Submitting Liberation proposals

[Oh my Days]

The recent Land of The Liberals debacle has given me an idea. It is a widespread belief even amongst fendas (Naivetry and Sedge both expressed this in the recent debate) that the WA should not intervene unless the natives of the region want the region to be Liberated. I suggest that only a nation who has resided in the region for 100 consecutive days or more can submit a Liberation for that proposal, and to avoid raiders exploiting this by using sleepers and ejecting every native at once, a nation could do this for up to a month after leaving. To avoid problems with endorsements, the usual rule about getting two endorsements to submit a proposal could perhaps be ignored in this case. SC proposal writers could still write them, they would just need to find a native who agreed with their cause to submit the proposal.

[Sedgistan]

I've said that they should have the support of natives for me to support the resolution, but I don't think that should be made into a requirement for submitting one. Besides, as I argued elsewhere, a resolution can be submitted by a non-native, but still have native support (eg Liberate Feudal Japan).

[Oh my Days]

I've thought about FJ, and can't really find a way around this in that scenario, but we've had the option to Liberate for several months now, so any community that has been locked out of "their" region since before then could have come forward in that time. All this will mean for Liberations in future is that if you or someone else writes one, you'll have to pass it on to a native to submit.

Why don't you think that it should be coded? I think that this will protect regional sovereignty, and any democratic organisation should have checks and balances to function effectively.

[Unibot]

The recent Land of The Liberals debacle has given me an idea. It is a widespread belief even amongst fendas (Naivetry and Sedge both expressed this in the recent debate) that the WA should not intervene unless the natives of the region want the region to be Liberated.

Its a widespread belief especially amongst 'fendas' -- because thats who created those philosophies. I disagree fullheartedly with Nai and Sedge. Native support isn't needed for WA liberations, its just necessary for a liberation by defenders (atleast according to defender's ethics). Native sovereignty makes for a very good preamblatory argument, however.

[Oh my Days]

I think that fendas and raiders would agree on this one, raiders don't want fendas intervening where they're not wanted, fendas don't want to cause a diplomatic incident and the natives of any region obviously don't want the WA to act against their wishes. The SC is then acting against the wishes of every group involved in the gameplay, it's not protecting anyone's interests.

[Sedgistan]

Also, I think the game doesn't record how many days a nation has been in a region, so this would require that to be coded in as well.

[Bears Armed]

Also, I think the game doesn't record how many days a nation has been in a region, so this would require that to be coded in as well.

Given that Influence increases with time, might the game already be tracking how many days nations have been in regions for for that purpose?

[Unibot]

I think that fendas and raiders would agree on this one, raiders don't want fendas intervening where they're not wanted, fendas don't want to cause a diplomatic incident and the natives of any region obviously don't want the WA to act against their wishes. The SC is then acting against the wishes of every group involved in the gameplay, it's not protecting anyone's interests.

Well there does exist people outside of the gameplay world who are interested in the Security Council, believe it or not.

[Unibot]

Also, I think the game doesn't record how many days a nation has been in a region, so this would require that to be coded in as well.

Given that Influence increases with time, might the game already be tracking how many days nations have been in regions for for that purpose?

It would have to be something like their influence minus their influence from endorsements.

[Topid]

Also, I think the game doesn't record how many days a nation has been in a region, so this would require that to be coded in as well.

Given that Influence increases with time, might the game already be tracking how many days nations have been in regions for for that purpose?

It would have to be something like their influence minus their influence from endorsements.

That wouldn't be consecutive like the OP says.

This looks like a lot of code for a little reward... The 'native will' seems more like something delegates should consider before approving than something that should be codded into the game to me.

[Oh my Days]

I'm not a programmer so I don't know, but I don't think that it would be that much code. Influence already means that the game keeps track of who is where, with how many endorsements for how long etc. This would be simpler than that and it doesn't have to be 100 consecutive days, that was just what I thought of to define someone as native, if there is a better definition that is easier to code then that could be used.

EDIT: Unibot, I know that other people are interested in the WA but surely if an SC proposal doesn't hold up the interests of any of the parties involved then it shouldn't be submitted.

[Unibot]

EDIT: Unibot, I know that other people are interested in the WA but surely if an SC proposal doesn't hold up the interests of any of the parties involved then it shouldn't be submitted.

The natives, and the gameplayers are not the only parties involved -- the World Assembly is also involved, remember, a rogue delegate is as much a bad representative of his endorsers as the institution to which he gains his power from.

[Oh my Days]

The World Assembly is involved, remember, a rogue delegate is as much a bad representative of his endorsers as the institution to which he gains his power from.

I agree, but Liberations are being used in gameplay, if the rogue delegate was abusing the power given to him or her by disrupting WA debates or undermining the body then they can express their outrage at him or her and undermine their credibility, and therefore the ability to influence the WA. There are also numerous ways to take action against such a delegate here or if it is of such a nature here. They don't need to trample on regional sovereignty.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

The World Assembly is involved, remember, a rogue delegate is as much a bad representative of his endorsers as the institution to which he gains his power from.

I agree, but Liberations are being used in gameplay, if the rogue delegate was abusing the power given to him or her by disrupting WA debates or undermining the body then they can express their outrage at him or her and undermine their credibility, and therefore the ability to influence the WA. There are also numerous ways to take action against such a delegate here or if it is of such a nature here. They don't need to trample on regional sovereignty.

Regional Sovereignty, the right of regions to be exclusively ruled by the administration of the region (the delegate and the founder).

The Security Council does not have the ability to override the founder’s administrative power over a region. Thus, one can come to the
conclusion that the World Assembly does not own any region, no region ‘belongs’ to the World Assembly and that no region was created by the World Assembly. In a world without the Security Council, delegates would still have to compete with the founders for power over their region;

Obviously. Regional Sovereignty exists, however the “delegate” is not a supreme being, a founder (in a region other than founderless regions) can set administrative parameters (such as turning a delegate’s access to a region off) to limit the power of a delegate.

It makes sense that the nation which is accredited for owning the region is given the ability to establish limitations on how much the World Assembly, and its delegates can influence the region. But can the World Assembly put limitations on how much its delegates can influence a region?

Yes, it can technically.

I would like to direct you to Texan Hotrodders's National Sovereignty and the NationStates United Nations. I plan on writing a version that is similar, which applies to the Security Council which not only has to consider regional sovereignty but "native sovereignty" as well.

I would like to rephrase Hotrodia's concluding questions.

Does the SC have the power to override Regional Sovereignty?
As I said, it can, for sure. The SC can demand that a delegate cannot password a region.

Does the SC have the right to override Regional Sovereignty?
It depends on if ambassadors believe the situation calls for it, if ambassadors don't believe the issue calls for an overriding of regional sovereignty -- than the SC does not have the right.

Does the SC have the duty to override Regional Sovereignty?
Our mission statement according to the admin and SC#9 is "to dedicate ourselves to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary." That 'force' is the overriding of regional sovereignty. So to rephrase the statement, we have the duty to override regional sovereignty when inter-regional peace and goodwill is threatened. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation.

Does the SC have the obligation to override Regional Sovereignty?
No. We are not obligated to override regional sovereignty. To essentially plagiarize Texan Hotrodders :

The SC can always decide that an issue is not worthy of its consideration, or rightfully belongs to the delegate, his endorsers and the region. The SC also has the ability to change its mind at a later date, as member nations come and go. Consequently, all previous resolutions may now be repealed, assuming some member can create a compelling case to do so.

[Oh my Days]

But the WA should only override a region's right to rule itself as a last resort, if the raison d'être of the SC is to "to dedicate ourselves to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary" then the three steps that I previously mentioned should first be considered and if none are viable, then a Liberation could be considered where it is essential to preserve a region for NS. If the natives don't even want it preserved, then it is certainly not essential.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

But the WA should only override a region's right to rule itself as a last resort, if the raison d'être of the SC is to "to dedicate ourselves to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary" then the three steps that I previously mentioned should first be considered and if none are viable, then a Liberation could be considered where it is essential to preserve a region for NS. If the natives don't even want it preserved, then it is certainly not essential.

I've always interpreted the line as a reference to C&Cs. When rhetoric, and a shiny badge isn't enough, because the situation calls for something more drastic -- thats when the SC brings out the big toy to the sandbox.

EDIT: Ooh, I see you posted the same thing above, well Oh My Days. Then I agree with you, but it is up to the author's discretion to decide if they should first propose a Condemnation or jump right to a Liberation. However this doesn't mean that the World Assembly agrees with the Author, it didn't with 'Liberate Land of the Liberals'.

[Anime Daisuki]

Nai and Sedge does not make up "a majority of "fendas"" They are just more active in this forum, what they express is their personal opinions.

[Unibot]

Nai and Sedge does not make up "a majority of "fendas"" They are just more active in this forum, what they express is their personal opinions.

They're the majority of defenders for us here in the officialsphere^TM.

[Kalibarr]

Nai and Sedge does not make up "a majority of "fendas"" They are just more active in this forum, what they express is their personal opinions.

if you disagree then say so and say more if you think your opinion is not being heard.

[Whamabama]

One aspect of this you are might want to consider is that any native without 2 endorsements can't post a liberation resolution no matter how much he might want to. He might be in the region for years, active, and everything needed, but without those two endorsements, he can't have his region liberated without someone from the outside actually submitting it for him.

[Oh my Days]

Do you take the word "fenda" to be a perjorative term? I've never meant it like that but you don't seem to be very happy with it, I can use "defender" instead if you would prefer.

I know that Nai and Sedge don't represent a majority of defenders, but they were the only two defenders who I'd seen offer their opinions on the matter and I gather that they're very influential in the defender world, I'm not familiar with your power structures but I've heard that Naivetry is the leader of Equilism and Sedge wrote Liberate Feudal Japan. If you disagree then say so.

I addressed the two endorsements issue in my OP, saying that we could perhaps make an exception, although if a region doesn't even have 3 natives then I do wonder why the WA is so concerned with it, you can't create a regional community with 3 people. Also, I proposed a 30 day grace period after being ejected to write a proposal, so a native could go to a feeder region and get the necessary endorsements.

[Martyrdoom]

I addressed the two endorsements issue in my OP, saying that we could perhaps make an exception, although if a region doesn't even have 3 natives then I do wonder why the WA is so concerned with it, you can't create a regional community with 3 people. Also, I proposed a 30 day grace period after being ejected to write a proposal, so a native could go to a feeder region and get the necessary endorsements.

Or said 'native' could move out and gain the endorsements from defenders!

[Flibbleites]

I addressed the two endorsements issue in my OP, saying that we could perhaps make an exception, although if a region doesn't even have 3 natives then I do wonder why the WA is so concerned with it, you can't create a regional community with 3 people. Also, I proposed a 30 day grace period after being ejected to write a proposal, so a native could go to a feeder region and get the necessary endorsements.

Or said 'native' could move out and gain the endorsements from defenders!

And then said native would be accused of not being a native.

[Naivetry]

Do you take the word "fenda" to be a perjorative term? I've never meant it like that but you don't seem to be very happy with it, I can use "defender" instead if you would prefer.

Yeah, the term "fenda" originated as a perjorative. You won't find defenders using it of themselves unless they're mocking raider rhetoric.

I do believe native support is necessary for a Liberation resolution (not necessarily for a defense, but that's another argument...) because we're permanently changing the administrative options of that region, barring a repeal.

But nativity in NS is a matter of allegiance, not residence. By your definition, any region that hadn't been around for over 3 months wouldn't have any natives. The Security Council was created in the first place because the term "native" is not one that can be represented in code. That's what Influence was supposed to do, after all, and we can see how well that worked out.

[Martyrdoom]

I addressed the two endorsements issue in my OP, saying that we could perhaps make an exception, although if a region doesn't even have 3 natives then I do wonder why the WA is so concerned with it, you can't create a regional community with 3 people. Also, I proposed a 30 day grace period after being ejected to write a proposal, so a native could go to a feeder region and get the necessary endorsements.

Or said 'native' could move out and gain the endorsements from defenders!

And then said native would be accused of not being a native.

There's no such thing to begin with!