Security Council - Intervention, not Liberation

[Little St Nick]

So Caracasus had this great idea.

The idea is to create a Security Council resolution type, Intervention. It is a duplicate of Liberation, but has a different name and badge.

At vote is the third Liberation resolution that is being used as an aggressive action against a fascist region. Clearly the name doesn't fit the purpose.

On a personal level, I reside in a Liberated region. If this series of Liberations continues, it won't be long before everyone associates Liberation with Nazism. As a resident of Liberated region Christmas, I have no desire to be associated with Nazism.

Having a technically equivalent resolution allows Liberations to be used for their true purpose, while Interventions allow Gameplay access to the same mechanic that they are currently using for persecuting regions. Everyone's a winner. (Except fascists).

[Chipu]

I like this.

[Tinhampton]

How will the game tell as to when a given situation is more appropriate for an Intervention or a Liberation?

[The Rhenish League]

Or we just stop "liberating" regions that don't demand a true liberation altogether. Honestly, this would open the door for even more SC tools abuse against regions consisting of players who don't run their nations in a way that fits the majority's bias. I wouldn't mind "interventions" being entirely illegal. They are just not the job of the SC.
Nonetheless, we've all learned that all WA nations are equal, yet some are more equal than others.

[Little St Nick]

How will the game tell as to when a given situation is more appropriate for an Intervention or a Liberation?

As with all SC resolutions, it's for the player submitting the draft to decide whether it's an Intervention or Liberation. Much like players currently choose between Commend or Condemn.

Or we just stop "liberating" regions that don't demand a true liberation altogether. Honestly, this would open the door for even more SC tools abuse against regions consisting of players who don't run their nations in a way that fits the majority's bias. I wouldn't mind "interventions" being entirely illegal. They are just not the job of the SC.
Nonetheless, we've all learned that all WA nations are equal, yet some are more equal than others.

Without taking a view on your sentiments, the fact is Liberations are already being used for this purpose. The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no going back. All this suggestion does is relabel the actions that are legally being taken now.

[The Rhenish League]

How will the game tell as to when a given situation is more appropriate for an Intervention or a Liberation?

As with all SC resolutions, it's for the player submitting the draft to decide whether it's an Intervention or Liberation. Much like players currently choose between Commend or Condemn.

Or we just stop "liberating" regions that don't demand a true liberation altogether. Honestly, this would open the door for even more SC tools abuse against regions consisting of players who don't run their nations in a way that fits the majority's bias. I wouldn't mind "interventions" being entirely illegal. They are just not the job of the SC.
Nonetheless, we've all learned that all WA nations are equal, yet some are more equal than others.

Without taking a view on your sentiments, the fact is Liberations are already being used for this purpose. The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no going back. All this suggestion does is relabel the actions that are legally being taken now.

I know that, I've been around on NS quite a bit longer than the founding date of this nation suggests. That the liberation tool has already been used for this purpose for ages is well-known to me, but it doesn't force me to downright love it, does it? ^^

[Trotterdam]

At vote is the third Liberation resolution that is being used as an aggressive action against a fascist region. Clearly the name doesn't fit the purpose.

That's how Bush used it when invading Iraq.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

It's true that newcomers will confuse the liberations but it's not going to affect your image longer players know the difference

[Aclion]

I had hoped that neoliberations would turn out to be a fad, Unfortunately this seems like the best solution we can hope for.

[Frisbeeteria]

It's a simple fact: whatever code change we make to the game, somebody will come along and abuse or pervert the original intent. That's been true since the very beginning, when raiding became a thing.

longer players know the difference

Adding Intervention won't change anything. Within days or weeks of adding Interventions, somebody will do something to make lots of other people scream. Given that you propose to make it functionally identical to Liberations, I'm not seeing the added value.

[Galiantus III]

Given the existence of Commendations and Commendations, I can't see any argument against this that couldn't also be made about them. C&Cs are functionally the same - the difference is entirely aesthetic and subject to interpretation by the player. How would this be any different?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Show me a draft of what you would put in the relevant rule sticky to explain to new players what the difference between the two is.

[Kurnugia]

longer players know the difference

Adding Intervention won't change anything. Within days or weeks of adding Interventions, somebody will do something to make lots of other people scream. Given that you propose to make it functionally identical to Liberations, I'm not seeing the added value.

In my eyes, there is RP value.

[Lord Dominator]

Show me a draft of what you would put in the relevant rule sticky to explain to new players what the difference between the two is.

"Liberation proposals are used by the Security Council for defensive actions on regions that have been taken over by forces hostile to the region, and for which it is likely or has already been passworded. Liberation proposals should be written in a manner that is not hostile to the target region. Intervention proposals are used by the Security Council to enable an invasion by forces in order to destroy and/or damage a region, facilitated by the removal of a password or removal of the WA delegate to set a password. Intervention proposals are generally written in a manner hostile to the target region."

Obviously would need some work (and maybe a new badge for Interventions), but I think this gets the general gist across.

[USS Monitor]

I don't see the need for this personally, but then I'm not an SC wonk.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Show me a draft of what you would put in the relevant rule sticky to explain to new players what the difference between the two is.

"Liberation proposals are used by the Security Council for defensive actions on regions that have been taken over by forces hostile to the region, and for which it is likely or has already been passworded. Liberation proposals should be written in a manner that is not hostile to the target region. Intervention proposals are used by the Security Council to enable an invasion by forces in order to destroy and/or damage a region, facilitated by the removal of a password or removal of the WA delegate to set a password. Intervention proposals are generally written in a manner hostile to the target region."

Obviously would need some work (and maybe a new badge for Interventions), but I think this gets the general gist across.

I can see that language making sense, but I also see people getting bogged down in meta debates about which category to use. There is something to be said for having one functionality attached to just one deployment mechanism.

[Lord Dominator]

"Liberation proposals are used by the Security Council for defensive actions on regions that have been taken over by forces hostile to the region, and for which it is likely or has already been passworded. Liberation proposals should be written in a manner that is not hostile to the target region. Intervention proposals are used by the Security Council to enable an invasion by forces in order to destroy and/or damage a region, facilitated by the removal of a password or removal of the WA delegate to set a password. Intervention proposals are generally written in a manner hostile to the target region."

Obviously would need some work (and maybe a new badge for Interventions), but I think this gets the general gist across.

I can see that language making sense, but I also see people getting bogged down in meta debates about which category to use. There is something to be said for having one functionality attached to just one deployment mechanism.

I don't particularly care either way, but figured I could at least clarify what I thought others meant

[Kitsco]

I support this.....


I, however, believe we should have an elected security council, after all that is the title of the branch "Security Council" A council of Elected World Assembly Delegate, that are appointed to the council can ensure the coucil liberation resolution is NOT abused.

[Lord Dominator]

I support this.....


I, however, believe we should have an elected security council, after all that is the title of the branch "Security Council" A council of Elected World Assembly Delegate, that are appointed to the council can ensure the coucil liberation resolution is NOT abused.

We have those, they are called super-delgates

[Kitsco]

I support this.....


I, however, believe we should have an elected security council, after all that is the title of the branch "Security Council" A council of Elected World Assembly Delegate, that are appointed to the council can ensure the coucil liberation resolution is NOT abused.

We have those, they are called super-delgates

Really? I've been turning a blind eye toward the council simply because of how its qeing used and what not.

[Lord Dominator]

We have those, they are called super-delgates

Really? I've been turning a blind eye toward the council simply because of how its qeing used and what not.

It was a joke, I meant that the largest delegates tend to be our quality arbiters

[Consular]

Eh if it's mechanically the same I don't really see the point. Any new SC categories should be for new mechanics.

[Unibot III]

Errr. People are saying here that offensive liberations are perverting the original intent of the category, but that's not true. The Macedon griefings (Belgium, France) were on everyone's mind in 2009/10, but the admins understood and indeed pitched the WA Liberation category to skeptical invaders as a double-edged sword that could be used for both defensive and offensive purposes.

It's nothing we didn't know when the category was introduced.

That having been said, I do think that the SC needs some new categories to address issues that are lingering in Gameplay and to generate renewed interest: to that end I've suggested a few in the past. Colonies, hawking, and piling are especially the endgames that I'd like to see "opened up" to allow for more options for recourse and competition.

[Little St Nick]

Lol!
Odd coincidence that you posted. I was just reading this "Liberate Christmas" quote, and comparing it to the current resolution at vote:
"You do not need to be a member of a region to know and actively protest, even intervene when outsiders aren't playing nice with said other region -- that is not only the principles behind defenderism, but also the World Assembly Security Council, humanitarianism and interregional goodwill."

[Unibot III]

Lol!
Odd coincidence that you posted. I was just reading this "Liberate Christmas" quote, and comparing it to the current resolution at vote:
"You do not need to be a member of a region to know and actively protest, even intervene when outsiders aren't playing nice with said other region -- that is not only the principles behind defenderism, but also the World Assembly Security Council, humanitarianism and interregional goodwill."

Here's the SC raison d'être from the forum:

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

My understanding of the SC is it's supposed to be recognized as a force for good with the potential for unintended consequences. I don't think it was supposed to be an evil institution, nor a flawless one. It's well intentioned, but like any powerful institution, open to misuse for those who aren't motivated by humanitarianism and goodwill.