[DEFEATED] Liberate Empires Forever United

[Great Britain-and Northern Ireland]

The first Liberation achieved its purpose - it prevented the WA Delegate from imposing a password. That’s what a Liberation does and that’s all it does.

Bloody hell, it does?
Thank you for this information, I have changed my mind regarding this proposal.

[Angeloid Astraea]

It's a shame this didn't make it to vote before the other one. The mental gymnastics people would take to vote against it would have been Olympic-level!

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

It's a shame this didn't make it to vote before the other one. The mental gymnastics people would take to vote against it would have been Olympic-level!

I don’t see how “no badges for raiders” is mental gymnastics. Quite straightforward really.

[Great Britain-and Northern Ireland]

As a result of recent developments, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is officially against this proposal.

[Rhaza]

It's a shame this didn't make it to vote before the other one. The mental gymnastics people would take to vote against it would have been Olympic-level!

I don’t see how “no badges for raiders” is mental gymnastics. Quite straightforward really.

It’s gymnastics for some people.

[Angeloid Astraea]

It's a shame this didn't make it to vote before the other one. The mental gymnastics people would take to vote against it would have been Olympic-level!

I don’t see how “no badges for raiders” is mental gymnastics. Quite straightforward really.

So, how would the defender-established SC precedent of "liberations must be passed as soon as humanly possible to prevent extended harm to invaded regions" coexist with the practice of "liberations must be delayed from passing to deny the author a shiny badge on their nation that has no gameplay impact"?

[Rhaza]

I don’t see how “no badges for raiders” is mental gymnastics. Quite straightforward really.

So, how would the defender-established SC precedent of "liberations must be passed as soon as humanly possible to prevent extended harm to invaded regions" coexist with the practice of "liberations must be delayed from passing to deny the author a shiny badge on their nation that has no gameplay impact"?

It's very simple.

Liberations should be in the control of defenders and natives. There is no guarantee that raiders would not pull their proposals at the last moment to prevent their passage.

Furthermore, there is no reason to reward low-effort trolling and the self-serving behavior of raiding for the sake of creating your own badge farm.

Lastly, you can often use math to determine the timeframe a liberation can safely pass in. Usually the first proposal is not the only viable one.

If there was a liberation which required the first to pass (so <8 day timeframe to pass it to prevent a lock/refound) and a raider one fully went to vote, then I would vote for it. But anything short of that circumstance is you people trying to convince us how clever you are for creating some impossible dillema for us that isn't even difficult in the first place.

[Angeloid Astraea]

So, how would the defender-established SC precedent of "liberations must be passed as soon as humanly possible to prevent extended harm to invaded regions" coexist with the practice of "liberations must be delayed from passing to deny the author a shiny badge on their nation that has no gameplay impact"?

It's very simple.

Liberations should be in the control of defenders and natives. There is no guarantee that raiders would not pull their proposals at the last moment to prevent their passage.

Furthermore, there is no reason to reward low-effort trolling and the self-serving behavior of raiding for the sake of creating your own badge farm.

Lastly, you can often use math to determine the timeframe a liberation can safely pass in. Usually the first proposal is not the only viable one.

If there was a liberation which required the first to pass (so <8 day timeframe to pass it to prevent a lock/refound) and a raider one fully went to vote, then I would vote for it. But anything short of that circumstance is you people trying to convince us how clever you are for creating some impossible dillema for us that isn't even difficult in the first place.

Defenders are the ones that convinced the SC that liberations can't even be forum drafted because there's so little time. Now, threatened with the prospect of having to vote for raider-led Liberation proposals in the future, you're saying that there's always been time.

That's not to mention how funny it is for a defender to be talking about how bad it is to be rewarding low-effort baiting and self-serving behavior. I could bring up how ugly defenders act in public when they think they have the moral high ground. I could bring up the constant Commendations you people award yourselves with.

But nothing is funnier than a defender talking about the importance of guaranteeing that a Liberation proposal passes in the Security Council. Because I can bring up how, in my role as a raider commander, I have never seen a defender actually try to liberate the region I'm occupying after the SC has passed a Liberation proposal for it. Never.

[Rhaza]

But nothing is funnier than a defender talking about the importance of guaranteeing that a Liberation proposal passes in the Security Council. Because I can bring up how, in my role as a raider commander, I have never seen a defender actually try to liberate the region I'm occupying after the SC has passed a Liberation proposal for it. Never.

It's not my fault you're inexperienced youth.

Edit: Also.

[Sateru]

But nothing is funnier than a defender talking about the importance of guaranteeing that a Liberation proposal passes in the Security Council. Because I can bring up how, in my role as a raider commander, I have never seen a defender actually try to liberate the region I'm occupying after the SC has passed a Liberation proposal for it. Never.

It's not my fault you're inexperienced youth.

Edit: Also.

Probably more depressing that us in the "inexperienced youth" have never experienced a proper liberation

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I don’t see how “no badges for raiders” is mental gymnastics. Quite straightforward really.

So, how would the defender-established SC precedent of "liberations must be passed as soon as humanly possible to prevent extended harm to invaded regions" coexist with the practice of "liberations must be delayed from passing to deny the author a shiny badge on their nation that has no gameplay impact"?

I dunno, I’m not a defender. But I do know the practice of raiders whining and whingeing about such things in SC threads is becoming just a tad boring.

[Angeloid Astraea]

So, how would the defender-established SC precedent of "liberations must be passed as soon as humanly possible to prevent extended harm to invaded regions" coexist with the practice of "liberations must be delayed from passing to deny the author a shiny badge on their nation that has no gameplay impact"?

I dunno, I’m not a defender. But I do know the practice of raiders whining and whingeing about such things in SC threads is becoming just a tad boring.

I understand you think we should just eat defender slop without question because it's what you've been forced to do, but it doesn't mean that raiders questioning defenders' logic are "whining and whinging"!

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I dunno, I’m not a defender. But I do know the practice of raiders whining and whingeing about such things in SC threads is becoming just a tad boring.

I understand you think we should just eat defender slop without question because it's what you've been forced to do, but it doesn't mean that raiders questioning defenders' logic are "whining and whinging"!

Well if it looks like a duck, waddles and quacks it’s a duck. You may call it “questioning defender’s logic”, but it comes over as whining because you can’t get your own way in the SC.

[Deity of the East]

I get critiquing and criticizing defenders, but this is not at all the way to go, it’s frankly annoying, doing what you critique your opponents for is just you doing the same thing you claim to hate.

[Angeloid Astraea]

I understand you think we should just eat defender slop without question because it's what you've been forced to do, but it doesn't mean that raiders questioning defenders' logic are "whining and whinging"!

Well if it looks like a duck, waddles and quacks it’s a duck. You may call it “questioning defender’s logic”, but it comes over as whining because you can’t get your own way in the SC.

This reached vote, delayed the Injuction, and has defenders contradicting themselves on the urgency of SC liberations. We are getting our way in the SC right now, but don't worry, things will return to your boring normal soon enough! The next vote will be on a boilerplate defender-written Injuction that tells the SC how urgent it is to save Empires Forever United while defenders have actually already given up on it. I'm sure you'll have no problem voting for that. =]

I get critiquing and criticizing defenders, but this is not at all the way to go, it’s frankly annoying, doing what you critique your opponents for is just you doing the same thing you claim to hate.

Raiders don't give up on their military obligations after a Liberation proposal is passed. Raiders don't deprive their skilled opponents of the recognition they deserve. Raiders don't do any of the things that we criticize defenders for, actually, so I'm not really sure what you mean.

[Rhaza]

Raiders don't give up on their military obligations after a Liberation proposal is passed. Raiders don't deprive their skilled opponents of the recognition they deserve. Raiders don't do any of the things that we criticize defenders for, actually, so I'm not really sure what you mean.

What military obligations? You deliberately write all of your treaties to exclude mutual defense obligations - proudly so, it's been stated several times. None of you lifted a finger for Islamic States nor Solidarity.

[The Kharkivan Cossacks]

Raiders don't give up on their military obligations after a Liberation proposal is passed. Raiders don't deprive their skilled opponents of the recognition they deserve. Raiders don't do any of the things that we criticize defenders for, actually, so I'm not really sure what you mean.

What I was saying was a common and understandable critique of defenders rushing and posing a proposal without drafting and without any attempt to liberate, and here raiders are doing the same rushed no forum drafting that is just the same bland thing. It’s not fun when defenders choose to do it and it’s even less funnier when it’s done again “for the funnies”. And this is coming from a raider.

[Ambroscus Koth]

None of you lifted a finger for Islamic States nor Solidarity.

I know that you are unreasonably proud of your operation where you seized a region nobody was contesting, but this still isn't true and you've known that since day one. We were well on our way to forming an insurmountable pile in Islamic States for which you yourself identified a need for an offensive liberation, and we all pulled back only when the admins confirmed that Jawi was deleted for extensive rule-breaking of which all of Gameplay was all previously unaware. We assisted the natives in their move to Dar al Islam and attempted to keep the treaty relevant, but we lost contact with everyone involved in that project and it fizzled out without Jawi's involvement.

Solidarity was not a treatied ally, and Malice at least owed it no allegiance and our allies had no issue with this. You really, really want these operations to be sick owns to raiders, but they aren't and never have been. They just make you look like a weirdly vindictive and disgraceful defender that is more proud of what you've destroyed than what you've protected. Maybe GCR Delegate will be a better look on you.

[Enzonar]

I dunno, I’m not a defender. But I do know the practice of raiders whining and whingeing about such things in SC threads is becoming just a tad boring.

I understand you think we should just eat defender slop without question because it's what you've been forced to do, but it doesn't mean that raiders questioning defenders' logic are "whining and whinging"!

The whole purpose of this is to give a tbh member a free badge idk what logic you guys have bruh

[Rudastan]

It's not my fault you're inexperienced youth.

Edit: Also.

I don't see these anywhere anymore. Perhaps if you did these again, you'd be able to pull more updaters to liberations.

[Army of Revolutions]

I understand you think we should just eat defender slop without question because it's what you've been forced to do, but it doesn't mean that raiders questioning defenders' logic are "whining and whinging"!

The whole purpose of this is to give a tbh member a free badge idk what logic you guys have bruh

Nah see if I really wanted a free badge, all I would do is go into a defender org and be semi-active till the next op and I'l randomly end up a coauthor mysteriously on the next ctrl+c ctrl v resolution.

[Rhaza]

The whole purpose of this is to give a tbh member a free badge idk what logic you guys have bruh

Nah see if I really wanted a free badge, all I would do is go into a defender org and be semi-active till the next op and I'l randomly end up a coauthor mysteriously on the next ctrl+c ctrl v resolution.

I understand the raider narrative that occupations (which you people initiate) are a badge farm for us, but are you suggesting we co-author random people who don't contribute on said proposals?

[Army of Revolutions]

Nah see if I really wanted a free badge, all I would do is go into a defender org and be semi-active till the next op and I'l randomly end up a coauthor mysteriously on the next ctrl+c ctrl v resolution.

I understand the raider narrative that occupations (which you people initiate) are a badge farm for us, but are you suggesting we co-author random people who don't contribute on said proposals?

Here's a fun example of this phenomenon: Take the Injunction of UEPU for example, it is 270 words long not counting the required parts of a proposal. Now there's an author and 3 coauthors on this resolution so, assuming that each author did contribute to this injunction, then each author wrote an average of 67.5 words. Now when we compare this to this forum post, we find that I used 76 words while writing this post. So, the 5 minutes I spent writing this post up equals the amount of effort that the average author of that proposal put in, or in simple terms: "Free SC badge for 5 minutes of work"

[Rhaza]

I understand the raider narrative that occupations (which you people initiate) are a badge farm for us, but are you suggesting we co-author random people who don't contribute on said proposals?

Here's a fun example of this phenomenon: Take the Injunction of UEPU for example, it is 270 words long not counting the required parts of a proposal. Now there's an author and 3 coauthors on this resolution so, assuming that each author did contribute to this injunction, then each author wrote an average of 67.5 words.

Do you have an example more recent than 11 months ago? With how needlessly frequent you purport LibJunctions to be, surely, there are some? I'm further unsure of the relevance of the word count.

Now when we compare this to this forum post, we find that I used 76 words while writing this post.

You're also being needlessly verbose, presumably to support this irrelevant point.

So, the 5 minutes I spent writing this post up equals the amount of effort that the average author of that proposal put in, or in simple terms: "Free SC badge for 5 minutes of work"

Wait. This post took you 5 minutes? Sheesh.

[Rhaza]

None of you lifted a finger for Islamic States nor Solidarity.

I know that you are unreasonably proud of your operation where you seized a region nobody was contesting, but this still isn't true and you've known that since day one. We were well on our way to forming an insurmountable pile in Islamic States for which you yourself identified a need for an offensive liberation, and we all pulled back only when the admins confirmed that Jawi was deleted for extensive rule-breaking of which all of Gameplay was all previously unaware.

Are raiders not proud of large, well-organized holds of DnD regions? But fair enough, I'll concede it was probably just and wise to not defend IS.

We assisted the natives in their move to Dar al Islam and attempted to keep the treaty relevant, but we lost contact with everyone involved in that project and it fizzled out without Jawi's involvement.

Solidarity was not a treatied ally, and Malice at least owed it no allegiance and our allies had no issue with this. You really, really want these operations to be sick owns to raiders, but they aren't and never have been. They just make you look like a weirdly vindictive and disgraceful defender that is more proud of what you've destroyed than what you've protected. Maybe GCR Delegate will be a better look on you.

My point remains with Solidarity. I'm not accusing you of failing to meet a treaty obligation. My post merely says that many raiders, Malice included, consciously avoid military obligations to protect your partners or their projects. This is objectively true.

It's obvious that NSLeft regions felt treaties should include Solidarity. TLA believed their treaty with TWP necessitated its support for the region (and presumably, TCB and TLA would have equal legal ownership stake).

Further it is not true for Solidarity as for IS that you had the potential to deter or delay the invasion via piling.

They just make you look like a weirdly vindictive and disgraceful defender that is more proud of what you've destroyed than what you've protected. Maybe GCR Delegate will be a better look on you.

Lmao.