Remove "Liberate"

[Cinistra]

So, some players are inept at refounding? Yes,many players don't get the clue. In case of Alliance of Dictators/The Alliance of Dictators about 27 of the region's 52 players followed into the new region. I did of course want as many as possible to join, but I chose not to act as their nanny. We did not bother helping them during the raids either. Why? Well, they hadn't bother to choose a WA delegate to keep order themselves, and they didn't bother to ask us for help either. Please let the game evolve in its own merit, or do you think every founderless region is worth saving from the "cruel" raiders? Please, stop the WA from becoming a NA (Nanny Assembly ) .

[Travancore-Cochin]

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".

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're You're back to square one.

"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.

[Martyrdoom]

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".

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're You're back to square one.

"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.

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.

[Krioval]

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.

See, the problem I have with your opinion is that it is entirely self-serving. I personally hate the invasion aspect of NS because it can and does frequently cause negative things to happen to regions that would rather participate in the freeform RP aspect of NS. But it is part of the game, and so I deal with it by staying within reasonably active regions with a reasonably active founder.

Liberation resolutions have passed only twice, and yet you're acting as if the sky is falling, the invasion aspect of the game is over (except, apparently, for false defenders, who crash invader regions?), and the game sucks. Yet you cavalierly dismiss others' opinions on invasion as "part of the game". You can't have it both ways. Liberations add a more overtly political angle to gameplay. It is my finding that defenders are better able to utilize the political aspect of this because their messaging has been consistently on point. Invader regions have allowed defenders to present themselves as decent, honorable types who only want to see regions under native control. Meanwhile, many invader regions have reveled in their ability to wreck a region by brute force. Now that politics enter the equation, guess who looks better, and is therefore more trustworthy in the eyes of the voting public?

Invader regions need to deal with politics now, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly the ones who laugh about how evil they are will be in trouble if they can't rein it in and try to put out a message that no, they aren't totally evil and bent on destroying other people's hard-built regions. They will have to paint defender regions that crash invader regions as a different, but no less destructive, form of invader regions.

As far as "rewarding failure", wars tend to have a specific endpoint: when one side is no longer able to bear the cost of the war OR when one side is no longer capable of defending itself. Liberation doesn't reward failure; it allows for the continuation of a war by allowing allies to further contribute. Also, it's not like a liberation can pass overnight - drafting, submitting, waiting for the queue, and voting will take two weeks to a month, during which time private diplomatic efforts are still viable.

In conclusion, invaders (and defenders) now need to consider the political ramifications of their actions.

[Travancore-Cochin]

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.

That was a wonderful story. Not that I paid any attention to it, but the way you shed 'vader tears in that story moistened even my eye. Maybe I should call New Dracora over and make him take a look at this. He was complaining about 'vader tears getting a bit stale.

So long, and no thanks for all the fish not served!

[Havensky]

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?

[Krioval]

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".

[Martyrdoom]

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".

Glad to see someone on the ball in these not so hallowed halls . As stated (time and time again) a liberation proposal is not, was not, and should not be about 'returning control of the region to the natives'; it is about 'striking down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region.'

[Martyrdoom]

[...]
Liberations have always been about returning power to the natives. Always.

Really? Who's the delegate in Feudal Japan at the moment then? Oh, is it a 'gradual' process? I think to add weight to your argument, it might have been better to return a native to power asap. You've had FOUR DAYS.

[Sedgistan]

Well he appears to be kicking out invaders, and to be working with the natives, so I shouldn't worry...

[Martyrdoom]

Well he appears to be kicking out invaders, and to be working with the natives, so I shouldn't worry...

Why would he kick his fellow invaders out?! Anyone else entering the region is, you know, just taking advantage of the 'free-entry'...

[Evil Wolf]

Well he appears to be kicking out invaders, and to be working with the natives, so I shouldn't worry...

What natives?

[Sedgistan]

Well he appears to be kicking out invaders, and to be working with the natives, so I shouldn't worry...

What natives?

Knights of Zion, Kanbei, Masakazu Hoshizaki, Blackwolfe, I've even talked to Govindia/Romabengal.

[Martyrdoom]

Well he appears to be kicking out invaders, and to be working with the natives, so I shouldn't worry...

What natives?

Knights of Zion, Kanbei, Masakazu Hoshizaki, Blackwolfe, I've even talked to Govindia/Romabengal.

Knights of Zion and Masakazu Hoshizaki are in Tokugawa Japan as of this moment. Far from being 'natives' of Feudal Japan.

[Sedgistan]

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.

[Cinistra]

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 ?

[Martyrdoom]

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.

Ah right, lovely jubbly then.

[Martyrdoom]

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 ?

Exactly Cinistra: 'free-entry' was just an easily-corruptable catch-word!!! It was 'about returning the region to the control of the natives', which is, in turn, a euphemism for the installation of the new defender/invader delegate.

I'm getting confused with the role-reversals. Am I now a defender?!

[Sedgistan]

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.

[Martyrdoom]

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'.

With that line of reasoning, there should be another liberation proposal after the repeal, so as to allow 'free-entry' 'former residents to return'. You see, in actual fact you and your cohorts are now the invaders who have taken the delegacy; you're in the process of passwording the region and banjecting individuals who want to take advantage of 'free-entry'. Does this MO sound familar? It's exactly what you were ostensibly against, but are in fact paradoxically (and I daresay hypocritically) repeating...

Anyone wanting to 'repeal the repeal' has the same moral basis you previously had. It's circular. I'm intrigued to ascertain whether, in such a case, authentic defenders be going up against the charlatan ones? Are there any left?

[Cinistra]

Isn't funny how players' memories become selective ? The resolution was passed in order to remove the password, thus allowing free entry. Now it's had been turned into something like "free entry as the new WA delegate deems fit". Consequently, entry is not free, it's selective. The "defenders" force is now pr. definition a force of occupants. Well, that's their choice, but please let try not dupe the rest of us with this mumbo-jumbo rhetoric of "liberation". If not you are willing to call a spade a spade, I will: Feudal Japan is now under occupation of a plethora of imperialist regions, who denotes themselves as "defenders". The WFE of Feudal Japan clearly shows this fact.

[Krioval]

Don't worry, you'll see a native restored to the delegacy soon enough.

Fantastic! We can just leave the liberation resolution in effect until this happens then - don't want to act prematurely, y'know? Any word on whether all of FJ's natives are willing to go on record in favor of never bothering the WA again with regards to that region if the repeal is moved forward?

[Sedgistan]

Knights of Zion/The KoZ wants the resolution passes ASAP, as do all the defenders - so that we can move out, and leave the region to him & the other natives.

I didn't see any of the invaders complaining about Groznia kicking nations out. The liberation resolutions are there to remove the password - thats the only action they do. The reason (always acknowledged by me) for the FJ resolution was to allow the former residents back. Now if you want a resolution which allows true free entry, why don't you lobby the mods for one which both removes a password, and also bans the delegate from ejecting people?

[Cinistra]

Ah, so the resolution only secured free entry, not true free entry. I didn't see the distinction. How sloppy of me.

[Unibot]

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'.

You seem to be under the impression that Liberations can't happen for a reason, the category description provides us with the knowledge of what the proposal can do. But why we do it, is what fills the proposal with rhetoric.

I can't imagine having proposals with no justification.

Imagine the GA proposing human rights bills solely for the technical benefits of having higher civil rights ratings or submitting free trade proposals because people want their economic stats to increase. Those proposals would be unquestionably crappy.

Now apply that logic to the SC, and imagine a proposal being submitted to solely knock the password off a region, without any reason or rhyme to it. That would not only be absurd, but crap.

The rhetoric is vital to a proposal -- and so long as the rhetoric aligns with the single goal provided by the category's description, its totally legal.

As free-entry, would include free-entry for former residents - its aligns, and is perfectally acceptable.