Advertisement
by Cinistra » Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:11 am
by Travancore-Cochin » Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:52 am
Martyrdoom wrote:I'm no more of a mod than you: there's been a dearth of mod rulings on this issue, so I went back to an instance where there is valuable explicit mention by a mod surrounding the subject: I've merely built my opinions on top of that. They are NOT the opinions of a mod - I think if the mods thought I was trying to be a mod, I wouldn't be typing this now.
If I'm flaunting anything it is that I see through the seductive haze of the rhetoric to the depressing reality of the situations as they have arisen. There's no goalpost moving, I'm attacking liberation from many angles because, IN MY OPINION, there's many a thing wrong with it in practice.
Martyrdoom wrote:No, the point is that defenders did not liberate the region of their own accord; they only invaded it after successfully getting a liberation proposal through. Who's the native delegate at this moment in time for FJ again???
Martyrdoom wrote:"The game and the WA had no part in it, except for allowing a large group of people to storm into a region and take the delegacy." Yeah, EXCEPT that that exception is a pretty fucking significant 'exception'. And that is the where my explanation for a WA-army/police arises from.
by Martyrdoom » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:47 am
Travancore-Cochin wrote:Martyrdoom wrote:I'm no more of a mod than you: there's been a dearth of mod rulings on this issue, so I went back to an instance where there is valuable explicit mention by a mod surrounding the subject: I've merely built my opinions on top of that. They are NOT the opinions of a mod - I think if the mods thought I was trying to be a mod, I wouldn't be typing this now.
If I'm flaunting anything it is that I see through the seductive haze of the rhetoric to the depressing reality of the situations as they have arisen. There's no goalpost moving, I'm attacking liberation from many angles because, IN MY OPINION, there's many a thing wrong with it in practice.
Oh yeah, first you quote a "mod ruling" that supposedly made the Liberate FJ resolution illegal. When pointed out that this is not the case, you go all "THAT IS MY OPINION".Martyrdoom wrote:No, the point is that defenders did not liberate the region of their own accord; they only invaded it after successfully getting a liberation proposal through. Who's the native delegate at this moment in time for FJ again???
So? The Liberation did what it had to; it merely removed the password. Using this opportunity, we defenders liberated the region. So what was all the "It's illegal" about?We'reYou're back to square one.Martyrdoom wrote:"The game and the WA had no part in it, except for allowing a large group of people to storm into a region and take the delegacy." Yeah, EXCEPT that that exception is a pretty fucking significant 'exception'. And that is the where my explanation for a WA-army/police arises from.
Oho? So the I/D game is now an exception? Marvelous.
And, every invasion that has happened until now was carried out by a WA Army? Splendid. Makes for an excellent conspiracy theory.
by Krioval » Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:38 am
Martyrdoom wrote:Indeed, I have been arguing against liberation while it was in its conception stage and then during each subsequent debate on each liberation proposal (you should see some of the stuff that was discarded only because I raised an objection to it). Honestly, despite being an (evil) imperialist, I don't have much of a problem with 'liberation' if it prevented regions being locked and puppeted, aka the 'nuclear wasteland' scenario: that is no good for my imperialism, and more importantly, the game (which with liberations, I think we lose an important aspect of - it becomes ritualised and neutered.) I think as soon as liberation touches the cold-reality of this game, it contradicts itself because it is used by organisations for their sole-benefit and self-aggrandisement, usually in the tenuous name of original natives. I've seen TITO-annexed regions locked and puppeted but, of course, no one bats an eyelid.
By 'parochial' I mean the objectives of an organisation, say TITO for example, can easily become the stated objective of the wider WA/SC: defenders can co-opt the SC. To date, moreover, repeals have come from 'defenders' who have invaded a region after a liberation/password removal. If we cast off the 'whos'-who' for a moment, we have what are technically invaders in FJ trying to gain the ability to re-institute a password. The liberation was supposed to prevent this initially: so 1st password is bad, but the 2nd password is good?! I cannot accept that. People voted for 'free-entry' and now that is being turned on its head. What's wrong with using the banject tools like everyone else who has to enter the security vs. region growth dichotomy. By not installing a password initially, or re-founding, FJ should not get a second chance: it rewards failure.
by Travancore-Cochin » Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:48 pm
Martyrdoom wrote:I think it's illegal because, by justifying a liberation so that the original natives can return etc, it actually retrospectively illegalises the previous invasion. As far as I know it's still legal and possible to invade a region. The liberation proposal should not be concerned with attempting to recreate a pre-invasion scenario, i.e re-installing who was in power at the time; it seeks to go past this by opening up 'free-entry'. A repeal then goes against the spirit of the preceeding liberation and brings the SC into disrepute, not to mention its just a massive waste of its members' time.
When you said "The game and the WA had no part in it, except for allowing a large group of people to storm into a region and take the delegacy", I was refering to the sentence as self-contradictory: the 'except for' bit is pretty significant and completely flies in the face of "the game and the WA had no part in it". Of course the WA played a fundamental part, we wouldn't have a new invader delegate over in FJ would we now?!
No, of course not 'every invasion' in the conventional sense of the term. However, every 'liberation' has in effect proceeded and engendered a 'WA-army invasion' though.
Who's the native delegate in FJ??? "So? The liberation did what it had to"......which is what exactly?: to allow 'defenders' to actually invade the region and to install their own delegate, which, coincidentally, also comes after the same defending organisation proposed the intial liberation to open up the region. You clearly are not concerned about native rights as the proposal made-out.
People said during the initial debate on the liberation category that invaders could take advantage of liberation by opening up regions for their own invasions; they were right And that ain't no theory now.
by Havensky » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:15 pm
by Krioval » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:34 pm
Havensky wrote:Let's not forget that liberation proposals were a reaction to the invader practice of destroying regions. (Invader goes in, locks region, kicks out all the natives, and let's it sit there like a bloody corpse)
The community at large doesn't like that kind of behavior. Liberation proposals were the solution. An imperfect solution mind-you, but a solution still.
Liberations have always been about returning power to the natives. Always. In the lead up about liberation proposals, in the Belgium debates, in the FJ debates, Always. So, I don't buy the argument that a repeal of the FJ resolution goes against the spirit of the first resolution. What part of 'return control of the to the natives' didn't you understand?
by Martyrdoom » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:06 pm
Krioval wrote:Havensky wrote:Let's not forget that liberation proposals were a reaction to the invader practice of destroying regions. (Invader goes in, locks region, kicks out all the natives, and let's it sit there like a bloody corpse)
The community at large doesn't like that kind of behavior. Liberation proposals were the solution. An imperfect solution mind-you, but a solution still.
Liberations have always been about returning power to the natives. Always. In the lead up about liberation proposals, in the Belgium debates, in the FJ debates, Always. So, I don't buy the argument that a repeal of the FJ resolution goes against the spirit of the first resolution. What part of 'return control of the to the natives' didn't you understand?
Well, I'd support your repeal so long as every native goes on record saying that there will be no further petitions of the WA if something goes wrong in the future. That means no more liberations for FJ if somebody messes up along the line. Good enough?
If not, well, I don't want the WA to be in charge of defending FJ from invasion every month. If it's open, it's defensible. Native control can be restored in a matter of hours by all those delightful defender regions. If it's closed and somehow gets invaded, then it can't. Further, a liberation is not about "restoring control to the natives", it's about opening up the region to all non-banned nations unless a founder blocks them. As if the WA should get into the practice of separating a "native" from an "inavder".
by Martyrdoom » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:25 pm
Havensky wrote:[...]
Liberations have always been about returning power to the natives. Always.
by Martyrdoom » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:30 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Well he appears to be kicking out invaders, and to be working with the natives, so I shouldn't worry...
by Evil Wolf » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:05 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Well he appears to be kicking out invaders, and to be working with the natives, so I shouldn't worry...
Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.
by Martyrdoom » Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:46 am
by Sedgistan » Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:29 am
by Cinistra » Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:39 am
by Martyrdoom » Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:45 am
Sedgistan wrote:As pointed out elsewhere, Knights of Zion = The KoZ, and Masakazu Hoshizaki has his WA in Feudal Japan. Besides, I said I was working with them, not that they'd all got around to moving back yet.
by Martyrdoom » Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:52 am
Cinistra wrote:As I see it, the liberation resolution was passed in order to remove the password, right? This, in order to allow free entry into FJ, right? OK, I've seen lot of people enter the region, all of them defenders. So, this may be a coincidence. However, players who entered FJ raising their voice against The New Order, has been kicked out, being labeled by the "boo-words" of "invader" and "raider". So far, as the empiric goes, entry into FJ is not free. But we really didn't expect it to be, did we ?
by Sedgistan » Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:01 am
FURTHER NOTING that the former residents of Feudal Japan currently reside in Tokugawa Japan and still desire to return to Feudal Japan;
AWARE that the nations formerly resident in Feudal Japan can return to their region only through the intervention of the Security Council;
by Martyrdoom » Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:16 am
Sedgistan wrote:Well fear not, I can clear things up. The original resolution was not about free entry to the region, but about allowing the 'former residents' to return:FURTHER NOTING that the former residents of Feudal Japan currently reside in Tokugawa Japan and still desire to return to Feudal Japan;
AWARE that the nations formerly resident in Feudal Japan can return to their region only through the intervention of the Security Council;
All the defenders were/are there to take the delegacy off the invaders, and to allow me and The KoZ to build up influence to kick them out.
When raiders have moved into the region, they've been kicked out, because being raiders - they're there to either cause trouble, or to try and take the region back.
Don't worry, you'll see a native restored to the delegacy soon enough.
by Cinistra » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:26 am
by Krioval » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:37 am
Sedgistan wrote:Don't worry, you'll see a native restored to the delegacy soon enough.
by Sedgistan » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:56 am
by Cinistra » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:13 am
by Unibot » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:15 am
Martyrdoom wrote:Sedgistan wrote:Well fear not, I can clear things up. The original resolution was not about free entry to the region, but about allowing the 'former residents' to return:FURTHER NOTING that the former residents of Feudal Japan currently reside in Tokugawa Japan and still desire to return to Feudal Japan;
AWARE that the nations formerly resident in Feudal Japan can return to their region only through the intervention of the Security Council;
All the defenders were/are there to take the delegacy off the invaders, and to allow me and The KoZ to build up influence to kick them out.
When raiders have moved into the region, they've been kicked out, because being raiders - they're there to either cause trouble, or to try and take the region back.
Don't worry, you'll see a native restored to the delegacy soon enough.
"A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region". Sound familiar? It's what a liberation proposal is (or should be) predicated on. I'm just glad you've finally admitted it was about 'allowing former residents to return'.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Varanius
Advertisement