[DRAFT] Condemn Conservative UK

[Hirota]

The Security Council,

1. MINDFUL of World Assemblies principles of promoting international peace, goodwill, and harmony between nations,

2. NOTING The United Kingdom Has long held democratic values and beliefs

3. DETERMINED that the power and responsibility vested within a Regional founder, and therefore the deliberate abuse of those powers, the failure to uphold their responsibility and the undermining of the World Assemblies principles warrants condemnation,

4. MINDFUL of the actions of Conservative UK in that context, namely:
a. The unprovoked ejection and banishment of long-standing region members and long-serving regional government officials
b. The implementation of password protection to prevent member states from expressing their discontent within the region
c. The suppression of communications to prevent member states expressing their discontent and concern at this policy.

5. DETERMINED that these actions go against the region's core values,

6. PRAISING the response from those other regions that have withdrawn their embassies in response to the unjustified actions of Conservative UK

7. MINDFUL of the request from the current regional non-executive delegate to CONDEMN their regional founder,

8. CONCLUDES that the actions of Conservative UK are contrary to the core values of the World Assembly, and to those of the region itself,

9. DETERMINED that the Security council has the obligation to express their dismay,

10. HEREBY Condemns Conservative UK

This draft has already been looked over by at least one fellow nation in this thread (That thread also includes evidence of the existing delegates support of a condemnation of their regions founder, and support from nations who have been forcibly removed from the region, so it makes sense to at least mention it's existence).

[Daynor]

Ehhh, I'm up in the air on this one. I see your point.

However Gates the God booted every single native of Gatesville recently. I did the same to every member of The Revolution quite a while ago. To some extent I think it is his region and if he wants to implement a policy saying no nations whose name begins with the letter 'S' and enforces it with banjection it is his right.

[Left wing Marxism]

The Proletarian Council Agrees with Draynor. No support until a stronger argument is made.

[Hirota]

Ehhh, I'm up in the air on this one. I see your point.

However Gates the God booted every single native of Gatesville recently. I did the same to every member of The Revolution quite a while ago. To some extent I think it is his region and if he wants to implement a policy saying no nations whose name begins with the letter 'S' and enforces it with banjection it is his right.

I can't comment on those regions, but up until the actions of Conservative UK, the region was considered a democratic region. Moreover, Conservative UK has not banned every member of the region, just those who disagreed with him.

I do have a number of TUK exiles currently residing within my region, they are more knowledgeable on what happened, so I'll ask one or two of them to contribute.

[Sedgistan]

1. The forced ejection and banning of multiple regional members, including long-standing members and active participants in regional government in who have contributed and participated in the development of the region over several years

"Who" needs changing to "which" to become Rule 4 compliant, though that part of the clause reads awkwardly anyway, so might need slightly re-phrasing.

[Hirota]

1. The forced ejection and banning of multiple regional members, including long-standing members and active participants in regional government in who have contributed and participated in the development of the region over several years

"Who" needs changing to "which" to become Rule 4 compliant, though that part of the clause reads awkwardly anyway, so might need slightly re-phrasing.

Thanks. I've made that change. I'll also have a think about how I can reword it.

[Platitude and Innuendo]

"Who" needs changing to "which" to become Rule 4 compliant, though that part of the clause reads awkwardly anyway, so might need slightly re-phrasing.

Thanks. I've made that change. I'll also have a think about how I can reword it.

Rephrase as:

1. The unprovoked ejection and banishment of long-standing region members and long-serving regional government officials

[Hirota]

Thanks. I've made that change. I'll also have a think about how I can reword it.

Rephrase as:

1. The unprovoked ejection and banishment of long-standing region members and long-serving regional government officials

Thank you, that's much better than my current version, and better than the couple of alternatives I'd drafted up.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

For once Daynor makes a valid point. This proposal would amount to an unprecedented intrusion on the rights of founders to run their regions however the heck they want. Founders have always been deities in the eyes of the game and the residents of their regions have no more "right" to govern it than some dude crashing on your couch has to tell you how to run your own household. Though a certain sense of entitlement will inevitably build up the more comfortable your guests become in your home, and it's the same situation here.

[Daynor]

For once Daynor makes a valid point.

Dammit. I'm clearly on the wrong side of this, is it too late for a flip-flop?

Anyway, yes, it sucks that founders have universal control of their region. I've said many times I don't like founders because they can go rouge and decide their region should stop being democratic (or existing at all even) and turn into something it never was. But that's why I tend to exist only in founderless regions.

A region with a founder is always a dictatorship. The region belongs to the founder, he can make whatever rule he wants. The dictator can choose to act democratically and agree to the decisions of an elected government, but that doesn't actually make a region democratic, he still has all the power, he just isn't using it. It is within his right to close the region, ban anyone who disagrees with him, etc.

[Alf Landon]

Would it make much difference to note that Conservative UK is not the original founder?

The United Kingdom was founded back from before 2007. Conservative UK belonged to a region called Torino, and launched an invasion of The United Kingdom when the original founder CTEd. The natives who opposed the invasion were expelled, the native government abolished and the region was forcibly re-founded.

This doesn't change the fact he is founder now, but it does undermine the moral claim to exercising founder powers.

[Cardoness]

Would it make much difference to note that Conservative UK is not the original founder?

The United Kingdom was founded back from before 2007. Conservative UK belonged to a region called Torino, and launched an invasion of The United Kingdom when the original founder CTEd. The natives who opposed the invasion were expelled, the native government abolished and the region was forcibly re-founded.

This doesn't change the fact he is founder now, but it does undermine the moral claim to exercising founder powers.

It very well might make a difference, but I don't see any mention of this in the resolution.

[Marjorie Baldwin]

Would it make much difference to note that Conservative UK is not the original founder?

The United Kingdom was founded back from before 2007. Conservative UK belonged to a region called Torino, and launched an invasion of The United Kingdom when the original founder CTEd. The natives who opposed the invasion were expelled, the native government abolished and the region was forcibly re-founded.

This doesn't change the fact he is founder now, but it does undermine the moral claim to exercising founder powers.

I can attest to that. I feel that it is germane to the resolution and should be included.

This is not his first time exerting his will on or expelling selected residents and locking the region down. He also has done the same thing twice in the past, the last time was last fall. He even had the Founder of The New Inquisition to help impose his will on the residents then. She stepped out of the fray when she and TNI started feeling repercussions of her presence there.

[Alf Landon]

Would it make much difference to note that Conservative UK is not the original founder?

The United Kingdom was founded back from before 2007. Conservative UK belonged to a region called Torino, and launched an invasion of The United Kingdom when the original founder CTEd. The natives who opposed the invasion were expelled, the native government abolished and the region was forcibly re-founded.

This doesn't change the fact he is founder now, but it does undermine the moral claim to exercising founder powers.

It very well might make a difference, but I don't see any mention of this in the resolution.

In which case, how about adding this to the draft:

"CONTENDING that the argument that a founder has an inherent right to do these things is undermined by the fact that Conservative UK invaded and forcibly re-founded the region after the actual founder ceased-to-exist."

[Platitude and Innuendo]

It very well might make a difference, but I don't see any mention of this in the resolution.

In which case, how about adding this to the draft:

"CONTENDING that the argument that a founder has an inherent right to do these things is undermined by the fact that Conservative UK invaded and forcibly re-founded the region after the actual founder ceased-to-exist."

I think a stronger wording could be useful, something like:

REFUSING to accept the rights as regional founder for complete control as Conservative UK previously invaded The United Kingdom and forced closure and re-foundation to deny democracy and bring the region under his exclusive control

[Flemingovia]

For once Daynor makes a valid point. This proposal would amount to an unprecedented intrusion on the rights of founders to run their regions however the heck they want. Founders have always been deities in the eyes of the game and the residents of their regions have no more "right" to govern it than some dude crashing on your couch has to tell you how to run your own household. Though a certain sense of entitlement will inevitably build up the more comfortable your guests become in your home, and it's the same situation here.

I have a dude crashing on my couch who constantly tells me how to run my own household. He is my 19 year old son.

[Casta Nal Expeditionary Forces Command]

For once Daynor makes a valid point. This proposal would amount to an unprecedented intrusion on the rights of founders to run their regions however the heck they want. Founders have always been deities in the eyes of the game and the residents of their regions have no more "right" to govern it than some dude crashing on your couch has to tell you how to run your own household. Though a certain sense of entitlement will inevitably build up the more comfortable your guests become in your home, and it's the same situation here.

I have a dude crashing on my couch who constantly tells me how to run my own household. He is my 19 year old son.

Ouch

[Ballotonia]

Problem with the 'but the Founder was an invader all along' reasoning is that it undermines the clause stating that The United Kingdom has long held democratic values and beliefs. Because for years they lived under the so-called oppressive boot of an evil invader, so it seems odd to complain about that now as if something has changed all of a sudden.

My suggestion is to thoroughly rewrite the Condemnation. Condemning a founder for the simple act of ejected unwanted nations doesn't sound all too convincing.

Instead, take it from the top where it started: Condemn Conservative UK for being an invader who in hostility has taken over a poor defenseless region to which it holds no rightful claim to begin with. Then state how the (returned) natives have tried to proceed living in a democratic system despite their unwanted evil overlord, but how they are thwarted from doing so by the invader-Founder who on occasion will kick out natives either for mere pleasure or because they may believe in something the tyrant in charge doesn't.

This way the reason for the condemnation isn't an ejection by some founder, it's years of oppression where the ejections are simply the proof that this all is taking place.

I have a dude crashing on my couch who constantly tells me how to run my own household. He is my 19 year old son.

Oh my god, that's horrible. What's the world coming to with the kids these days?!? *grumble*. I blame the parents. *shakes cane*

Ballotonia

[Hirota]

Would it make much difference to note that Conservative UK is not the original founder?

The United Kingdom was founded back from before 2007. Conservative UK belonged to a region called Torino, and launched an invasion of The United Kingdom when the original founder CTEd. The natives who opposed the invasion were expelled, the native government abolished and the region was forcibly re-founded.

This doesn't change the fact he is founder now, but it does undermine the moral claim to exercising founder powers.

This I did not know (my participation in this personally is limited to a few exiles appearing in my region) - ordinarily I'd agree and incorporate this into the draft, however....

My suggestion is to thoroughly rewrite the Condemnation. Condemning a founder for the simple act of ejected unwanted nations doesn't sound all too convincing.

Instead, take it from the top where it started: Condemn Conservative UK for being an invader who in hostility has taken over a poor defenseless region to which it holds no rightful claim to begin with. Then state how the (returned) natives have tried to proceed living in a democratic system despite their unwanted evil overlord, but how they are thwarted from doing so by the invader-Founder who on occasion will kick out natives either for mere pleasure or because they may believe in something the tyrant in charge doesn't.

OOC: If I had the time I'll be happy to completely revise the draft as you've suggested. Unfortunately, Real-Life has reared it's ugly head and is distracting me from the important matters of NS politics.

If I get the chance, I'll take a run at this at the weekend. Otherwise, if someone else wants a crack, they are free to use any elements of my draft as they wish.

[Casta Nal Expeditionary Forces Command]

His region, his rules. Sorry but if Unibot wanted to throw me out of Dharma, he can. Sure I would be all mad but I am crashing in his house.
Sure it is bad he messing around with you and we agree a founder should not do that, it would be a violation of a region's sovereignty. If my nation is in someone else's region, the host has the final say.

[Black Marne]

Concerning the original reasoning behind the condemnation, Black Marne's vote would be against due to lack of strong support. However in light of this new evidence, it would be for.

So what I'm trying to say is, rewrite the condemnation to fit this new evidence in, and you will have Black Marne's vote. Otherwise, against.

[Mahaj]

See, i'd support this, because I Don't believe founders should do whatever they please, and this would set a nice precedent.

[Augustus Este]

Personally I don't believe its the WAs place to tell founders how they should act.

[Warzone Codger]

Bump. With the current soon-to-be-passed proposal setting a precedent that it's ok to condemn intra-regional squabbles, how about we at least do one for someone who's worthy?