[DRAFT] REPEAL CONDEMN YAUNA

[Tano]

God no. Never.

[Timocreon]

To argue the case for the proposal on moral grounds is tricky because each person follows his or her own standards of morality. What may be right to one may be not be to the other.

Perhaps it would be better to argue from a more practical principal. Time and energy are better spent on productive activities than unproductive ones.

The repeal proposal is better than the condemnation resolution because the former is more productive while the latter is more unproductive. More people will actually benefit from the effects of a repeal than those of a condemnation. Negotiations are a more realistic and fairer solution to the regional crisis. The proposal suggests that support for a repeal is a more reasonable strategy for enticing the founder to negotiate than support for a condemnation.

To further illustrate, the benefits to particular sides in the dispute can be quantified. The supporters of the condemnation abhor the founder. However, they would rather welcome a more practical way to achieve permanent regional control for members of the original region.

Value of hostility towards the the founder: 1
Value of negotiations to acquire the region: 2

The supporters of the proposal realize that a condemnation is counterproductive because it can significantly reduce the chances of his vital participation in the negotiations.

Value of hostility towards the founder: -1
Value of negotiations to trade the region: 1

The numbers add up more in benefits on favoring a repeal than a condemnation.

Repeal:

2 (Value of negotiations to acquire the region)
+1 (value of negotiations to trade the region)

Condemnation:

1 (Value of hostility towards the founder, pro-condemnation)
-1 (Value of hostility towards the founder, pro-repeal)

The condemnation resolution should be repealed because it violates this principal of productivity. Its supporters are imposing greater costs to their victims and to themselves for smaller benefits to themselves.

[Timocreon]

The principal of social productivity--time and energy are better spent on productive activities than unproductive ones--can be applied to demonstrate in other ways how the costs of the condemnation exceeds the benefits of repealing it.

These could be considered the premises of the repeal proposal:

OBSERVING that the nation of Yauna, whether existing or deceased, has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,
RECOGNIZING that any resident founder, by logic and convention, is inherently a native of the region it founded,
REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region,

NationStates, and the Moderators who enforce its rules, objectively recognizes the legitimacy of all founders regardless of the founder's political affiliations or lack of. Because the benefits of this principal outweigh the costs of considering any subjective challenge to the inherent nativity of founders.

By refounding the region, the founder has produced something of value to himself; and, incidentally, to the current natives of the region. The beneficiaries of the condemnation resolution would be better off producing their own distinct region to be of value to them.

By condemning the founder for being an invader, proponents of the condemnation are ostracizing him for exercising his fundamental right to defend his own region. The costs of a resolution that approves of regional destruction are greater to the founder than the benefit each general voter for the condemnation gains from satisfaction in a purely political issue. Someone wants to take property from the founder while no one wants to take property from the general voter. The condemnation also has no power to confiscate the region from the founder and transfer it to a preferred candidate of the general voter.

It is OK to disapprove of someone in a political issue. But to approve of taking away a region from a founder, which by convention is legitimate as all founders, because of a political controversy violates the significance of social productivity. Each and every person believes it is wrong for others to destroy his or her region in order to refound it. Any who refounds a region also thinks the same way. The Security Council is no place to advance an instinct that each of its members rejects at a basic level.

The proposal does not fault the authors of the condemnation and their relevant supporters for feeling hurt. They have a right to express a grievance. However, it is unjust for them to condemn the founder for being an invader and not condemn their own associates, who have not only invaded regions but also refounded them by ejecting all the natives. The founder has never invaded a region and refounded by destroying it first. They deviate too much from the spirit of social productivity when they condemn someone for refounding while not properly addressing, with proportional intensity, the controversial refounding activities of their allies.

The liberation resolution sought action against an invasion of Greece and not its founder. The condemnation resolution is not a liberation resolution. The Security Council does not authorize any invasion to remove the founder. Repealing the condemnation is the right thing to do because its authors directly connected the liberation resolution to their condemnation proposal in order to justify unauthorized attempts to seize the region. The proposal considers that a blatant manipulation of the real sense behind the Security Council.

[Chester Pearson]

Double posting = BAD! Please refrain in the future?

[Blood Wine]

Double posting = BAD! Please refrain in the future?

In this care a double post is appropriate - merging them together would become VERY clunky

[Asorestan]

I have been asked to post an updated revision of the draft proposal to repeal Security Council Resolution #110:

The Security Council of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING that the nation of Yauna, whether existing or deceased, has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,

RECOGNIZING that any resident founder, by logic and convention, is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region,

ASSERTING that the controversy about Yauna focuses on political dissonance within the single region of Greece, so it is reasonable to maintain the nation had neither the intent nor capability to adversely affect the wider World Assembly,

RECALLING that Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna has incorrectly stated that Yauna was the target of Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece, and such inconsistency could be construed as an attempt to mislead the Security Council,

ENUMERATING the following undeniable facts from Security Council Resolution #29:
1. The resolution sought action against an invasion, and not specifically the founder,
2. The resolution admitted the founder had performed its duties by repelling invasions,
3. The resolution has concluded that Yauna is unlikely allied with an invading force,

MAKING the following observations about Security Council Resolution #110:
1. The resolution blatantly declared Yauna was an invader without properly addressing why its proponents had deviated from the precise mandate of Security Council Resolution #29; and consequently, the assertion has aroused suspicions of being clumsy propaganda to justify the case to refound,
2. The resolution mentioned the frequent expulsion of liberation forces to discredit Yauna, and had neglected the argument that those were expelled not for their political affiliation but solely for their threat to the founder's ownership of the region,
3. The resolution condemned Yauna for having stolen the region because it was not a member of the original Greece; however, in Security Council Resolution #29, the nation was not treated like a thief despite not being a member of the original Greece,

DISPUTING that Yauna engages in region griefing on the following grounds:
1. Any founder has the legal authority and conventional right to protect its own region from all forms of total usurpation; hence, no region griefing actually occurs when one ejects in self-defense,
2. Most of the nations banished were intruders and puppets,
3. The members rejected have not been the only residents of the region,

DENOUNCING the malicious censure of Yauna for defamatory and derogatory language, when the truth of the accusation has never been verified,

REJECTING that Yauna deprives fundamental rights on the basis that regional membership is generally a privilege and not a right,

AFFIRMING that in all regions with existing founders, it is not the founder's duty to get along with each of the members of its region; rather, each member relies on either the founder's permission or tolerance in order to reside there,

REMARKING that Yauna has displayed sportsmanship by generously tolerating some advocates of its condemnation to visit Greece, in spite of their hostility,

DENYING Yauna's culpability in allegations of presenting Greece as some kind of trophy, because different regional governments have been able to function and the nation has never declared partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry of the region,

DISMAYED that Security Council Resolution #110 has implied a justification for the refounding of a region through regional destruction, which is the ejection of all of the natural residents of a region—including the founder—by a delegate without the consent of the aforementioned members,

REFERRING to the well-informed observers who have remarked that refounding through regional destruction is indeed problematic because such activity is considered region griefing,

EMPHASIZING that only a liberation resolution can authorize military intervention by the Security Council, and there is no liberation resolution—none whatsoever—that enforces the ouster of the founder of Greece or any other founder; therefore, the Security Council should abide by its own procedures by not encouraging attempts to take the region from Yauna by force,

INFERRING that the condemnation of Yauna in the Security Council is inappropriate because the nation has been punished for its opposition to specific unauthorized military action; the enterprise to refound relied on an extraordinary interpretation of Security Council Resolution #29 and has definitely not been sanctioned by the official instructions of the liberation resolution,

VIEWING that though many nations are inclined to approve of particular claimants who have declared just cause to confiscate a region, the World Assembly still recognizes the inalienable regional sovereignty of every founder and disapproves of regional destruction; therefore, the Security Council should not be advancing any popular impulse most of its members would reject at a basic level,

CONCERNED that Security Council Resolution #110 could be cited as a precedent for supporting the seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party, and to condemn its founder should the nation naturally thwart attempts to invade or refound that region,

AWARE that the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the current, local conflict,

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to peacefully resolve severe disputes,

CONFIDENT that serious negotiations will provide a more realistic opportunity for the founder of Greece to reconcile with the offended party from the original Greece,

HOPING that support for a successful repeal will help foster good will among all the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue diplomacy over defamation,

BELIEVING that the Security Council can be a vehicle for true and productive compromise instead of an instrument for politically-motivated retaliation,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

Authored with the assistance of concerned nations in Greece.

[District XIV]

This is 6332 characters, which goes well over the 3000 character limit.

[Asorestan]

Thanks for the comment. Is the limit 3,000 or 3,500?

[District XIV]

Thanks for the comment. Is the limit 3,000 or 3,500?

I'm not sure nor do I have the energy to find out

I suggest awaiting information from one of my colleagues...

[Bears Armed]

3'500, including spaces... as NS calculates it. If you're use the 'Word Count' tool from Microsoft Word then probably closer to 3'450 instead.

[Asorestan]

Well, this has 3482 characters, but it will have to be shortened again if all the spaces are to be counted:

The Security Council of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING the nation of Yauna has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,

RECOGNIZING any resident founder, by logic and convention, is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region,

ASSERTING the controversy about Yauna focuses on political dissonance within the single region of Greece; thus, the nation had neither the intent nor capability to adversely affect the wider World Assembly,

RECALLING Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna has incorrectly stated the founder was the target of Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece, and such inconsistency could be construed as an attempt to mislead,

DISMAYED Yauna was condemned for having stolen the region because it was not a member of the previous Greece, when in the resolution to liberate Greece the nation had not been treated like a thief,

DISPUTING Yauna engages in region griefing, because any founder has the legal authority and conventional right to protect its own region from all forms of total usurpation; hence, no region griefing actually occurs when one ejects in self-defense,

DENOUNCING the malicious censure of Yauna for offensive language, when the truth of the accusation has never been verified,

REJECTING the impression Yauna deprives fundamental rights on the basis that regional membership is generally a privilege,

DENYING Yauna's culpability in allegations of presenting Greece as a trophy, because different regional governments have been able to function and the nation has never declared partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry,

EMPHASIZING only a liberation resolution can authorize military intervention by the Security Council, and there is none that enforces the ouster of any founder; therefore, the Security Council should abide by its own procedures by not encouraging attempts to replace Yauna by force,

VIEWING though many nations approve of particular claimants who have declared just cause to confiscate a region, the World Assembly still recognizes the inalienable regional sovereignty of every founder and disapproves of regional destruction; therefore, the Security Council should not be advancing an impulse most of its members reject at a basic level,

CONCERNED Security Council Resolution #110 could be cited as a precedent for supporting the seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party,

AWARE the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the current conflict,

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to peacefully resolve disputes,

CONFIDENT serious negotiations will provide a more realistic opportunity for the founder of Greece to reconcile with the offended party from the original Greece,

HOPING support for a successful repeal will help foster good will among all the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue diplomacy over defamation,

BELIEVING the Security Council can be a vehicle for true and productive compromise instead of an instrument for politically-motivated retaliation,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

[Blood Wine]

Well, this has 3482 characters, but it will have to be shortened again if all the spaces are to be counted:

I believe they are,nearly everything is counted iirc,even linebreak
I would recommend cutting down to ~3300 to be on the safe side

[Elke and Elba]

Well, this has 3482 characters, but it will have to be shortened again if all the spaces are to be counted:

I believe they are,nearly everything is counted iirc,even linebreak
I would recommend cutting down to ~3300 to be on the safe side

Offtopic yet relevant: 3482 may be pushing it but this shows that even 3471 is fine bar hidden line break characters and the other stuff as noted by DSR a few post below that line.

Not that I do support this, but I should be clearing up misunderstanding and dispelling false notions/misinformation that the 3400 character region is risky.

Hope this helps :/

[Blood Wine]

Does it prevent you from submitting if you're over?

[Timocreon]

My revision of the draft has less than 3,300 characters:

The Security Council,

OBSERVING the nation of Yauna has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,

RECOGNIZING any resident founder by logic and convention is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region,

ASSERTING Yauna only operated in the region of Greece; thus, the nation had neither the intent nor capability to adversely affect the wider World Assembly,

RECALLING Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna falsely stated Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece had sought action against the founder, and such inconsistency could be construed as an attempt to mislead,

NOTICING Yauna was condemned for having stolen the region because it was not a member of the original Greece; however, the nation had not been treated like a thief in the preceding liberation resolution,

DISPUTING Yauna engages in region griefing because any founder has the authority and right to use discretionary ejections for self-defense against total regional usurpation,

DENOUNCING the malicious censure of Yauna for offensive language when the truth of the accusation has never been verified,

REJECTING the notion Yauna deprives fundamental rights because regional membership is generally a privilege,

DENYING Yauna's culpability in allegations of displaying Greece as a trophy because different regional governments have been able to function and the nation has never declared partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry,

DISMAYED the condemnation of Yauna has implied a justification for the refounding of a region through regional destruction, and a consequence of such activity would be the objectionable expulsion of every resident,

EMPHASIZING only a liberation resolution can authorize military intervention by the Security Council, and there is none enforcing the ouster of a founder; therefore, the Security Council should abide by its own procedures by not encouraging the replacement of Yauna by force,

ADMITTING though the cause to confiscate Greece has been popular, the World Assembly still recognizes the regional sovereignty of every founder and disapproves of regional destruction; therefore, the Security Council should not advance an impulse most of its members would reject at a basic level,

CONCERNED the condemnation of Yauna could be cited as a precedent for supporting the unauthorized seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party,

AWARE the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the local conflict,

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to peacefully resolve severe disputes,

HOPING support for a repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue diplomacy over defamation,

BELIEVING the Security Council can be a vehicle for productive compromise instead of an instrument for politically-motivated retaliation,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

[The Leningrad Union]

My revision of the draft has less than 3,300 characters:

The Security Council,

OBSERVING the nation of Yauna has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,

RECOGNIZING any resident founder by logic and convention is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region,

ASSERTING Yauna only operated in the region of Greece; thus, the nation had neither the intent nor capability to adversely affect the wider World Assembly,

RECALLING Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna falsely stated Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece had sought action against the founder, and such inconsistency could be construed as an attempt to mislead,

NOTICING Yauna was condemned for having stolen the region because it was not a member of the original Greece; however, the nation had not been treated like a thief in the preceding liberation resolution,

DISPUTING Yauna engages in region griefing because any founder has the authority and right to use discretionary ejections for self-defense against total regional usurpation,

DENOUNCING the malicious censure of Yauna for offensive language when the truth of the accusation has never been verified,

REJECTING the notion Yauna deprives fundamental rights because regional membership is generally a privilege,

DENYING Yauna's culpability in allegations of displaying Greece as a trophy because different regional governments have been able to function and the nation has never declared partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry,

DISMAYED the condemnation of Yauna has implied a justification for the refounding of a region through regional destruction, and a consequence of such activity would be the objectionable expulsion of every resident,

EMPHASIZING only a liberation resolution can authorize military intervention by the Security Council, and there is none enforcing the ouster of a founder; therefore, the Security Council should abide by its own procedures by not encouraging the replacement of Yauna by force,

ADMITTING though the cause to confiscate Greece has been popular, the World Assembly still recognizes the regional sovereignty of every founder and disapproves of regional destruction; therefore, the Security Council should not advance an impulse most of its members would reject at a basic level,

CONCERNED the condemnation of Yauna could be cited as a precedent for supporting the unauthorized seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party,

AWARE the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the local conflict,

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to peacefully resolve severe disputes,

HOPING support for a repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue diplomacy over defamation,

BELIEVING the Security Council can be a vehicle for productive compromise instead of an instrument for politically-motivated retaliation,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

I've changed it a bit:

The Security Council;

OBSERVING the nation of Yauna has been the legitimate founder of Greece for five years,

RECOGNIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader in the same region,

ASSERTING Yauna only operated in the region of Greece; thus, the nation had neither the intent nor capability to adversely affect the wider World Assembly,

RECALLING Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna falsely stated Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece had sought action against the founder, and such inconsistency could be construed as an attempt to mislead,

NOTICING Yauna was condemned for having stolen the region because it was not a member of the original Greece; however, the nation had not been treated like a thief in the preceding liberation resolution and has positively helped the Greek community,

DISPUTING Yauna engages in region griefing because any founder has the authority and right to use discretionary ejections for self-defense against total regional usurpation,

DENOUNCING the malicious censure of Yauna for offensive language when the truth of the accusation has never been verified,

REJECTING the notion Yauna deprives fundamental rights because regional membership is generally a privilege,

DENYING Yauna's culpability in allegations of displaying Greece as a trophy because different regional governments have been able to function and the nation has never declared partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry,

DISMAYED the condemnation of Yauna has implied a justification for the refounding of a region through regional destruction, and a consequence of such activity would be the objectionable expulsion of every resident,

EMPHASIZING only a liberation resolution can authorize military intervention by the Security Council, and there is none enforcing the ouster of a founder; therefore, the Security Council should abide by its own procedures by not encouraging the replacement of Yauna by force,

ADMITTING though the cause to confiscate Greece has been popular, the World Assembly still recognizes the regional sovereignty of every founder and disapproves of regional destruction; therefore, the Security Council should not advance an impulse most of its members would reject at a basic level,

CONCERNED the condemnation of Yauna could be cited as a precedent for supporting the unauthorized seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party,

AWARE the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the local conflict,

HOPING support for a repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue diplomacy over defamation,

BELIEVING the Security Council can be a vehicle for productive compromise instead of an instrument for politically-motivated retaliation,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

[Ainin]

Absolutely not.

[Timocreon]

This new and improved draft has 3,200 characters, and doesn't repeat the name of the Security Council.

The Security Council of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING the nation of Yauna has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,

RECOGNIZING any resident founder by logic and convention is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader of the same region,

ASSERTING Yauna has only operated in the region of Greece, and the nation had neither the intent nor capability to adversely affect the wider World Assembly,

RECALLING Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna falsely stated Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece had sought action against the founder, and such contradiction could be construed as an attempt to mislead,

NOTICING Yauna was condemned for having stolen the region, but the nation had not been blamed for thievery in the preceding Liberation resolution,

DISPUTING the charge of region griefing because any founder has the authority and right to eject by discretion,

AFFIRMING the founder has ejected in self-defense against hostile regional takeover,

DENOUNCING the baseless censure of Yauna for the use of offensive language as deceptive and malicious,

REJECTING the notion Yauna has deprived fundamental rights because regional membership is generally a privilege,

DENYING Yauna's culpability in allegations of displaying Greece as a trophy because different regional governments have been able to function and the nation has never declared partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry,

DISMAYED the Condemnation of Yauna has implied a justification for the refounding of a region through regional destruction, and such demolition means the objectionable expulsion of every resident,

EMPHASIZING only a Liberation resolution can authorize military intervention by this Council, and there is none enforcing the ouster of a founder; thus, proper procedure should be observed by not encouraging the replacement of Yauna by force,

ADMITTING though the cause to confiscate Greece has been popular, the World Assembly still recognizes the regional sovereignty of every founder and disapproves of regional destruction; hence, this Council should not be advancing an impulse most of its members would reject at a basic level,

CONCERNED the Condemnation of Yauna could be cited as a precedent for supporting the unauthorized seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party,

AWARE the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the Condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the local conflict,

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to end regional strife,

HOPING support for a repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue reconciliation and diplomacy in resolving sharp disputes,

BELIEVING the members of this Council favor productive solutions over politically-motivated retaliation,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

[Sensai]

This new and improved draft has 3,200 characters, and doesn't repeat the name of the Security Council.

The Security Council of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING the nation of Yauna has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,

Neither the Liberation or condemnation resolutions denied he was the founder. What's the point of stating the obvious?

RECOGNIZING any resident founder by logic and convention is inherently a native of the region it founded,

The problem you have here which neither you nor the Persian Empire seem to have grasped after 5 years, is that Yauna is condemned for the manner in which he took control of Greece. He isn't condemned for being the founder but for the manner in which the Persian Empire took the region and their actions in that time. Same with the Liberation resolution essentially.

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader of the same region,

See above. The resolutions recognize the fact Yauna belongs to an invader faction who were constantly attacking the region of Greece. The Persian Empire regions world Factbook Entry at the time even acknowledged that they had conquered Greece during each invasion.
They admitted it them selves.

ASSERTING Yauna has only operated in the region of Greece, and the nation had neither the intent nor capability to adversely affect the wider World Assembly,

No resolution ever implied Yauna operated elsewhere. Nor was it claimed he affected the World Assembly. Again this is more a waste of space.

RECALLING Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna falsely stated Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece had sought action against the founder, and such contradiction could be construed as an attempt to mislead,

I'd say trying to portray a group who were invading a region which never attacked their regions, as victims in some sort of grand WA conspiracy, is what is what misleading.

NOTICING Yauna was condemned for having stolen the region, but the nation had not been blamed for thievery in the preceding Liberation resolution,

Because the Liberation resolution was a reaction from the International community to the deplorable act of stealing a region. All the facts, such as Yauna being part of the Persian Empire were not immediately known.

DISPUTING the charge of region griefing because any founder has the authority and right to eject by discretion,

AFFIRMING the founder has ejected in self-defense against hostile regional takeover,

This is the interesting bit and where the Persian Empire really puts their foot in mouth.
Firstly how can you deem attempts to liberate the region as negative? There Is a Security Council Resolution FOR the Liberation of Greece.

Secondly, the Persians often claim Yauna Is not one of them.
The obvious facts are Yauna I'd a Persian word for Greeks. Is it a coincidence a new nation with such a name stole the region from the natives when they were refounding their region to prevent invasions by the Persian Empire?
Another fact is Yauna has never ejected a Persian Empire nation. Despite their altering of the regional flag and WFB.
If Yauna is not a Persian Empire nation/puppet why is the Persian Empire trying to get the condemnation lifted? If the two are unrelated and its all just a miraculous coincidence, why do they care? Yauna is more inactive then they are, Yauna is machines majority of the time CTE.
If the two are reee unrelated, the condemnation doesn't have any affect on the Persian Empire.

The claim here now is that Yauna has acted In self defense. Examining who he has ejected and banned, we see it has been the old natives, defenders who tried to help them get their region back, and the Eastern Roman Empire and their friends.

He has never acted in "self defense" against Persian Empire nations.

On the contrary he has allowed Persian Empire nations to hold the delegate position, and to alter the regions flag and WFB in any manner they wish.
Yauna lies dormant until the Persian Empire lose the delegate position to forces with superior numbers of WA nations.

It Is evidently clear Yauna is a Persian nation who acts in the interests of the Persian Empire only. The condemnation for his actions is justified.

DENOUNCING the baseless censure of Yauna for the use of offensive language as deceptive and malicious,

REJECTING the notion Yauna has deprived fundamental rights because regional membership is generally a privilege,

Weren't the fundamental rights of the old natives denied when the Persians used a nation called Yauna to deny them their region by stealing it?

DENYING Yauna's culpability in allegations of displaying Greece as a trophy because different regional governments have been able to function and the nation has never declared partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry,

See above. Yauna is without a doubt Persian.

Which different regional governments have even able to function in Greece aimer the Persian Empire stole/took over?

Every time a liberation was mounted the Persian Empire revived Yauna to stop it.

Actions speak louder then words.

DISMAYED the Condemnation of Yauna has implied a justification for the refounding of a region through regional destruction, and such demolition means the objectionable expulsion of every resident,

Why do you find it acceptable in the manner in which the Persian Empire stole the region, but have a problem with the original natives trying to get back their region?

The old natives didn't act on their own In an underhanded manner. They sought help from defenders and the International community and the International community backed their plight.

The facts of what happened and who did it haven't changed In the 5 years since It happened.

EMPHASIZING only a Liberation resolution can authorize military intervention by this Council, and there is none enforcing the ouster of a founder; thus, proper procedure should be observed by not encouraging the replacement of Yauna by force,

ADMITTING though the cause to confiscate Greece has been popular, the World Assembly still recognizes the regional sovereignty of every founder and disapproves of regional destruction; hence, this Council should not be advancing an impulse most of its members would reject at a basic level,

CONCERNED the Condemnation of Yauna could be cited as a precedent for supporting the unauthorized seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party,

AWARE the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the Condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the local conflict,

You have posted a few hundred words at least above implying the Persian Empire nation Yauna is a victim. I haven't read anything acknowledging the legitimate grievances of the original natives.

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to end regional strife,

Did you have input from the Persian Empire for this draft? Or did you check the region it self? Yauna ceased to exist over 80 days ago. Yauna spends most time CTED. As I posted above Yauna is used by the Persian Empire to prevent the liberation resolution from being implemented, and to eject and ban anyone they view as a threat to them holding the region.

HOPING support for a repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue reconciliation and diplomacy in resolving sharp disputes,

I seriously believe you've been lied to, or you are trying to deceive the WA. How can there be good will?

You should pay attention to the region before you're next revision. The old native Sparta Dominion/Laconia, has been trying to do just that for months now. They ignore him and are not interested.

To claim you want good will and relations implies you want to get along with the other side. It implies you are willing to talk and reach a mutually acceptable middle ground. None of these things are evident from the Persian Empire.

What has been proposed to them has been for the mutual coexistence In the region of old and new natives. Not a refound. Not kicking out the Persians. Living together in the region.

If the Persian Empire is interested in good will and relations, if it is sincere, then why has there been no response to Spartan Dominion/Laconias proposal?

BELIEVING the members of this Council favor productive solutions over politically-motivated retaliation,

Members of this Council should overlook the past? Members should ignore the reality of that region?

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

The Persian Empire is not Interested In good will or good relations with anybody. They have demonstrated this clearly.

The only group trying to take over Greece Is the Eastern Roman Empire.

What the old native Laconia suggests does not harm the Persian Empire.
It does not threaten them. They aren't being asked to cede control over to him or anyone else. The only control the founder nation, they have ultimate control of the region.
He's probably asked them half a dozen times for a response. He's still waiting.

This draft to repeal the condemnation that was justifiably placed on Yauna and indirectly on the Persian Empire ignored all the realities of the region, and the true nature of what is going on and the Persian Empire. It attempts to dismiss the past, their past actions, as irrelevant.
I really want to believe the author just simply doesn't know.

[Timocreon]

OBSERVING the nation of Yauna has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,

RECOGNIZING any resident founder by logic and convention is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader of the same region,

Yauna is the resident founder of Greece. By the right of his status, he is not a foreigner of the region but a native. Just like all other founders in their respective regions. What applies to all regions should apply to Yauna's region. Greece cannot be the only exception to the rule.

A native is not a foreigner of its own region. A native is not an invader of its own region. A native should not be condemned for being an intruder.

Founder and Invader are contradictory terms. Invader implies the idea of illegitimacy. A founder has more right to its region than any other nation.

Sensai has admitted that the founder of Greece is a native. The Moderators have recognize the founder of Greece as a native. If Yauna is a native, he cannot be an invader because he legally owns the region.

If Yauna is illegitimate because he has founded a region under controversial circumstances; then, to be fair, all founders who have founded a region under controversial circumstances must be illegitimate. What applies to all founders should also apply to the founder of Greece.

If Yauna is worthy of condemnation because he founded a region contrary to the residents of an expired region which had the same name; then all founders, who have founded a region contrary to the residents of an expired region which had the same name, should be also worthy of condemnation.

It is doubtful the World Assembly would be prepared to adopt such a problematic proposition.

What SCR #110 is arguing for is an abnormal exception to normal convention. The resolution was written in a way that advances the special interests of a particular group who expect special treatment.

The authors of SCR #110 do not really believe refounding a region is stealing; otherwise, they would sponsor a Condemnation proposal denouncing themesleves for invading regions and refounding them. They have refounded by invasion the regions of Anshan and Persepolis. Yauna has not even founded Greece by first ejecting all the natives to create a new region.

Therefore, the founder of Greece should not be condemned for the ridiculous charge of being an invader of his own region.

ASSERTING Yauna has only operated in the region of Greece, and the nation had neither the intent nor capability to adversely affect the wider World Assembly,

The Security Council was meant to issue resolutions to act on matters affecting the wider interests of it members. Many feel an instance of a local dispute involving a nation which has operated only within a particular area should not be the concern of the Security Council.

If the condemnation had established a pattern of disruption influencing multiple nations in multiple regions that takes the character of an international menace, then such a case would be more worthy of the attention of the Security Council.

The authors of SCR #110 linked their proposal to SCR #29 because they had lacked a precedent to connect Yauna to any pattern of disrupting the international community.

RECALLING Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna falsely stated Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece had sought action against the founder, and such contradiction could be construed as an attempt to mislead,

NOTICING Yauna was condemned for having stolen the region, but the nation had not been blamed for thievery in the preceding Liberation resolution,

SCR #110 has relied on the proposition that the founder is a not a native. It has taken the position that the relation of SCR #110 to SCR #29 is a case of new information updating old information.

The proposal relies on the proposition that the founder is a native. It take the position that the relation of SCR #29 to SCR #110 is a case of more reliable information contrasting controversial information.

SCR #110 had to rely on blatant inconsistencies and deliberate deception. The motives and methods of its authors must not be entirely honest nor moral.

DISPUTING the charge of region griefing because any founder has the authority and right to eject by discretion,

AFFIRMING the founder has ejected in self-defense against hostile regional takeover,

The Moderators and all knowledgeable players agree that an expired region and a refounded region, which both share the same name, are two different regions with distinct sets of natives.

Yauna has a stronger claim to the region named Greece because he is the first and only founder of such a region. The new Greece has a founder; the old Greece was founderless. The former members of the original Greece do not even count a founder nation of Greece as one of them.

Those former members were natives of the expired region. They are not natives of the existing region. Once an old region expires, the native status of its residents doesn't automatically transfer with them to the new region created.

If native status was transferable, any nation could claim native status in multiple regions it has been active in over long periods. Imagine, one nation having nativity in many regions. Think of how that could be abused by invaders. Not even Defenders would endorse such a proposition with many problematic implications.

DENOUNCING the baseless censure of Yauna for the use of offensive language as deceptive and malicious,

If Yauna had been only guilty of stealing a region, there would be no need to malign him with extra lies. The fact that the Condemnation proposal included a slanderous allegation indicates its authors were more interested in vengeance than justice.

REJECTING the notion Yauna has deprived fundamental rights because regional membership is generally a privilege,

The proponents of SCR #110 advocate double standards. They have no problems with any founder in the world having the right to eject hostile nations, except in the region of Greece.

DENYING Yauna's culpability in allegations of displaying Greece as a trophy because different regional governments have been able to function and the nation has never declared partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry,

The founder has expelled the supporters of SCR #110 from the WAD because they have declared their intention to seize the region from him by force. Repealing the Condemnation may help with the problem of the founder ejecting only those nations that are openly hostile to him.

Yauna's WFE: "Welcome to Greece! Birthplace of Western Civilization and Democracy. Enjoy our lovely islands, join in on some fine dancing and sip some Ouzo! Opa!"

Yauna's regional flag: The official flag of the Hellenic Republic.

DISMAYED the Condemnation of Yauna has implied a justification for the refounding of a region through regional destruction, and such demolition means the objectionable expulsion of every resident,

Knowledgeable forum users who are unbiased have remarked that refounding a region by regional destruction is considered region griefing. The proponents of SCR #110 admit they want to refound the region by banishing the founder and all the other long-time residents.

EMPHASIZING only a Liberation resolution can authorize military intervention by this Council, and there is none enforcing the ouster of a founder; thus, proper procedure should be observed by not encouraging the replacement of Yauna by force,

ADMITTING though the cause to confiscate Greece has been popular, the World Assembly still recognizes the regional sovereignty of every founder and disapproves of regional destruction; hence, this Council should not be advancing an impulse most of its members would reject at a basic level,

CONCERNED the Condemnation of Yauna could be cited as a precedent for supporting the unauthorized seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party,

The founder of a region naturally embodies regional sovereignty. It is not the business of the Security Council to redefine established conventions.

Attempts to refound Greece have not been officially sanctioned by the Security Council. Therefore, the supporters of SCR #110 should not use the Condemnation resolution to justify military excursions to remove the founder in the name of the Security Council.

The repeal proposal deems the manipulation of SCR #29 to justify SCR #110 as inappropriate and misleading.

AWARE the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the Condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the local conflict,

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to end regional strife,

HOPING support for a repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue reconciliation and diplomacy in resolving sharp disputes,

BELIEVING the members of this Council favor productive solutions over politically-motivated retaliation,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

Some supporters of SCR #110 blindly insist the authors of the repeal proposal are not sincere. Consider first the contents of the two resolutions and the proposal.

The first resolution denounces the current natives of Greece as invaders.

The second resolution condemns the founder of Greece as an invader.

This proposal acknowledges the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the regional conflict.

Neutral and unbiased observers would conclude the two resolutions were written to exclude one specific group as enemies. On the other hand, the proposal was written to include both parties as partners for peace.

The proposal tries to be conditionally inclusive and fair to both sides. The Condemnation is sharply all about excluding one side.

It is clear which position is the more diplomatic one. It is clear by the contents which side wants both parties to succeed, and which side has supporters who do not count the benefit of another as a benefit to themselves.

It's hardly fair to accuse one regional faction of not being diplomatic when one clings to a vindictive resolution that is undiplomatic by nature.

[Sensai]

Since the Persian Empire can't handle criticism and is against open dialogue, I'll have to answer you here.

OBSERVING the nation of Yauna has been the actual founder of Greece for five years,

RECOGNIZING any resident founder by logic and convention is inherently a native of the region it founded,

REALIZING the absurdity of classifying a nation as simultaneously the founder and invader of the same region,

Yauna is the resident founder of Greece. By the right of his status, he is not a foreigner of the region but a native. Just like all other founders in their respective regions. What applies to all regions should apply to Yauna's region. Greece cannot be the only exception to the rule.

Everyone acknowledges that the founder is Yauna. That has not been disputed(at least not to my knowledge).
What applies to all regions can not apply to the region of Greece and Yauna.
Because the very nature in which the Persian Empire took control of the region(with the nation known as Yauna), was morally and ethically wrong.
To say that Yauna deserves the same rights and recognition as all other founders, who founded their own regions, is ignoring the actions of the Persian Empire not only in how they gainde control of that region but their actions leading up to that.

That is what the community was against.

I've been trying to tell the Persians that if they actually started to cooperate and work with the old natives like Spartan Dominion/Laconia, Karpathos, Iasonia etc, the necessity of these resolutions against them which do things like prevent the Persian Empire from passwording the region, wouldn't be necessary.

I don't know if you are a "friend" of theirs, or you have just been duped by them.
But make no mistake that the resolutions exist to ensure that Greece remains as free and open as possible.

A native is not a foreigner of its own region. A native is not an invader of its own region. A native should not be condemned for being an intruder.

So what's your take on all the mass banjections recently?
I was no threat to them.
I was not a member of the WA, I hadn't even applied to be in the WA. I was not asked by the Persian Empire to join the WA and endorse their delegate either.
I was in the region for well over 6 months. Does that qualify me for native status?
I was far more active and a bigger participator in the region, on the rmb, then the Persians were.

Founder and Invader are contradictory terms. Invader implies the idea of illegitimacy. A founder has more right to its region than any other nation.

Yauna is considered as an invader along with the Persian Empire. Because a) he belongs to the Persian Empire and b) the Persian Empire were invading the region, until they ultimately stole it via an underhanded despicable move. Which is what the community was against when they passed these resolutions against the Persian Empire.
Just because five years has passed since their actions took place, doesn't mean that history can be re-written now.

Sensai has admitted that the founder of Greece is a native. The Moderators have recognize the founder of Greece as a native. If Yauna is a native, he cannot be an invader because he legally owns the region.

You obviously don't comprehend that Yauna belongs to a group that were invading the region over and over.

If Yauna is illegitimate because he has founded a region under controversial circumstances; then, to be fair, all founders who have founded a region under controversial circumstances must be illegitimate. What applies to all founders should also apply to the founder of Greece.

I challenge you to provide an example were the exact same thing that happened in the region of Greece has happened elsewhere.
Show us another region that was constantly being invaded for reasons beyond their control(in this case it was the ERE and Persian Empire fighting a war), and when the natives of the region decided to refound their founderless region(founderless as that's how the game was made with this region) in order to have greater security and safety against invaders, the invading group stole the region in the process.

In all the years that I had played this game, that had never happened before. The first time I had ever encountered a group, any group, stooping so low as to basically cheat in a way, to get what they want because each time they tried to invade and take over defenders showed up to throw them out.

If Yauna is worthy of condemnation because he founded a region contrary to the residents of an expired region which had the same name; then all founders, who have founded a region contrary to the residents of an expired region which had the same name, should be also worthy of condemnation.

The region was expired because the residents/natives were in the process of refounding it to protect against invasions and harrassment from the Persian Empire, who ended up refounding it somehow before the natives could.

Twisting the facts around with different wording to make it appear as if the Persian Empire, after five years of living in isolation, had really done nothing wrong, wont change the fact that they did something that a large part of the community did find as wrong, and adequately punished them for it with these resolutions.

The moderators ruling, which you can read in the threads about what happened in Greece, was that no rules were broken and they wont intervene because it would set a precedent, however there was nothing stopping other players from punishing the Persian Empire. And that's what happened.

Perhaps the moderator who said that perhaps the best solution was to lock the region so nobody could have it was the best solution. It definitely seems like that should have been the course of action taken. Hindsight.

It is doubtful the World Assembly would be prepared to adopt such a problematic proposition.

What SCR #110 is arguing for is an abnormal exception to normal convention. The resolution was written in a way that advances the special interests of a particular group who expect special treatment.

The authors of SCR #110 do not really believe refounding a region is stealing; otherwise, they would sponsor a Condemnation proposal denouncing themesleves for invading regions and refounding them. They have refounded by invasion the regions of Anshan and Persepolis. Yauna has not even founded Greece by first ejecting all the natives to create a new region.

I don't necessarily agree with everything or the wording of the condemnation resolution. But iif not Yaunas condemnation then the wider Persian Empire group should have been and should still be condemned for their actions.
FIve years may have passed, but the actions, the reasons there is a liberation and condemnation resolutions in place have not changed.

Therefore, the founder of Greece should not be condemned for the ridiculous charge of being an invader of his own region.

See above. The refounding of Greece by the Persian Empire was simply another step in their campaign of aggression and harrassment of that region which was ongoing for several years if I'm not mistaken.
Just because a Persian Empire nation is the founder today, doesn't mean that he is innocent and somehoe clean. They created a new nation, a puppet as it's known, to try refound the region from under the natives who were in that process to secure their region from the very group which is now in control of it.

ASSERTING Yauna has only operated in the region of Greece, and the nation had neither the intent nor capability to adversely affect the wider World Assembly,

The Security Council was meant to issue resolutions to act on matters affecting the wider interests of it members. Many feel an instance of a local dispute involving a nation which has operated only within a particular area should not be the concern of the Security Council.

If many feel that way, then why did thousands of them vote for the resolutions against the Persian Empire?
On the one hand there is the viewable fact of thousands endorsing the resolutions against the Persian Empire, on the other hand is your claim that many disagree.

If the condemnation had established a pattern of disruption influencing multiple nations in multiple regions that takes the character of an international menace, then such a case would be more worthy of the attention of the Security Council.

If one region is affected, then the Security Council has no place? Sure..

The authors of SCR #110 linked their proposal to SCR #29 because they had lacked a precedent to connect Yauna to any pattern of disrupting the international community.

The international community was disrupted when a region was taken over by underhanded moves by a group that was menacing that region for years. It can also be argued that they were menacing many other regions either owned or later controlled by another group known as the Eastern Roman Empire.

The war between those two groups was brought to the attention of the wider international community by the events in Greece.

RECALLING Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna falsely stated Security Council Resolution #29: Liberate Greece had sought action against the founder, and such contradiction could be construed as an attempt to mislead,

NOTICING Yauna was condemned for having stolen the region, but the nation had not been blamed for thievery in the preceding Liberation resolution,

SCR #110 has relied on the proposition that the founder is a not a native. It has taken the position that the relation of SCR #110 to SCR #29 is a case of new information updating old information.

The proposal relies on the proposition that the founder is a native. It take the position that the relation of SCR #29 to SCR #110 is a case of more reliable information contrasting controversial information.

SCR #110 had to rely on blatant inconsistencies and deliberate deception. The motives and methods of its authors must not be entirely honest nor moral.

Again twisting the facts with wording.
Yauna may be a native as no specific rules were broken.
But that doesn't mean the international community needs to recognize Yauna as a native, given the nature in which Yauna and the wider Persian Empire group came into posession of the region.
That's what this is about.

You are trying to argue on technicalities while ignoring the actual facts of what happened.

DISPUTING the charge of region griefing because any founder has the authority and right to eject by discretion,

AFFIRMING the founder has ejected in self-defense against hostile regional takeover,

Against hostile take over is one interpretation.
Against the enforcement of the liberation resolution from this security council is the truth however.

The Moderators and all knowledgeable players agree that an expired region and a refounded region, which both share the same name, are two different regions with distinct sets of natives.

Again this is irrelevant because the region was targeted for liberation with a resolution and Yauna condemned for the nature, the manner in which they, Persian Empire, came into possession of the region.

Stop ignoring the facts.

Yauna has a stronger claim to the region named Greece because he is the first and only founder of such a region. The new Greece has a founder; the old Greece was founderless. The former members of the original Greece do not even count a founder nation of Greece as one of them.

Who has a stronger claim is up for discussion.

Those former members were natives of the expired region. They are not natives of the existing region. Once an old region expires, the native status of its residents doesn't automatically transfer with them to the new region created.

Sparta Dominion/Laconia was in the region now, for practically the entire year. We are 8 months in.
At what point is a nation considered a native?
He was not griefing the region. He was not attempting to take it over, or steal it like the Persian Empire.
He was attempting to engage in a dialogue with the Persian Empire nations/puppets to no avail.
To no avail because none of them are active for longer then an hour every few weeks to months. Yauna, their founder nation, is CTE. Many others have also CTE recently.

DENYING Yauna's culpability in allegations of displaying Greece as a trophy because different regional governments have been able to function and the nation has never declared partisan preference on the World Factbook Entry,

The founder has expelled the supporters of SCR #110 from the WAD because they have declared their intention to seize the region from him by force. Repealing the Condemnation may help with the problem of the founder ejecting only those nations that are openly hostile to him.

Nobody ever said Yauna displayed Greece as a trophy region.
Right here you are flat out lying and being purposely misleading.

What has been said is that the Persian Empire claimed Greece as a trophy, as a conquered region. They had posted as much in the Persian Empire region WFB.

Nobody has tried to take over Greece because of the condemnation of Yauna.
People have tried taking Greece back from the Persian Empire because there is a resolution for the regions liberation.
Yet again you are purposely misleading and ignoring the facts.

Yauna's WFE: "Welcome to Greece! Birthplace of Western Civilization and Democracy. Enjoy our lovely islands, join in on some fine dancing and sip some Ouzo! Opa!"

Yauna's regional flag: The official flag of the Hellenic Republic.

Firstly that WFB entry was the WFB entry of the old natives of Greece who are trying to get their region back(note, the Eastern Roman Empire puppets claiming nativity in the region are not whom I'm talking about). They even had in blue text like Yauna decided to copy.
The Greek flag as the regional flag was also the same one the old natives had displayed.

Now, the interesting fact that you are ignoring and trying to mislead people away from is that Yauna never entered any of the above as the WFB entry or the regional flag, until serious questions were being raised about who Yauna was. When it was determined Yauna was a Persian Empire puppet/nation, a while after is when Yauna started using the old natives WFB entry and regional flag.

DISMAYED the Condemnation of Yauna has implied a justification for the refounding of a region through regional destruction, and such demolition means the objectionable expulsion of every resident,

Knowledgeable forum users who are unbiased have remarked that refounding a region by regional destruction is considered region griefing. The proponents of SCR #110 admit they want to refound the region by banishing the founder and all the other long-time residents.

Yet again an attempt to mislead people and ignore the facts.

Attempts to seize the region back from the Persian Empire and refound it for the old natives are an act to attempt to enforce the Liberation resolution for Greece.
If you want to have a go at the Eastern Roman Empire who are trying to take over the region them selves, then by all means do it.
But legitimate attempts to free the region in accordance with the Liberation resolution should not be confused with attempts by the Eastern Roman Empire trying to gain control of the region. I called them out my self in the region when I arrived.

EMPHASIZING only a Liberation resolution can authorize military intervention by this Council, and there is none enforcing the ouster of a founder; thus, proper procedure should be observed by not encouraging the replacement of Yauna by force,

ADMITTING though the cause to confiscate Greece has been popular, the World Assembly still recognizes the regional sovereignty of every founder and disapproves of regional destruction; hence, this Council should not be advancing an impulse most of its members would reject at a basic level,

CONCERNED the Condemnation of Yauna could be cited as a precedent for supporting the unauthorized seizure of a refounded region by a vindictive party,

The founder of a region naturally embodies regional sovereignty. It is not the business of the Security Council to redefine established conventions.

Attempts to refound Greece have not been officially sanctioned by the Security Council. Therefore, the supporters of SCR #110 should not use the Condemnation resolution to justify military excursions to remove the founder in the name of the Security Council.

The repeal proposal deems the manipulation of SCR #29 to justify SCR #110 as inappropriate and misleading.

AWARE the controversial activities of certain nations emboldened by the Condemnation of Yauna are seen by many outside Greece as justified resistance, but by many inside the region as harassment,

ACKNOWLEDGING the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the local conflict,

SEEKING to encourage Yauna's crucial participation in a proposed dialogue to end regional strife,

HOPING support for a repeal will help foster good will among the regular claimants to Greece, and inspire all nations to pursue reconciliation and diplomacy in resolving sharp disputes,

BELIEVING the members of this Council favor productive solutions over politically-motivated retaliation,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #110: Condemn Yauna.

Some supporters of SCR #110 blindly insist the authors of the repeal proposal are not sincere. Consider first the contents of the two resolutions and the proposal.

The first resolution denounces the current natives of Greece as invaders.

The second resolution condemns the founder of Greece as an invader.

You know the drill, read above. Dont feel like repeating my self again.

This proposal acknowledges the legitimate grievances of each principal faction in the regional conflict.

Neutral and unbiased observers would conclude the two resolutions were written to exclude one specific group as enemies. On the other hand, the proposal was written to include both parties as partners for peace.

The proposal tries to be conditionally inclusive and fair to both sides. The Condemnation is sharply all about excluding one side.

It is clear which position is the more diplomatic one. It is clear by the contents which side wants both parties to succeed, and which side has supporters who do not count the benefit of another as a benefit to themselves.

It's hardly fair to accuse one regional faction of not being diplomatic when one clings to a vindictive resolution that is undiplomatic by nature.

Please highlight where in your draft resolution to repeal the condemnation you have even ONCE addressed the legitimate concerns and grievances of the old natives.

The only party which your draft seems to deal with, in a biased misleading deceptive manner, is the Persian Empire.


Before you rush off to tell us that the Persian Empire wants peace, cooperation, friendship etc etc. Take note of the fact(which I'm sure you will ignore like you've ignored most other facts), that Sparta Dominion/Laconia, an old native, has for months attempted to engage in a dialogue with the Persian Empire to find a mutually acceptable and beneficial solution to this issue. He asked neither to be given the founder nation nor control of the region. His biggest want, was to be able to stay in the region freely without being ejected constantly for no apparent or legitimate reason.

At no point did the Persian Empire respond.

I had proposed similar things on his behalf. At no point did the Persian Empire respond.


So I put it to you, and the rest of the WA community, that was this here is, is an exercise to attempt to deceive and mislead the WA community and international community in general.
It is clear from the facts that the Persian Empire is guilty of what they are accused of doing. Playing on technicalities and ignoring the facts of what they did does not alter their guilt. I don't know what the derogatory comments charge against Yauna is about though. Maybe you are right on that part.
Five years on what they are accused and guilty of doing, has not changed.

Numerous attempts have been made at diplomacy and reconcilliation with them. They have ignored everything.
They can't sit there and say they want reconciliation and peace, but then ignore every attempt and claim they dont trust the other side.


I think a better place for you to place your time and efforts in is to have the region locked so nobody gets it. Because if in the year 2030 this website is still up and running, this crap will still be unresolved as it is today.

[Greece Is Free Again]

I am sharing a post I made in the region of Greece here to promote a solution to the political crisis there. Thank you.

Greetings, people of Greece. To the leaders of the region, Yauna and Nikolaos The Great, kindness and friendship.

I have returned to my native region. Allow me to share my thoughts on the current discussion.

The Natives of Greece are asking the Greek Invaders to relinquish the WA Delegate to them. It is a reasonable request based on what is practically real.

I say this with honest respect, the position of Nikolaos The Great is untenable. You, sir, cannot last here unless you change. And the Natives of Greece know this.

Yauna and Nikolaos The Great are seen to be enemies. Nikolaos is bitter that Yauna created Greece before he did. Yauna should distrust Nikolaos because he authored the Condemnation Resolution that shamed him to the whole World.

It is possible that the two could make agreements in the future. However, that possibility is remote unless important issues are first resolved.

A significant obstacle for regime of Nikolas The Great is SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 110. I believe no founder nation in its right mind would allow nations which defame it to have a future in its region.

Let us examine the contents of the hateful jumble of lies and garbage that is SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 110:

APPALLED BY the nation of Yauna's continued destructive and reprehensible practices in Greece, including but not limited to:
1. Extensive and long-term region-griefing, achieved by allowing itself to cease to exist, but returning at irregular intervals to impede refound attempts by original natives,
2. Utilizing defamatory and derogatory language to denigrate the original natives of Greece and their defenders on numerous occasions,
3. Ejecting and banning numerous Greek-affiliated nations without providing due process and without justification, thus depriving residents of Greece of fundamental rights,

Here are my comments:

1. Yauna is the founder of Greece. The nation cannot grief its own region because the game recognizes founder sovereignty in local regional affairs. The founder is above any natives. The Security Council should not condemn it from doing what all founders are free to do, which is protect its own region.

2. Yauna has never used "defamatory and derogatory language to denigrate the original natives of Greece and their defenders on numerous occasions."

That is a MALICIOUS lie! Yauna's gameplay actions should have been enough to make a case against him.

But the authors CHOSE to play DIRTY by LYING to the entire WORLD ASSEMBLY. Apparently, the case against him was not strong enough, so they needed to describe him in the worst possible way to arouse the mob's emotions against him.

The sad thing is that despicable tactics like these work, and this has led many to be disappointed at how the SECURITY COUNCIL can be abused.

This proves the authors were more interested in VENGEANCE than JUSTICE. The authors WENT TOO FAR, and revealed their poor character.

3. The Resolution does not even define what it means by "due process." Is Yauna bound by any legal agreement to serve the interests of "Greek-affiliated nations"?

By NationStates convention, the founder has the full authority to eject and ban any nation at its personal discretion. There is no superior body in NationStates that regulates or checks the specific powers given to each founder. Therefore, the founder is not subject to any legal procedure when exercising these, and the "due process" argument is a misunderstanding.

No founder really ejects without "justification." Normal observers would conclude that Yauna ejected those nations because they moved to replace him with one of their own.

The resolution admits that the authors have made repeated attempts to "refound" the region of Greece. The founder is justified to expel them because of the real threat of their acts of aggression. Every founder has the right to save its own region from invaders.

Therefore, the perception that the founder "ejects without justification"--as if some sort of mad man--is misleading.

The dispute between the nations from the original Greece and Yauna is POLITICAL. It is not right to make it PERSONAL with blatant libel.

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 110 should be repealed. For its obvious mistakes. For its hateful mentality. For its obstacle to peace between the founder and members of Greece.

[Kaboomlandia]

You do know this has been dead for over a year now, right?