Remove "Liberate"

[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'.

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.

Do they align though? Former residents are invariably banned. It takes a new delegate (and an overtly political/purposeful act) to undo that; 'free-entry' cannot do that however 'free' it nominally is.

What it can do: 'remove password'

Why: 'to allow "free-entry" where it was previously prevented because its bad.' I have enough rhyme to last me all day.

Given that a liberation proposal, predicated on 'free-entry', cannot undo, by itself, the banning of former residents, then a proposal containing clauses on 'returning the region to the natives' is outside the scope. As the esteemed Travancore stated (p.5), "the language used in the proposal should not suggest that it does something other than what it could do." That's why I've been saying its illegal all along.

How does the removal of the password, by itself mind, allow previously banned former residents into the region? That dog don't hunt.

[Havensky]

I'd love to change the name of liberation proposals. Liberations occur when the invader delegate is kicked out and the native delegate restored. I think that would clear up a lot of things up.

Perhaps, 'Disempower Delegate' for liberation proposals and 'Empower Delegate' for the post liberation repeal. The effect is the same and it matches up with the authors intent.

Additionally, it makes more sense if the Admin ever decides to put an expiration date on these things. (Or if it was an option when you sumbitted it - ie, disempower for 45 days)

[Inflatable Gandalfs]

"Open Borders"

[Havensky]

Would we keep running into the same problem that we're having now with the liberation proposals? Natives would submit an 'open borders' resolution to stop the 'game over senario' - then once they have it back they'd submit a 'close border' resolution.

I could already hear the argument about 'why are we voting to close them after we just re-opened it? - your wasting the WA's time!' (Unless that resolution was allowed to have an option to expire as an effect)

At least with a 'disempower' resolution - it's seen as punitive.

But I would take 'Open Borders' over liberate.

[Krioval]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but isn't any non-native delegate, by definition, an invader delegate? And while we're at it, how exactly are we defining "native" for the purpose of liberations? See, the word "liberation" probably should be changed to something more neutral. But I will reiterate my point that the WA should not be in the business of differentiating natives, invaders, and defenders.

And just because a region wants something does not mean that: a) it's going to happen, and b) it's necessarily a good thing.

[Martyrdoom]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but isn't any non-native delegate, by definition, an invader delegate? And while we're at it, how exactly are we defining "native" for the purpose of liberations? See, the word "liberation" probably should be changed to something more neutral. But I will reiterate my point that the WA should not be in the business of differentiating natives, invaders, and defenders.

And just because a region wants something does not mean that: a) it's going to happen, and b) it's necessarily a good thing.

Given that The Ever Vigilent Shogun of Hamagatama Zenshi was delegate for 670+ days in FJ, I'm pretty sure that lengthy duration would make said nation a 'native' by conventional understanding.

[Unibot]

What it can do: 'remove password'

Why: 'to allow "free-entry" where it was previously prevented because its bad.' I have enough rhyme to last me all day.

Given that a liberation proposal, predicated on 'free-entry', cannot undo, by itself, the banning of former residents, then a proposal containing clauses on 'returning the region to the natives' is outside the scope. As the esteemed Travancore stated (p.5), "the language used in the proposal should not suggest that it does something other than what it could do." That's why I've been saying its illegal all along.

How does the removal of the password, by itself mind, allow previously banned former residents into the region? That dog don't hunt.

As I've stated before, its perfectly fine to suggest in the rhetoric that defenders could use the opportunity of free entry to obtain the delegacy, and unban the former residents. It is however not 'perfectly fine' to suggest, urge or encourage that members of the WA help with the defending movement in any way, shape or form.

Without suggesting that the liberation (in the technical WA sense) will do anything, for anyone -- there is no point to the proposal, it would lack vital rhetoric, and justification

If you'd like to propose a resolution to 'liberate' a region from defenders or natives hands for nefarious reasons --- justification would be needed in the rhetoric like Liberate Feudal Japan, and Liberate Belgium before that. Really good justification, and rhetoric in fact, because the common person disagrees against the principles of raiding -- in fact, hell you'd have to just flat out lie in the proposal. But who cares! Its the WASC !!

[Martyrdoom]

What it can do: 'remove password'

Why: 'to allow "free-entry" where it was previously prevented because its bad.' I have enough rhyme to last me all day.

Given that a liberation proposal, predicated on 'free-entry', cannot undo, by itself, the banning of former residents, then a proposal containing clauses on 'returning the region to the natives' is outside the scope. As the esteemed Travancore stated (p.5), "the language used in the proposal should not suggest that it does something other than what it could do." That's why I've been saying its illegal all along.

How does the removal of the password, by itself mind, allow previously banned former residents into the region? That dog don't hunt.

As I've stated before, its perfectly fine to suggest in the rhetoric that defenders could use the opportunity of free entry to obtain the delegacy, and unban the former residents. It is however not 'perfectly fine' to suggest, urge or encourage that members of the WA help with the defending movement in any way, shape or form.

Without suggesting that the liberation (in the technical WA sense) will do anything, for anyone -- there is no point to the proposal, it would lack vital rhetoric, and justification

If you'd like to propose a resolution to 'liberate' a region from defenders or natives hands for nefarious reasons --- justification would be needed in the rhetoric like Liberate Feudal Japan, and Liberate Belgium before that. Really good justification, and rhetoric in fact, because the common person disagrees against the principles of raiding -- in fact, hell you'd have to just flat out lie in the proposal. But who cares! Its the WASC !!

Well, what's happened in FJ? That could be construed as 'nefarious' by people who look for nefarious activities: we have a liberation proposal from a nominal defender, who acquires the delegacy, and then seeks to re-institute the regional password through a repeal. It's exactly the same MO that people were afraid raiders would adopt in taking advantage of the opportunites liberation throws up. If the common person disagrees against the principles of raiding, then they should disagree with the foregoing acts, as that is raiding/invading. What is Sedge if not an invader-delegate?

Moreover, there is a point to a liberation (in the technical sense) in that it removes the password so the wider community can reclaim a corner of the game-map previously off-limits i.e. the locked and puppeted scenario, of which I'm no fan myself.

Free-entry, claiming the delegacy, unbanning natives, that is three separate actions. A liberation by itself cannot do the two subsequent ones, so the proposal should not implie that it can. What does a liberation do other than suggest, urge or encourage that members of the WA help with the defending movement when it is proposed by a defender???

I see what you're saying Unibot, and have nothing against you, nor anyone here, but I just don't buy it all. If the invader-equivilent of a liberation came in, whereby the WA could do my 'job', I would be aghast, and would find using it completely contrary to what I want to achieve by the means I think appropraite.

[Sedgistan]

The Liberation resolution in Feudal Japan was actually submitted by the Shogun of Feudal Japan, The KoZ. You might also note he's due to get the delegacy tonight, as I've been asking people to switch their endorsements to him.

[Martyrdoom]

The Liberation resolution in Feudal Japan was actually submitted by the Shogun of Feudal Japan, The KoZ. You might also note he's due to get the delegacy tonight, as I've been asking people to switch their endorsements to him.

On here Passed: Liberate Feudal Japan it say's the initial liberation proposal was authored by The Sedge. Apologies to you, the repeal was indeed authored by The Koz though, I was getting mixed-up with the initial Ryberg draft which was 'for analysis'.

However, it still does not reflect well that The Koz is due is get the delegacy tonight, some 5/6days after the initial liberation and just after the repeal has reached quorum.

[Sedgistan]

The KoZ knows why he's getting the delegacy now, and agreed with me having the delegacy for 5 days. I used my influence to kick out all but one of the invaders, while he builds it up to kick out Groznia, and to password the region. It saves having to keep a load of defenders there for a long period of time.

[Unibot]

Free-entry, claiming the delegacy, unbanning natives, that is three separate actions. A liberation by itself cannot do the two subsequent ones, so the proposal should not implie that it can. What does a liberation do other than suggest, urge or encourage that members of the WA help with the defending movement when it is proposed by a defender???

But its not saying by voting for the proposal, the game will automatically unban natives, and claim the delegacy. Those clauses are suggested reasons for the free-entry which in the eyes of the author, and the voters were important. Without those clauses, the movement is baseless.

[Kalibarr]

The Liberate function is a needed element in my opinion,but it also is out of the WA jurisdiction,I still support it though because the WA is the only practical way of using the liberate function.Also I don't think liberate would be removed from the game unless a majority of people were against it.

[Travancore-Cochin]

OOC: Though I said I'm quitting this thread, I was dragged in here by Martyrdoom.

IC:

Given that a liberation proposal, predicated on 'free-entry', cannot undo, by itself, the banning of former residents, then a proposal containing clauses on 'returning the region to the natives' is outside the scope. As the esteemed Travancore stated (p.5), "the language used in the proposal should not suggest that it does something other than what it could do." That's why I've been saying its illegal all along.

How does the removal of the password, by itself mind, allow previously banned former residents into the region? That dog don't hunt.

The esteemed Travancore is appalled that the-raider-who's-quoting-him is either misquoting him in good faith, having not comprehended what he said, or misquoting him with a malicious intent to tarnish his image.

Therefore, he'd like to requote his own post alluded to by the said raider, and link to it, while at it:

Amazing. How you take quotes out of context, and then twist and turn them, and intersperse them with your opinions until they take new meanings.

<snip> .. mindless, illogical invader rant

Ardchoille's comments about "anything outside the ambit of the proposal category should not be in the proposal" is not even remotely what you have suggested. If you're in the dark about the context, see Kenny's and Unibot's posts for clarification. What she said was, in essence, that the language used in the proposal should not suggest that it does something other than what it could do.

For e.g., Commendations include the line at the end, "HEREBY commends X". What she said was that something like, "HEREBY commends X, hands X the control of the WA and the game, and MANDATES that everyone sing praises in his favour" would be illegal, because it tries to do something other than what it could. That's why the clause "RECOMMENDS member states to support the rebuilding and the native-led defence of Pakistan" in that resolution elicited such a ruling.

Now point out the Liberation resolutions, that have passed so far, which are "outside the ambit of the proposal category", as Ardchoille put it.

We'd also like to remind the general public that interacting with brick walls is such a waste of time and energy and we suggest that they cease doing it. That will be all. Thank you for your time.

[Martyrdoom]

The Liberate function is a needed element in my opinion,but it also is out of the WA jurisdiction,I still support it though because the WA is the only practical way of using the liberate function.Also I don't think liberate would be removed from the game unless a majority of people were against it.

Liberation is only needed by residents and defenders who cannot get their initial act together. Residents can re-found, get a new region, password the region; defenders can turn up on time.

[Martyrdoom]

OOC: Though I said I'm quitting this thread, I was dragged in here by Martyrdoom.

IC:

Given that a liberation proposal, predicated on 'free-entry', cannot undo, by itself, the banning of former residents, then a proposal containing clauses on 'returning the region to the natives' is outside the scope. As the esteemed Travancore stated (p.5), "the language used in the proposal should not suggest that it does something other than what it could do." That's why I've been saying its illegal all along.

How does the removal of the password, by itself mind, allow previously banned former residents into the region? That dog don't hunt.

The esteemed Travancore is appalled that the-raider-who's-quoting-him is either misquoting him in good faith, having not comprehended what he said, or misquoting him with a malicious intent to tarnish his image.

Therefore, he'd like to requote his own post alluded to by the said raider, and link to it, while at it:

Amazing. How you take quotes out of context, and then twist and turn them, and intersperse them with your opinions until they take new meanings.

<snip> .. mindless, illogical invader rant

Ardchoille's comments about "anything outside the ambit of the proposal category should not be in the proposal" is not even remotely what you have suggested. If you're in the dark about the context, see Kenny's and Unibot's posts for clarification. What she said was, in essence, that the language used in the proposal should not suggest that it does something other than what it could do.

For e.g., Commendations include the line at the end, "HEREBY commends X". What she said was that something like, "HEREBY commends X, hands X the control of the WA and the game, and MANDATES that everyone sing praises in his favour" would be illegal, because it tries to do something other than what it could. That's why the clause "RECOMMENDS member states to support the rebuilding and the native-led defence of Pakistan" in that resolution elicited such a ruling.

Now point out the Liberation resolutions, that have passed so far, which are "outside the ambit of the proposal category", as Ardchoille put it.

We'd also like to remind the general public that interacting with brick walls is such a waste of time and energy and we suggest that they cease doing it. That will be all. Thank you for your time.

No worries, Trav. I'm done here now. I just wanted to show the wider world how it is invariably defenders who voice the loudest defence of liberations. Where's all the natives on this? Funny that.

[New Dracora]

Why is this topic still the subject of serious discussion?

The liberate function is here to stay - adapt or die peeps.

[Travancore-Cochin]

No worries, Trav. I'm done here now. I just wanted to show the wider world how it is invariably defenders who voice the loudest defence of liberations. Where's all the natives on this? Funny that.

What you've shown, instead, is that invaders are the ones who want to get rid of it, at all costs. If defenders use these type of resolutions to raid as you say, then why don't raiders, whose officially declared goal is to raid regions and destroy communities, use it? Funny that.

[Martyrdoom]

Standards. I don't want or need to rely on the WA to do my 'job'. Plus, I cannot condone outright lying to WA members through the SC. Maybe those are the only things separating the increasingly blurly lines between us.

By myself I can never somehow be the voice for 'invaders'; that's essentialising. I don't speak for anyone else except myself. Conversely, however, there have been more than a few defenders defending liberation on here. As soon as someone kicks up a slight stink, its been "right, everyone to the forums"!

Now I'm done.

[Travancore-Cochin]

Standards. I don't want or need to rely on the WA to do my 'job'. Plus, I cannot condone outright lying to WA members through the SC. Maybe those are the only things separating the increasingly blurly lines between us.

We don't need the WA to do our job as well. We only need it to counter your.. I'm sorry.. invaders' pathetic attempt at being megalomaniacs by putting an invisible password, after having banjected all natives, destroying a region and its community (which had been illegal in the past, but now is fully legal). Mind you, I'm not at all satisfied with Liberations either. I propose a return to the pre-Influence days when these actions would have caused the mods to delete you invaders who carry out such acts. On top of that, I also propose DoSes for repeat offenders.

And pardon me, your holiness, I thought every WA member had an intellect of his/her own with which he/she could filter out the lies from the truths. Obviously, I'm wrong and only thou and thine invader colleagues have that. Silly me.

[New Dracora]

Standards. I don't want or need to rely on the WA to do my 'job'.

Invading is a job now?

Geez, no wonder you guys don't seem to have any fun.

THIS IS GAME

(Anyone who gets the reference receives a cookie taco)

[Cinistra]

It hasn't been much movement on this thread lately. The two camps, invaders/raiders and defenders, are not at all willing to listen to each other's arguments, and are no way going to give each other any credit. For the defenders, invasion is per se bad, as invaders destroy peace loving, cozy little, innocent communities . As the witch-hunters of old, they would have banished the raider vermin from the game, because they are simply evil. According to The Defender World View, raiders are lowly bullies, because the raider delegates actually does what WA delegates is entitled to, password protect a region , and pruning the occupied region. An excerpt from The Holy Scriptures, The Rules:
>Can I invade other people's regions? Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.
>Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else? You can try. Invader Delegates tend to have very little Regional Influence, which makes ejecting long-time residents difficult. But Delegates can be as kind, generous, evil, or despotic as they wish. It's up to regional residents to elect good Delegates. and >My region's WA Delegate is an evil dictator who ejects nations for no reason! Make him stop!
Delegates are elected: if you don't like yours, it's up to you to get him/her unelected. While in power, Delegates can use or abuse their powers as they see fit.
Thus, "liberation" is used as a method to create new game mechanics, for "The Greater Good", the punishment of evil . Thus, all "true" peace loving players are obliged to and the defenders for their benevolent, humanistic and altruistic ways. All hail!
For raiders, though, defenders are viewed as the true imperialists, false saviours, who are willing to go to any lengths to wipe out raiders/invaders, or so called "griefers" by the means of altering game mechanics, thus, The Holy Rules themselves . : WA resolutions are a way to bring all member nations into line on a particular issue; be that environmental, democratic, free trade, or whatever. Don't suggest game improvements there. They just clutter up the place. And they make people think, "Hey, yeah, that would be cool! Why doesn't that bum Max Barry get off his ass and do that?" I get e-mails. This Original Sin, is viewed as the beginning to The End, where the NS Deamons, known as the Mods, can now at request from the WASC (an equivalent to The Round Table of Camelot), through the machinations of The White Knights of Defenderdom. This Heresy, the alteration of The Holy Scriptures, as we all can read at The First Book of Creation, The FAQ, must be stopped or else the game itself will decline into the Dark Age of complete Boredom .
So here we are, the raiders have the lower hand, when trying to convince the NS players in general, and the victims of raids in particular, that raiding indeed is an expression of Freedom. Defenders can always claim they are protectors of the weak and powerless, and in this Holy Mission, the result justifies they means.
It's ironic though, that raiding is a supported way of life by many Internet users, but by the word of pirate. The pirate is at large romanticized in the popular media by the POTC movies, and file sharers are at large view upon as heroes. However, in NS raiders are the agents of the devil, propagators of True Evil .

[Gobbannium]

You know, if you're going to quote the rules, you could at least try to make them relevant rules.

[Cinistra]

I really didn't believe defenders thought the rules were relevant at all.

[Martyrdoom]

Standards. I don't want or need to rely on the WA to do my 'job'.

Invading is a job now?

Geez, no wonder you guys don't seem to have any fun.

THIS IS GAME

(Anyone who gets the reference receives a cookie taco)

If you look, you'll see the term 'job' as a scare quote, indicating that I feel it's a misnomer; I was ironically referencing someone who used it previously in a serious sense. Not sure who that was mind. Right back to the topic, defending good, raiding bad someone was saying.