he or she is a native, the rules said he has the ability to abuse his influence... if we applied your sense of morality to real life, you could say, we all have the ability to shoot people, so clearly we have a right to! *Fires his gun directly at Kali*

This is exactly why the SC should not be in the business of trying to adjudicate any but the clearest cases of abuse. The presumption of proof should fall to the parties proposing the liberation, and the threshold of evidence has not been met. To use your earlier example, if a nation is going to sit in a region as a sleeper agent for two years (NS has been around for about eight?), it is up to counterintelligence forces to root these things out. If the agent activates and takes over a region, it should not be up to the SC to intervene unless egregious abuses can be documented, and no, I do not consider locking a region in which one has resided for two years to be egregious or abusive by itself.

What would I consider sufficient evidence to vote in favor of the liberation? I would need to know, definitively, that the passwording delegate has not been a long-term resident of the region in question, that the majority of other long-term WA-member-residents (to establish the identity of individual players) of the region (including those recently ejected) do not support the passwording delegate, AND that the intentions of the passwording delegate are sufficiently malign to justify international (in the context of NS) intervention. It's a high bar, but if we're going to subject interregional conflicts to popular vote, it is critical to have high standards.

The rules of the game, to break the fourth wall, indicate that influence is the predominant mechanic in establishing regional authority. I do not necessarily agree with this model, but it is what we have to use. We don't apply this rule to real life because NS is a nation simulator maintained by a core staff of administrators and moderators who can't use all of their time to create a perfect system of morality here. This is especially daunting considering that humanity has had several thousand years to work on moral issues IRL compared to the system used in NS. Also, murder is not equivalent, nor should it be considered comparable, to password locking a region.

[Darkesia]

This is exactly why the SC should not be in the business of trying to adjudicate any but the clearest cases of abuse. The presumption of proof should fall to the parties proposing the liberation, and the threshold of evidence has not been met. To use your earlier example, if a nation is going to sit in a region as a sleeper agent for two years (NS has been around for about eight?), it is up to counterintelligence forces to root these things out. If the agent activates and takes over a region, it should not be up to the SC to intervene unless egregious abuses can be documented, and no, I do not consider locking a region in which one has resided for two years to be egregious or abusive by itself.

What would I consider sufficient evidence to vote in favor of the liberation? I would need to know, definitively, that the passwording delegate has not been a long-term resident of the region in question, that the majority of other long-term WA-member-residents (to establish the identity of individual players) of the region (including those recently ejected) do not support the passwording delegate, AND that the intentions of the passwording delegate are sufficiently malign to justify international (in the context of NS) intervention. It's a high bar, but if we're going to subject interregional conflicts to popular vote, it is critical to have high standards.

The rules of the game, to break the fourth wall, indicate that influence is the predominant mechanic in establishing regional authority. I do not necessarily agree with this model, but it is what we have to use. We don't apply this rule to real life because NS is a nation simulator maintained by a core staff of administrators and moderators who can't use all of their time to create a perfect system of morality here. This is especially daunting considering that humanity has had several thousand years to work on moral issues IRL compared to the system used in NS. Also, murder is not equivalent, nor should it be considered comparable, to password locking a region.

I love the way you did that without getting nasty like I was about to do. Therefore...

What Krioval said!

[Unibot]

The rules of the game, to break the fourth wall, indicate that influence is the predominant mechanic in establishing regional authority. I do not necessarily agree with this model, but it is what we have to use. We don't apply this rule to real life because NS is a nation simulator maintained by a core staff of administrators and moderators who can't use all of their time to create a perfect system of morality here. This is especially daunting considering that humanity has had several thousand years to work on moral issues IRL compared to the system used in NS. Also, murder is not equivalent, nor should it be considered comparable, to password locking a region.

It's murder of a region and a community, Krioval, the analogy in itself is a little disrespectful for those grieving lost love ones, just like, most thought experiments are disrespectful and cruel to overweight people, train-accident victims, cats and terminal cancer patients -- and I know how much, people from AO love to criticize analogies. But as the analogy of a commendation usually applies to the punishment of a sadistic murderer, the analogy of an amoralitistic world to influence advocates is appropriate. The administrators by giving us, "influence" have given us "free will", instead of a determined universe -- but they have also endowed the Security Council with the goal of establishing peace and goodwill, however fragile it may be. You may not care too much about a password , if you were willing to let Macedon have Belgium because they 'deserved' it for logging onto a bloody puppet for two years every sixty days... and you've determine your own lil' arbitrary checklist, it's cute and all, but it has problems with it -- a long-term resident can be a malicious foe to the region under a veil, clear evidence like I dunno, him banning half the fucking region on a vengeance streak. And then there is the fact of minority rights, let's say we have to protect minority rights.. twelve 'long term' members *cough* raiders *cough* of the region want the dictator in the power so he can destroy the region, two members of the region don't want it.. or maybe five or six or maybe eleven. Who wants to see a community destroyed with a password? We're not necessarily running a native tyranny of the majority, we're running a representative democracy with principles and we need to apply to see what is more preferable.. a destroyed region or a healthy community.

You're buying into a culture of skepticism against every principle of the Security Council, because that's the distraction that invader groups are trying to spin. You're drinking their cool-aid.

[Krioval]

It's murder of a region and a community, Krioval, the analogy in itself is a little disrespectful for those grieving lost love ones, just like, most thought experiments are disrespectful and cruel to overweight people, train-accident victims, cats and terminal cancer patients -- and I know how much, people from AO love to criticize analogies.

I'll get to the substance in a moment, but first, I'd like to address the form of your argument. Murder applies to human beings (in the real world - in NS, it'd apply to sapient beings). You cannot murder a region in NS. Without actually killing people IRL (a crime!), you cannot murder a community in NS. Heck, you can't technically murder an animal (IRL). It is wholly inappropriate to call region crashing "murder" regardless of the damage done to a community in NS, and quite frankly, it demeans people who have lost friends and family members as a result of criminal acts. It's not a matter of criticizing analogies, though yours are terrible; it's a matter of using proper terminology and not losing oneself in histrionics.

You can say that a community was "destroyed", "invaded", "routed", "annihilated", "devastated", "obliterated", "scattered to the four winds", "sacked", "pillaged", "left to dwindle into nothingness", or "passworded with extreme prejudice". Ones I'd leave off the table? Murder, genocide, and rape. Those have specific definitions and represent the extreme end of crimes against actual people, rather than our electronic projections.

*snip*

I'm tired of the emotional overload, so now I will proceed to the substance of the argument.

By proposing this liberation, the authors are asking me to sit in judgment on the fate of a region. In order to not make the Security Council into a farcical star chamber, I find it appropriate to view the *evidence* and make a decision based on that evaluation. The default position on regional interventions should be *no*. Convince me otherwise by showing the evidence. You mention the situation in belgium (I left the region uncapitalized, as it appears in the WA stats description, if this is incorrect, please let me know). That one seemed fairly simple. The region was invaded, and the long-standing community was disrupted in, as I recall, fairly obvious and negative manners. It seemed clear to me that things were going well before the invasion and that things were not going well afterward. Further, belgium has a strong community site that was able to provide evidence to this effect. I voted *for* that liberation. It seems that that was the right call, as they have sustained the liberation without apparent negative effect.

I was unconvinced of that same situation in Feudal Japan, and I voted against. There was too much "noise" from interregional disputes to let me sense a strong "signal" of malicious disruption. That said, I was on the edge, and given it to do over, I probably would have abstained from voting (which represents a degree of confidence that the charges were true, otherwise my position would not have changed).

Not every fight, or even every invasion, requires a liberation. What should be on everybody's mind is not "liberation = automatically good/bad", but:

1. What is the situation "on the ground"? Is this a clear-cut invasion, or are there other factors at play?

2. Who is involved? Well-known raider group crowing about their victory? Relatively unknown two-year resident of the region staging a coup? Not sure?

3. Can this be decided without trying to puzzle out nativity? I don't think that this usually clarifies the situation all that much, and I think the term has become loaded.

4. Am I prepared to go against my preconceptions, or barring that, can I present logical reasons why my preconceptions match reality? I frequently see a lot of accusation with a lot less support (granted, I think this is true of a lot of SC proposals, not just liberations).

5. Can I keep things in perspective? If not, consider letting somebody else take the lead for a bit.

And keep in mind, if there were a proposal type called "Conquest", in which overtaken regions would be forcibly refounded, I would remain just as skeptical of the intent behind that kind of proposal as well.

[Everyton]

It is the Everytonian government's judgement that in matters pertaining to liberations by the WA Security Council, the nation/s requesting said liberation need to supply sufficient evidence of the need thereof. As sufficient evidence has not been produced, Everyton shall be voting against this resolution.
~Saoirse Collins, Prime Minister of the Democracy of Everyton

[Unibot]

By proposing this liberation, the authors are asking me to sit in judgment on the fate of a region. In order to not make the Security Council into a farcical star chamber, I find it appropriate to view the *evidence* and make a decision based on that evaluation. The default position on regional interventions should be *no*. Convince me otherwise by showing the evidence. You mention the situation in belgium (I left the region uncapitalized, as it appears in the WA stats description, if this is incorrect, please let me know). That one seemed fairly simple. The region was invaded, and the long-standing community was disrupted in, as I recall, fairly obvious and negative manners. It seemed clear to me that things were going well before the invasion and that things were not going well afterward. Further, belgium has a strong community site that was able to provide evidence to this effect. I voted *for* that liberation. It seems that that was the right call, as they have sustained the liberation without apparent negative effect.

I was unconvinced of that same situation in Feudal Japan, and I voted against. There was too much "noise" from interregional disputes to let me sense a strong "signal" of malicious disruption. That said, I was on the edge, and given it to do over, I probably would have abstained from voting (which represents a degree of confidence that the charges were true, otherwise my position would not have changed).

I'm equally tired of all your emotional overhaul, but this seems to be your fundamental problem, your skepticism is what the raiders want (unless they're trying to 'Liberate Haven'), that's been their ballgame since Feudal Japan.. hell, even beligum. Your checklist is only allowing black and white situations, Macedon vs. Natives, Satan vs. God-faring People, Joker vs. Batman... blah blah blah, that simple rule is what invaders want you to believe, because then all they have to do is perpetrate regions with enough 'grey area' and confusion, to bumfuzzle your invasion-liberation-conflictanator-radar.. and there you go. A great example was Salford, and the techniques that Martydom used. We're going to have to be open to situations that aren't "Good vs. Evil" battles, or else were going to leave a region to be destroyed every time someone brings a puppet into a debate (LotL) claiming to be the long-lost founder (where is that guy now, anyway?) or the invaders change the WFE and pretend to be natives, or what other bullshit which they spin, and then a year later laugh at, because it actually convinced a few people, and they continue to fool people like yourself, over and over again, in every single one of these liberation debates. I just love it how you're so willing to be critical of Topid or Sedge's information, but as soon as some flimsy ass story from a questionable source emerges to contradict your favorite SC pals, bam! There's your evidence! There are legitimate natives being kicked out for no reason, a liberation is necessary to help regulate an abusive delegate. What do you think Max Barry just forgot the other principle of the Security Council, and that actually the mission statement was...

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary unless its some crazy ass wingnut who has returned for a vengeful massacre, or just some weird-ass bangiving password-loving native... then its all cool!

[Darkesia]

Uni, dear. It's a game. No need to panic.

[Bears Armed]

The situation is clearly more complex than Sedge or Topid makes it seem. These "invaders" are being led by a native of the region, regardless of how old he is.

No, he isn't a native by definition when he aims to further the interests of a foreign force. Time in the region means diddlely squat.

But does he aim to further their interests, or are they there to further his?

[Krioval]

Unibot, if you have evidence, please supply it. Maybe I missed it. But I'm not going to be held hostage to an emotional argument. This is effectively a trial, and I require enough evidence to convict - well, actually, I can deal with one or two "reasonable doubts", so it's more like a civil trial. I'm not there yet. It's not personal, but I do feel that it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to convict a delegate of these charges without sufficient evidence that the charges are true.

[Warzone Codger]

And then there is the fact of minority rights, let's say we have to protect minority rights.. twelve 'long term' members *cough* raiders *cough* of the region want the dictator in the power so he can destroy the region, two members of the region don't want it.. or maybe five or six or maybe eleven. Who wants to see a community destroyed with a password? We're not necessarily running a native tyranny of the majority, we're running a representative democracy with principles and we need to apply to see what is more preferable.. a destroyed region or a healthy community.

But is the community being "destroyed"? It is being "replaced" certainty, but unlike your usual invasions, I assume at the end of the winner here still wants to build an actual region, just with a different group of people.

I don't support destruction, that's why I couldn't support Macedon - They aren't doing anything productive with the regions they take over. On the other word, replacement from one active community by attempts to be another is acceptable by me and it's the nations own responsbility to secure it's "their" community that remains in that region.

In short: I have no problem with raiders who try to build actual communities in the regions they take over.I think that's the case here. The question to is since raiding is a legitimate part of the game, what situations do we find it acceptable?

(I got a small pop, but I'm no way a pro invader puppet. I'm been here for a while and this nation was made mainly for fitting identity to play the Warzone region game)