NationStates

For your consideration, honoured ambassadors. There is a consideration to return the password powers to the rightful inhabitants of Feudal Japan, because the possible motive may be refounding the region with an rightful active nation. But the approval of the region itself would be required before proceeding. For analysis only, for now.



Description: NOTING the downfall of the leaders of the Catlandatopia and Fox-Rite led-occupation of the region of the founderless region of Feudal Japan on 30 September 2009 as result of a successful resistance movement by determined nations and regions that were opposed to the said nation's leadership, and the intervention of a consortium of specialist region defence forces;

CONGRATULATING the efforts of the resistance movement and defenders throughout NationStates for achieving the goal of opening up the region, which had been desolate since the invasion of November 2007;

RECOGNIZING that amid the liberation, the region remains under threat from retaliation from the invaders and its supporters, posing a serious concern to whether the region of Feudal Japan can be successfully rebuilt;

AWARE that, as the natives and rightful inhabitants of the region have reclaimed their region, password protection rights should be restored to prevent such similar invasions from happening again, and perhaps begin the process for refounding under an active nation, the restoration of peace and security, or whatever;

Therefore,

REPEALS the Security Council Resolution "Liberate Feudal Japan".

---

I could be a bit more faithful by replacing the last clause to say retires "rather" than "repeal", but it seems "repeal" is "repeal"!

Shameless

Well, that's the third unique draft of this I've seen, counting this more official version I've worked on as Emperor of Feudal Japan, in collaboration with the defending leadership. My primary concern at the moment is whether we are crossing some line with the detailed listing of defenders and invaders.


Repeal "Liberate Feudal Japan"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

Statements captured by Security Council Resolution #6: Liberate Feudal Japan (Category: Liberation) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

RECOGNISING Feudal Japan, a formerly sizeable and active region prior to its invasion in November 2007, has now been liberated as was desired by the passage of this Liberation resolution;

NOTING that the liberating forces of the FRA, TITO, Equilism, Texas, Europeia, 00000 A World Power, Yggdrasil, The United Kingdom, Crusaders of Justice, Liberty Alliance, Antarctica, and Royal Federation of Nations have thereby redeemed the heinous act of invasion perpetrated by Catlandatopia, Fox Rite, The Cathedral, and Blades of Conquest upon the region Feudal Japan;

UNDERSTANDING the region remains in contention between these opposing forces and under threat of repeated invasion and assault, with risk of disruption to reclamation activities of the residents of Feudal Japan as they rebuild their shattered community;

FURTHER recognizing that the constructive act of said rebuilding will swiftly contradict the resolution's observation that "current occupiers have left the region to rot and degrade into a mockery of its former self", which referred to its status post-invasion, pre-liberation;

AWARE that the only hope for true peace and security being restored to this founderless region is for password protection to be able to defend against future aggression;

HEREBY repeals Security Council Resolution #6 "Liberate Feudal Japan".

I guess one can have their cake AND eat it afterall.

"RECOGNISING Feudal Japan, a formerly sizeable and active region prior to its invasion in November 2007, has now been liberated as was desired by the passage of this Liberation resolution."

This current invasion cannot be a 'liberation'; the 'liberation' was merely the initial removal of the delegate-imposed password preventing free-entry to the region.

"NOTING that the liberating invading forces of the FRA, TITO, Equilism, Texas, Europeia, 00000 A World Power, Yggdrasil, The United Kingdom, Crusaders of Justice, Liberty Alliance, Antarctica, and Royal Federation of Nations have thereby redeemed reciprocated the heinous legal act of invasion perpetrated by Catlandatopia, Fox Rite, The Cathedral, and Blades of Conquest upon the region Feudal Japan."

AWARE that the only hope for true peace and security being restored to this founderless region is for password protection to be able to defend against future aggression;

Which reads: 'the WA/SC has now outlived its usefulness for us. That regaining 'free-entry' businness was a complete sham - it was about personal empowerment - and we now intend to renege on that operatively and spiritually by preventing free-entry with the imposition of the very password which we wanted removed: so thanks SC, and fuck you NS.

The previous invaders could have wrote similar justifications about 'future aggression', which has indeed been borne out.

If founderless regions don't install a password from the off, then someone else will.

Again and again and again, the category and concept of liberation (which I don't necessarily disagree with) has been (ab)used by power-blocs to bring the SC into disrepute and pervert its intention.

The term 'liberation' doesn't now belong to the Security Council, it has been used by defenders for years before the Liberation resolutions were introduced, and will continue to refer to the act of removing an invader delegate from power.

The original resolution (and I should know, and I made this clear) was about allowing the former residents to return to Feudal Japan, not to turn it into some Security Council owned 'free territory' for everyone to sit around in.

My preference would be to see Knights of Zion submit the repeal, since it would have extra force coming from the Emperor of Feudal Japan. In addition, I think I'll probably end up as the first person to actively campaign for the repeal of their WA resolution

Sedgistan wrote:The term 'liberation' doesn't now belong to the Security Council, it has been used by defenders for years before the Liberation resolutions were introduced, and will continue to refer to the act of removing an invader delegate from power.

The original resolution (and I should know, and I made this clear) was about allowing the former residents to return to Feudal Japan, not to turn it into some Security Council owned 'free territory' for everyone to sit around in.[/b]

My preference would be to see Knights of Zion submit the repeal, since it would have extra force coming from the Emperor of Feudal Japan. In addition, I think I'll probably end up as the first person to actively campaign for the repeal of their WA resolution

I'm not particularly interested in how defenders have used 'liberation'; the term was used in the SC, so it must conform to how liberation is (ostensibly) defined by the SC - merely removing the password imposed by a delegate and NOT removing a delegate, invader or not: that is way beyond its purview.

Regarding my emphasis: Yeah and for me that was clearly illegal and underhand but what is the use of pointing it out, as I have done numerous times to others and mods: in essence any clause about re-empowering former residents or any other group is akin to a WA-police action; it should'nt have been there. Once a proposal is submitted, in effect the region is indeed 'some security council owned free-territory' for everyone to sit around in for everyone to come and go as they please like the resolution states.

As I said before, shameless.

Oh and it obviously was not THEIR WA resolution, it was yours and your overlords.

Invasion is a legitimate game tactic, yes it is a shame that several regions become invaded then invalidated but there must be some way around this.

Why can't passwords be revoked on regions with nobody in them. This would allow people to legitimately take over regions - with the intent of keeping them - but would not allow people to simply take over, then leave it to rot. Far be it from me to question what is deemed acceptable in the SC but invasion should be a legitimate tactic if it has a justifiable end, and not just simply to annoy.

P.S: I don't really care, I'm not in WA

Liberation proposals are the community reaction to game over senarios. The NS community at large has demonstrated time and again their disdain for those who invade a region, kick out the natives,and then put a password on it.

As a matter of practicality, there is no current method of restoring the abilty to password a region back to native hands except by a repeal. As a general rule, the WA should only do this at the request of the natives. Belgium said no - Japan said yes.

There's no deception here. The WA voted to liberate Feudal Japan with the understanding that the WA as a whole wanted it returned to the natives. The invader community, who is in the minority on this issue, didn't like it. It's only natural that they wouldn't like the SC giving the natives back the ability to defend themselves against invasion. It'll make for one more safe region where the natives can live in peace.

I understand the arguments against liberation resolutions themselves - however they are now a reality. If you are going to debate the repeal, debate it on it's merits. If you want to argue about the proposals themselves - there's a whole other thread for that.

Crabulonia wrote:Invasion is a legitimate game tactic, yes it is a shame that several regions become invaded then invalidated but there must be some way around this.

Why can't passwords be revoked on regions with nobody in them. This would allow people to legitimately take over regions - with the intent of keeping them - but would not allow people to simply take over, then leave it to rot. Far be it from me to question what is deemed acceptable in the SC but invasion should be a legitimate tactic if it has a justifiable end, and not just simply to annoy.

P.S: I don't really care, I'm not in WA

Exactly my thoughts.

Havensky wrote:Liberation proposals are the community reaction to game over senarios. The NS community at large has demonstrated time and again their disdain for those who invade a region, kick out the natives,and then put a password on it.

As a matter of practicality, there is no current method of restoring the abilty to password a region back to native hands except by a repeal. As a general rule, the WA should only do this at the request of the natives. Belgium said no - Japan said yes.

There's no deception here. The WA voted to liberate Feudal Japan with the understanding that the WA as a whole wanted it returned to the natives. The invader community, who is in the minority on this issue, didn't like it. It's only natural that they wouldn't like the SC giving the natives back the ability to defend themselves against invasion. It'll make for one more safe region where the natives can live in peace.

I understand the arguments against liberation resolutions themselves - however they are now a reality. If you are going to debate the repeal, debate it on it's merits. If you want to argue about the proposals themselves - there's a whole other thread for that.

That is the deception. At some point I'm going to go blue in the face repeatedly saying this, but having a vote on 'returning the region to the natives' is wholly illegal. The vote should only be concerned with "A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region". What we have had here is a WA police action and I know that such actions are definitely illegal: its smells, looks, feels and is one.

And 'natives' is an imprecise and defunct term at any rate. Fair play on co-opting the SC though.

Hell, I'd approve this for vote just to see if the WA can bring itself to repeal a "Liberation." Half the WA doesn't read the proposals they vote on anyway, so the game-automated inclusion of loaded words like "Liberate" virtually guarantees the resolution will pass by a wide margin. How could anyone be against "liberating" people? And in the inverse, how could they be against repealing someone's "liberation"?

I predict a failure by epic proportions should this go to vote.

Okay, honoured ambassadors, there has to be a way to collaborate all three versions into one effective repeal. My version tries to specify particular defender forces, because that would be being biased. What I like to see is that: all of those in favour of making Feudal Japan free again should be praised in general, maybe a bit of emphasis on the defenders who fought in the front line.

I like both version's because it's states the need for the region to be passworded.

I don't necessarily think it's 100% necessary to name each of the combatants. I can't speak for Texas, but the Airship Armada doesn't need recognition.

I really don't like the wording in Ms. Harper's version. I understand that it's a compromise position that's trying to sound neutral, but the World Assembly isn't neutral on this issue. If it was then the liberation resolution wouldn't have passed by such a large margin. And just because the resolution is made to sound neutral does not mean that the invaders will vote to help Feudal Japan defend itself from invaders.

However, regardless of the wording, Security Council resolutions are utilitarian by nature. As long as it gets the job done, the exact wording is just details and icing on cake. The natives need, and deserve, to have the ability to protect their region. 'Nuff said.

I like Knight of Zion's version.

Charlotte wrote:What I like to see is that: all of those in favour of making Feudal Japan free again should be praised in general, maybe a bit of emphasis on the defenders who fought in the front line.

Well, a secretariat ruling on the matter would be nice, ambassador, but I could see if apologizing in a repeal is outlawed in proposal writing that praising would be equally outlawed. As Ard stated about an earlier version of my Recent Repeal, the voter not only was agreeing to repealing the resolution but also agreeing to an apology by clicking "VOTE FOR" -- which is two functions in the text, one of which is not recognized by the Security Council or the specific proposal category. By having a PRAISING clause, the voter would have to not only agree to repealing the proposal, but also praising it. Therefore I'd suggest a Commend resolution as more desirable.

However, I do like the usage of "RETIRES" instead of "REPEALS", because you're essentially putting a resolution to rest that has done its job well, which is unique to the Liberation Category.

I'd see if you can get a mod ruling on both of those, they're good points you raise, ambassador.

Martyrdoom wrote:Shameless

Indeed you are sir.

You'll never get enough people to vote to repeal this.

A Liberation is permanent, they will always pass when they go to vote, and a repeal will never pass. People just don't like passwords.

It's like a trade off.

(EDIT: Besides, if it was repealed the same raiders will hit again and set another secret password just to make us waste another 8 days. And so on and so on. I know I would.)

New Dracora wrote:

Martyrdoom wrote:Shameless

Indeed you are sir.

That's a shameful comment!

Next time I'll TG you and make sure it's ok to post on here and speak my mind yeah?

Daynor wrote: It's like a trade off.

Shhhhhh!!! People will get funny ideas about this being an actual game Daynor!!!

Revisions made, honoured ambassadors, but it is worth noting that the ability of repealing a resolution will depend on the situation, as I have discovered when I developed a version for Belgium, that is still in Ms. Harper's storage cupboard under "R". The information have been rectified to the fact that it was not Macedon that originally invaded the region, but a Catlandatopia and Fox-Rite-led invasion. The date of liberation is a good pointer to remind resolution readers of what happened.

I still like the Knight's of Zion version only becuase it more accuratly states the intent and desires of the region. (Returning the ability to password the region back to the natives VS 'the eventual winner.' The real winner should be the natives.

Everything else is wonderful and splendily written as always Ambassador Harper.

I still would like to see The KoZ (Knights of Zion) submit the proposal because he IS the rightful native delegate. Who better to fight for the rights of Feudal Japan? No matter which version ends up the floor the symbolic gesture is important since its his region we're debating.

I'd like to ask the honoured ambassador to Knights of Zion on how we can bring two versions, one of mine and one of yours together into an effective repeal under a team. I do not mind being either author or co-author. What really matters is the return of stability into the region.

Yours,

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I'd like to ask the honoured ambassador to Knights of Zion on how we can bring two versions, one of mine and one of yours together into an effective repeal under a team. I do not mind being either author or co-author. What really matters is the return of stability into the region.

I think what "really matters" to you is making sure you're acknowledged as an author in some way, but your insatiable ego is another matter entirely.

I asked this when the category was implemented, but of course everyone was just so excited about the shiny newness that no one bothered answering me: Why are we introducing repeals now as a mere formality? Repeals have always been an instrument to correct mistakes in a previous revolution by striking out the badness. Now we're repealing resolutions, not because they're flawed or redundant, but as a bureaucratic necessity? Why are we using four days' voting time to discuss an issue where there really is no argument: we removed the password, they are free now, yay, let's give 'em back their password? At least on repeals of redundant resolutions, there is usually an issue as to whether the resolution truly is redundant, and if repealing is necessary. Here, there is no argument. (Unless raiders show up to gripe about the SC's pro-defender bias again, and we all know how fun that has been. ) And what if the repeal fails? Are we gonna gear into NAZI EUROPE mode and keep submitting repeals again and again till one passes?

Finally, why should the natives of a region have to appeal to the WA for permission to impose password protection again? Why can't the "Liberation" effect simply expire after a few months and render the question of repeal moot? Seems to me a far more efficient regime than voting 2+ times on the same region's predicament.

Inflatable Gandalfs wrote:I think what "really matters" to you is making sure you're acknowledged as an author in some way, but your insatiable ego is another matter entirely.

That borders on flame-baiting.

Let's stay on the subject and actually work to improve the legislation please.

Gandalfs wrote:Finally, why should the natives of a region have to appeal to the WA for permission to impose password protection again? Why can't the "Liberation" effect simply expire after a few months and render the question of repeal moot? Seems to me a far more efficient regime than voting 2+ times on the same region's predicament.

Well... technically speaking, the liberation of Feudal Japan didn't liberate the region and return the region to the old natives - it just liberated the region. Obviously.

So as the WASC doesn't formally recognize (or technically recognize) the natives, then they have no more right than anyone of us to impose password protection again.

I mean, some might consider the raiders who held the region for two years the natives, but they didn't have that freedom either after the Liberation proposal passed.

___

As for a decaying liberation effect, I see that as being problematic, and possibly causing more problems than we have now.

Look at this campaign, it took about a month to liberate Feudal Japan from the raiders, it was an impressive feat from both sides of the 'field' -- but what if the liberation 'had run out of time'. I have no doubt we would have see a "Liberate Feudal Japan II" come to vote, and I know how you hate sequels.