[Submitted] Liberate Haven

[Canton Empire]

I put liberation in quotes because its a typical raider move to drag a region into a conflict in which it doesnt want to be involved in. So now do know.
DO NOT SAY YES TO THIS LEGALIZED TYRNNY!

They don't have a problem being involved when it's them being the aggressors. It's simply incorrect to say that they are innocent, as I outlined in the draft which I suspect you have not fully read.

Do not fucking say i havent read the draft. Out of everything that annoys me, that annoys me the MOST. Question my stance on this, and debate my reasoning, but dont let me EVER hear you saying crap you dont know.

[Cormac A Stark]

Cormac, my point was there is precedent to open up a desirable nut for the Security Council to feast on. And while it may be cowardly in your eyes to hide behind a founder, the SC can't do anything about that. It can however remove Haven's password and allow the righteous fires of justice rage through its fields.

I disagree that it's "a desirable nut." I don't think the vast majority of NationStates players have any interest at all in raiding Haven.

In fact, since they're being used to support this "liberation," I would be interested in hearing from the Coalition of The South Pacific. My guess is the Cabinet won't even be behind this, though I'm sure Mall will come up with some reason why this region should still be raided (presumably by him) for helping him coup The South Pacific even if The South Pacific doesn't want to raid Haven.

If the day comes that The Black Hawks goes founderless and you choose to enact your revenge I'll keep this in mind. Until then, as Venico said, simply because we cannot hit *all* of the transgressors doesn't mean that we can't hit some of them.

I have no interest in hitting The Black Hawks or Haven, as I have no personal interest in retaliating against anyone for attacking The South Pacific. Not my fight. My point is simply that you're a hypocrite and you're trolling the Security Council. You're proposing that a region deserves to be raided for assisting you in couping The South Pacific.

[Mallorea and Riva]

They don't have a problem being involved when it's them being the aggressors. It's simply incorrect to say that they are innocent, as I outlined in the draft which I suspect you have not fully read.

Do not fucking say i havent read the draft. Out of everything that annoys me, that annoys me the MOST. Question my stance on this, and debate my reasoning, but dont let me EVER hear you saying crap you dont know.

You made a statement which was obviously based on a faulty premise. The reason why that premise was faulty was found in the draft. As such it is natural to assume that you did not read the line which explains that Haven helped attack TSP. Since you claim to have read it do you dispute it?

I have no interest in hitting The Black Hawks or Haven, as I have no personal interest in retaliating against anyone for attacking The South Pacific. Not my fight. My point is simply that you're a hypocrite and you're trolling the Security Council. You're proposing that a region deserves to be raided for assisting you in couping The South Pacific.

I'm not a hypocrite, I'm a raider. I raid. It's what I do. Haven is the hypocritical group for hiding behind a password which they do not deserve. Accusations of trolling belong in the moderation forum.

[Canton Empire]

Do not fucking say i havent read the draft. Out of everything that annoys me, that annoys me the MOST. Question my stance on this, and debate my reasoning, but dont let me EVER hear you saying crap you dont know.

You made a statement which was obviously based on a faulty premise. The reason why that premise was faulty was found in the draft. As such it is natural to assume that you did not read the line which explains that Haven helped attack TSP. Since you claim to have read it do you dispute it?

I have no interest in hitting The Black Hawks or Haven, as I have no personal interest in retaliating against anyone for attacking The South Pacific. Not my fight. My point is simply that you're a hypocrite and you're trolling the Security Council. You're proposing that a region deserves to be raided for assisting you in couping The South Pacific.

I'm not a hypocrite, I'm a raider. I raid. It's what I do. Haven is the hypocritical group for hiding behind a Liberation which they do not deserve. Accusations of trolling belong in the moderation forum.

Yes, but did Haven help more or less you and you troll raiding friends?
And I still waiting for an apology.

[Cormac A Stark]

I'm not a hypocrite, I'm a raider. I raid. It's what I do. Haven is the hypocritical group for hiding behind a password which they do not deserve. Accusations of trolling belong in the moderation forum.

I'll wait to hear from The South Pacific on whether they even support this liberation for the purpose of raiding Haven, though this is going to fail regardless.

The catch-22 here is if they do support it, they will be giving you, their actual co-couper, another authorship badge. That's reason enough not to support this even if they do want to raid Haven, and I suspect they don't.

By the way, if Haven assisted you in your coup of The South Pacific, shouldn't you be respecting that assistance? Is this how you treat people who provide you support?

[Mallorea and Riva]

You made a statement which was obviously based on a faulty premise. The reason why that premise was faulty was found in the draft. As such it is natural to assume that you did not read the line which explains that Haven helped attack TSP. Since you claim to have read it do you dispute it?
I'm not a hypocrite, I'm a raider. I raid. It's what I do. Haven is the hypocritical group for hiding behind a Liberation which they do not deserve. Accusations of trolling belong in the moderation forum.

Yes, but did Haven help more or less you and you troll raiding friends?
And I still waiting for an apology.

Haven helped coup TSP. That's... the point of me saying that they deserve it. You said earlier that they didn't want to be involved which I contested by showing that they do indeed involve themselves.

And if you're waiting for an apology I hope you brought something to read because you're going to have to keep waiting.

I'm not a hypocrite, I'm a raider. I raid. It's what I do. Haven is the hypocritical group for hiding behind a password which they do not deserve. Accusations of trolling belong in the moderation forum.

I'll wait to hear from The South Pacific on whether they even support this liberation for the purpose of raiding Haven, though this is going to fail regardless.

The catch-22 here is if they do support it, they will be giving you, their actual co-couper, another authorship badge. That's reason enough not to support this even if they do want to raid Haven, and I suspect they don't.

By the way, if Haven assisted you in your coup of The South Pacific, shouldn't you be respecting that assistance? Is this how you treat people who provide you support?

Haven's residents and the players like them inject themselves into the raiding game when it benefits them and then proclaim that they should be allowed to opt out and attempt to destroy it. They did so right after this coup. If that's the game they want to play then I'm not interested in having their help in the future, they should pick a side and be consistent.

How TSP feels is not entirely relevant to this, that line is not the sole justification for this Liberation.

[Cormac A Stark]

Haven's residents and the players like them inject themselves into the raiding game when it benefits them and then proclaim that they should be allowed to opt out and attempt to destroy it. They did so right after this coup. If that's the game they want to play then I'm not interested in having their help in the future, they should pick a side and be consistent.

How TSP is not entirely relevant to this, that line is not the sole justification for this Liberation.

Ah, I see. The ever-changing definition of raider unity, to allow certain raiders to do whatever they want to do. Very disappointing.

That line isn't the sole justification, but it is the only justification WA Delegates and nations are even remotely likely to buy. I don't even feel the need to address the other clauses because without the TSP connection you wouldn't have even the shakiest of legs to stand on, and you know it.

[Applebania]

So... liberating a roleplay region just going about its business?

Fuck no. Opposed.

[Mallorea and Riva]

So... liberating a roleplay region just going about its business?

Fuck no. Opposed.

I was unaware that helping destroy The South Pacific was standard roleplay business.

Haven's residents and the players like them inject themselves into the raiding game when it benefits them and then proclaim that they should be allowed to opt out and attempt to destroy it. They did so right after this coup. If that's the game they want to play then I'm not interested in having their help in the future, they should pick a side and be consistent.

How TSP is not entirely relevant to this, that line is not the sole justification for this Liberation.

Ah, I see. The ever-changing definition of raider unity, to allow certain raiders to do whatever they want to do. Very disappointing.

That line isn't the sole justification, but it is the only justification WA Delegates and nations are even remotely likely to buy. I don't even feel the need to address the other clauses because without the TSP connection you wouldn't have even the shakiest of legs to stand on, and you know it.

If you asked Haven if they considered themselves raiders they would spit in your face. No one in the entire game would consider raider unity to cover them except you it would seem.

[Applebania]

So... liberating a roleplay region just going about its business?

Fuck no. Opposed.

I was unaware that helping destroy The South Pacific was standard roleplay business.

It's still a misuse of the liberation category: to open a region up to attack, rather than to try to save one.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I was unaware that helping destroy The South Pacific was standard roleplay business.

It's still a misuse of the liberation category: to open a region up to attack, rather than to try to save one.

Says you. If those passworded regions know that they have to actually work and have activity then this might just end up saving regions from rotting away like Haven is currently doing.

[Canton Empire]

Yes, I think it would be unbecoming if a mod had to apologize for being rude..... You and your "I'm a mod, let me just ask to troll a region, and if you dont like in GTFO" bullshit. Yes, quite unbecoming indeed.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Yes, I think it would be unbecoming if a mod had to apologize for being rude..... You and your "I'm a mod, let me just ask to troll a region, and if you dont like in GTFO" bullshit. Yes, quite unbecoming indeed.

Ok not really sure where my status as a mod is mentioned in the proposal but you're no longer debating the Liberation. Not sure where I was rude either, but if you have a personal problem with me then address it in moderation if necessary.

[Union of Kiwi Socialists]

Raiders are and always will be part of this game. The world assembly removal of passwords is entirely within the laws of NationStates, just in this case instead of liberating a region from raiders, we open one to attack. Let the World Assembly delegates and then the entire WA decide if this passes or not.

[Applebania]

It's still a misuse of the liberation category: to open a region up to attack, rather than to try to save one.

Says you. If those passworded regions know that they have to actually work and have activity then this might just end up saving regions from rotting away like Haven is currently doing.

We shouldn't thrust activity upon them, but let them create their own activity.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Says you. If those passworded regions know that they have to actually work and have activity then this might just end up saving regions from rotting away like Haven is currently doing.

We shouldn't thrust activity upon them, but let them create their own activity.

I happen to know of dozens of players who would have far more fun raiding Haven than those current natives could ever have just sitting there behind their password. They aren't creating their own activity. They're hiding.

[Applebania]

We shouldn't thrust activity upon them, but let them create their own activity.

I happen to know of dozens of players who would have far more fun raiding Haven than those current natives could ever have just sitting there behind their password. They aren't creating their own activity. They're hiding.

Then let them hide!

[Mallorea and Riva]

I happen to know of dozens of players who would have far more fun raiding Haven than those current natives could ever have just sitting there behind their password. They aren't creating their own activity. They're hiding.

Then let them hide!

Sounds dreadfully boring to me. This particular group has no right to hide.

[Applebania]

Then let them hide!

Sounds dreadfully boring to me. This particular group has no right to hide.

There I disagree. I believe that (almost) everyone has the right to hide, as cowardly as some may consider it.

[Canton Empire]

Yes, I think it would be unbecoming if a mod had to apologize for being rude..... You and your "I'm a mod, let me just ask to troll a region, and if you dont like in GTFO" bullshit. Yes, quite unbecoming indeed.

Ok not really sure where my status as a mod is mentioned in the proposal but you're no longer debating the Liberation. Not sure where I was rude either, but if you have a personal problem with me then address it in moderation if necessary.

"Not sure where I was rude?" Are you fucking kidding me? Want an anwser? Look at every post you have made.
As for the "resolution"(or what ever you call this bullshit), it just shows how low you will go to sasfiy you diet of ruined regions.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Sounds dreadfully boring to me. This particular group has no right to hide.

There I disagree. I believe that (almost) everyone has the right to hide, as cowardly as some may consider it.

That's fine. You're allowed to disagree *shrugs*

Ok not really sure where my status as a mod is mentioned in the proposal but you're no longer debating the Liberation. Not sure where I was rude either, but if you have a personal problem with me then address it in moderation if necessary.

"Not sure where I was rude?" Are you fucking kidding me? Want an anwser? Look at every post you have made.
As for the "resolution"(or what ever you call this bullshit), it just shows how low you will go to sasfiy you diet of ruined regions.

I don't think I'm going to go through every post I've ever made. And duly noted.

[Cyllea]

I don't think I have to explain why I'm opposed to this.. I'm actually shocked by the amount of supporters, if anything.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don't think I have to explain why I'm opposed to this.. I'm actually shocked by the amount of supporters, if anything.

It'd probably help if you *did* explain.

[Cyllea]

I don't think I have to explain why I'm opposed to this.. I'm actually shocked by the amount of supporters, if anything.

It'd probably help if you *did* explain.

Regardless of what they did, this creates precedent for future password-protected regions to be opened for the sake of 'inactivity'. 'Hiding' behind a password is no different than 'hiding' behind a founder.

[Mallorea and Riva]

It'd probably help if you *did* explain.

Regardless of what they did, this creates precedent for future password-protected regions to be opened for the sake of 'inactivity'. 'Hiding' behind a password is no different than 'hiding' behind a founder.

Except that there's nothing we can do about regions with founders, whereas we can do something about passwords. So that argument is irrelevant.