Neutrality Argument

[Kalibarr]

The World Assembly is involved, remember, a rogue delegate is as much a bad representative of his endorsers as the institution to which he gains his power from.

I would like to rephrase Hotrodia's concluding questions.

Does the SC have the power to override Regional Sovereignty?
As I said, it can, for sure. The SC can demand that a delegate cannot password a region.

Does the SC have the right to override Regional Sovereignty?
It depends on if ambassadors believe the situation calls for it, if ambassadors don't believe the issue calls for an overriding of regional sovereignty -- than the SC does not have the right.

Does the SC have the duty to override Regional Sovereignty?
Our mission statement according to the admin and SC#9 is "to dedicate ourselves to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary." That 'force' is the overriding of regional sovereignty. So to rephrase the statement, we have the duty to override regional sovereignty when inter-regional peace and goodwill is threatened. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation.

Does the SC have the obligation to override Regional Sovereignty?
No. We our not obligated to override regional sovereignty. To essentially plagiarize Texan Hotrodders :

The SC can always decide that an issue is not worthy of its consideration, or rightfully belongs to the delegate, his endorsers and the region. The SC also has the ability to change its mind at a later date, as member nations come and go. Consequently, all previous resolutions may now be repealed, assuming some member can create a compelling case to do so.

so what ever the majority wants determines the purpose and use of the security council?

An organization full of lemmings now has the ability to tip the balance of the raider/defender conflict without any rules or limits. True, there is no "right and wrong" but last I checked the answers to these questions are not something that should be decided on my the masses, morality is not the will of the majority it is what it is, and it will be different for everyone, and thus an organization like the WA (which should be neutral because everyone raider,imperialist, defender, neutrals, liberals, and conservatives, can be a member and can write proposals to discriminate against a group, any group defeats the purpose of the WA is [quote=FAQ]The WA is the world's governing body.[/quote] and thus everyone must be treated equally, it can't be used as a tool for one group, many deny it's sovereignty over the game, and regions, to use it's SC to liberate regions, and condemn or commend people essentially over their views or what they've done, is not it's business, it's job is to provide legislation for it's members and help them with their budgets. It's job is to govern, not be a world police or a intervening committee. It is not supposed to support neutrality, it is supposed to be neutral, not urge others to be neutral, or take a side. It should be silent on gameplay matters and return to the IC world. The Admin/mods have made it clear the SC is not going away, if you want to get rid of "password griefing" then make it illegal in the game rules, don't make it the duty of this lemming filled body to decide, as for the remaining SC functions, use them on WA nations that violate WA resolutions, not for settling vandettas, or as a tool to recruit for your region.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

The World Assembly is involved, remember, a rogue delegate is as much a bad representative of his endorsers as the institution to which he gains his power from.

I would like to rephrase Hotrodia's concluding questions.

Does the SC have the power to override Regional Sovereignty?
As I said, it can, for sure. The SC can demand that a delegate cannot password a region.

Does the SC have the right to override Regional Sovereignty?
It depends on if ambassadors believe the situation calls for it, if ambassadors don't believe the issue calls for an overriding of regional sovereignty -- than the SC does not have the right.

Does the SC have the duty to override Regional Sovereignty?
Our mission statement according to the admin and SC#9 is "to dedicate ourselves to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary." That 'force' is the overriding of regional sovereignty. So to rephrase the statement, we have the duty to override regional sovereignty when inter-regional peace and goodwill is threatened. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation.

Does the SC have the obligation to override Regional Sovereignty?
No. We our not obligated to override regional sovereignty. To essentially plagiarize Texan Hotrodders :

The SC can always decide that an issue is not worthy of its consideration, or rightfully belongs to the delegate, his endorsers and the region. The SC also has the ability to change its mind at a later date, as member nations come and go. Consequently, all previous resolutions may now be repealed, assuming some member can create a compelling case to do so.

so what ever the majority wants determines the purpose and use of the security council?

Usually that is how a democratic body works?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The WA is supposed to be "neutral"? I'm guessing the nations that would rather lock up the gays, threaten their neighbors with bioweapons, or commit mass genocide would see things rather differently.

[Kalibarr]

The WA is supposed to be "neutral"? I'm guessing the nations that would rather lock up the gays, threaten their neighbors with bioweapons, or commit mass genocide would see things rather differently.

well if their not WA nations it's not the WA"s job to deal with them.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

The WA is supposed to be "neutral"? I'm guessing the nations that would rather lock up the gays, threaten their neighbors with bioweapons, or commit mass genocide would see things rather differently.

well if their not WA nations it's not the WA"s job to deal with them.

Funny, if a WA delegate decided to not be in the WA, than it wouldn't be our job to deal with him either.

[Kalibarr]

The World Assembly is involved, remember, a rogue delegate is as much a bad representative of his endorsers as the institution to which he gains his power from.

I would like to rephrase Hotrodia's concluding questions.

Does the SC have the power to override Regional Sovereignty?
As I said, it can, for sure. The SC can demand that a delegate cannot password a region.

Does the SC have the right to override Regional Sovereignty?
It depends on if ambassadors believe the situation calls for it, if ambassadors don't believe the issue calls for an overriding of regional sovereignty -- than the SC does not have the right.

Does the SC have the duty to override Regional Sovereignty?
Our mission statement according to the admin and SC#9 is "to dedicate ourselves to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary." That 'force' is the overriding of regional sovereignty. So to rephrase the statement, we have the duty to override regional sovereignty when inter-regional peace and goodwill is threatened. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation.

Does the SC have the obligation to override Regional Sovereignty?
No. We our not obligated to override regional sovereignty. To essentially plagiarize Texan Hotrodders :

The SC can always decide that an issue is not worthy of its consideration, or rightfully belongs to the delegate, his endorsers and the region. The SC also has the ability to change its mind at a later date, as member nations come and go. Consequently, all previous resolutions may now be repealed, assuming some member can create a compelling case to do so.

so what ever the majority wants determines the purpose and use of the security council?

Usually that is how a democratic body works?

true, but according to the game their is only one democratic body, the whole WA is an infringement on sovereignty as I"m sure not every WA nation agree's with the majority but they are forced to follow their beliefs. A nation should be able to be in an organized body with ou thaving to go against what it's populace has agreed on and instead going on what abunch of foreign nations have agreed on. the whole WA is useless.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

true, but according to the game their is only one democratic body, the whole WA is an infringement on sovereignty as I"m sure not every WA nation agree's with the majority but they are forced to follow their beliefs. A nation should be able to be in an organized body with ou thaving to go against what it's populace has agreed on and instead going on what abunch of foreign nations have agreed on. the whole WA is useless.

Um... Have you ever read the FAQ of NationStates... its a good read....

Here's a snippet...

> So I'm a WA member. Now what?

The WA is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

As you can see, if it made its way into the FAQ, this 'double-edged sword' is entirely intentional, and part of the game.

[Topid]

The GA (the WA pre-SC) isn't neutral, never has been. Ask a conservative...

"But I don't want to accept that marriage is different than what the bible tells me... that's offensive!"
"Tough luck, we're making you, and there's nothing you can do!!!"


So I don't know how the WA is 'supposed to be neutral'. The fact that we were given the power to say this person good, and that person is bad seems to make being neutral hard...

And as for saying that if the admin decided password griefing is hurting the game, they should make it illegal rather than give the SC the power to do it... Yeah. In a perfect world... But as we've heard a million times, the moderation team is simply not up to the task. That may work better, but it's not possible. Things would be more fair if mods read every thread in NSG... But they can't. Liberations are a replacement for a rule.

[Martyrdoom]

The WA is supposed to be "neutral"? I'm guessing the nations that would rather lock up the gays, threaten their neighbors with bioweapons, or commit mass genocide would see things rather differently.

well if their not WA nations it's not the WA"s job to deal with them.

Liberations also affect any non-WA nations in a targeted region. Surely that's a tad incongruous?

Liberations are a replacement for a rule.

Maybe that was the intention. But they are not and don't prevent 'griefing': only a password can do that in the first instance or a prudent/vigilent delegate (in a founderless region of course). Indeed, to date liberations have actually been a prerequisite for 'griefing'. We had 'natives' from Tokugawa Japan (which was a laughable construct) and 'defenders' kicking out a nation that was resident there for two years as well as a host of nations which had merely moved in under the 'free-entry' the initial liberation accorded. Thisis what happens when a defender paradigm co-opts the SC: its logic, justifications, invented terms are all used. And as far as I'm concerned that's where the trouble has started. The SC was provisionally anti-invader from the beginning given its very nature. Now that has been fully realised: raiders=condemned, defenders=commended, regions passworded by raiders liberated, regions passworded by 'defenders'/'natives' remaining passworded.

[Unibot]

The WA is supposed to be "neutral"? I'm guessing the nations that would rather lock up the gays, threaten their neighbors with bioweapons, or commit mass genocide would see things rather differently.

well if their not WA nations it's not the WA"s job to deal with them.

Liberations also affect any non-WA nations in a targeted region. Surely that's a tad incongruous?

Indirectly, Martyrdoom. Indirectly affects.

That is because a WA delegate has an effect on non-WA nations in their region, so any changes to a WA delegate affects the residents of the region, regardless of member nation status. That's why it is important for the Security Council to monitor unruly delegates who make for bad representatives of the World Assembly -- like most nominees of liberation and condemnation proposals.

The Mission Statement of the SC, is the dedicate itself to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Therefore, our goals rarely intertwine with the goals of raiders, and invaders who disseminate inter-regional disharmony, by threatening other residents in attempt to gain more control over regions by force if necessary.

It is not a sign of 'biasness' that raiders haven't been applauded, and defenders haven't been liberated against by the Security Council -- it is a sign that the Security Council has so far been able to operative with its principles and purpose untarnished.

[Yourmotherland]

The WA is supposed to be "neutral"? I'm guessing the nations that would rather lock up the gays, threaten their neighbors with bioweapons, or commit mass genocide would see things rather differently.

well if their not WA nations it's not the WA"s job to deal with them.

Liberations also affect any non-WA nations in a targeted region. Surely that's a tad incongruous?

The WA delegate has an effect on non-WA nations in their region, that is true, that's why it is important for the Security Council to monitor unruly delegates who make for bad representatives of the World Assembly.

The Mission Statement of the SC, is the dedicate itself to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Therefore, our goals rarely intertwine with the goals of raiders, and invaders who disseminate inter-regional disharmony, by threatening other residents in attempt to gain more control over regions by force if necessary.

It is not a sign of 'biasness' that raiders haven't been applauded, and defenders haven't been liberated against by the Security Council -- it is a sign that the Security Council has so far been able to operative with its principles and purpose untarnished.

untarnished? so your saying if raiders had their way in the SC then it wold be bias and corrupt, but for defenders it's okay?

[Unibot]

The WA is supposed to be "neutral"? I'm guessing the nations that would rather lock up the gays, threaten their neighbors with bioweapons, or commit mass genocide would see things rather differently.

well if their not WA nations it's not the WA"s job to deal with them.

Liberations also affect any non-WA nations in a targeted region. Surely that's a tad incongruous?

The WA delegate has an effect on non-WA nations in their region, that is true, that's why it is important for the Security Council to monitor unruly delegates who make for bad representatives of the World Assembly.

The Mission Statement of the SC, is the dedicate itself to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Therefore, our goals rarely intertwine with the goals of raiders, and invaders who disseminate inter-regional disharmony, by threatening other residents in attempt to gain more control over regions by force if necessary.

It is not a sign of 'biasness' that raiders haven't been applauded, and defenders haven't been liberated against by the Security Council -- it is a sign that the Security Council has so far been able to operative with its principles and purpose untarnished.

untarnished? so your saying if raiders had their way in the SC then it wold be bias and corrupt, but for defenders it's okay?

I'm sure Marytrdoom could point you to some past instance when defenders did not disseminate the principles to which the WASC has been founded to protect. Also at times, the goals of defenders and the Security Council will not overlap due to the fact that native support does not exist. Defenders believe it to be an ethical dilemma to get involved in regions without native support, the Security Council has the power to do so however, and perceivably the right and duty to do so if peace and goodwill is threatened by an unruly delegate.

The difference between defenders and the Security Council is that defenders are a third party which monitors, and control unruly delegates -- the Security Council, as an organ of the World Assembly, is the central party involved.

[Kalibarr]

The WA is supposed to be "neutral"? I'm guessing the nations that would rather lock up the gays, threaten their neighbors with bioweapons, or commit mass genocide would see things rather differently.

well if their not WA nations it's not the WA"s job to deal with them.

Liberations also affect any non-WA nations in a targeted region. Surely that's a tad incongruous?

The WA delegate has an effect on non-WA nations in their region, that is true, that's why it is important for the Security Council to monitor unruly delegates who make for bad representatives of the World Assembly.

The Mission Statement of the SC, is the dedicate itself to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Therefore, our goals rarely intertwine with the goals of raiders, and invaders who disseminate inter-regional disharmony, by threatening other residents in attempt to gain more control over regions by force if necessary.

It is not a sign of 'biasness' that raiders haven't been applauded, and defenders haven't been liberated against by the Security Council -- it is a sign that the Security Council has so far been able to operative with its principles and purpose untarnished.

untarnished? so your saying if raiders had their way in the SC then it wold be bias and corrupt, but for defenders it's okay?

I'm sure Marytrdoom could point you to some past instance when defenders did not disseminate the principles to which the WASC has been founded to protect. Also at times, the goals of defenders and the Security Council will not overlap due to the fact that native support does not exist. Defenders believe it to be an ethical dilemma to get involved in regions with native support, the Security Council has the power to do so however, and perceivably the right and duty to do so if peace and goodwill is threatened by an unruly delegate.

unruly delegate? please define

[Unibot]

Okay, as I've stated, the mission statement for the SC is to dedicate itself to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

So any delegate which threatens inter-regional peace and goodwill towards its region, should be monitored and controlled (to some degree) by the World Assembly. If a condemnation (a warning) is not enough/will not be enough to make the delegate reconsider his actions... then a liberation is justified.

[Ananke]

Also at times, the goals of defenders and the Security Council will not overlap due to the fact that native support does not exist. Defenders believe it to be an ethical dilemma to get involved in regions without native support, the Security Council has the power to do so however, and perceivably the right and duty to do so if peace and goodwill is threatened by an unruly delegate.

To be fair, just because Sedge and Naivetry believe this doesn't mean all defenders do. I can see reasons for liberating a region, even if the natives are inactive. But yeah, I most likely wouldn't spend time campaigning for a liberation resolution with no native backing.

[Naivetry]

so what ever the majority wants determines the purpose and use of the security council?

Mmmm, politics.

Kali, I understand where you're coming from, because raiders have had the run of things without having to think in terms of ethical dilemmas for about 3 years. But from every argument I've seen here, you all are missing the point. The SC is a wonderful opportunity to put some drama back into this game, and none of you are taking the bait.

I swear, you'd think being evil had gone out of style.

There is a chance here for you to carve out a place for yourselves - not only to conquer other regions, but to spit in the WA's face as you do so. Take a page out of the NPO's handbook: oppress others for their own good, and do it with conviction - you'll find people coming out of the woodwork to join you. Make your arguments compelling, and repolarize the political world. I've only experienced the last gasp of that sort of world politics myself, but even so diluted it's the chance for more that keeps me coming back to the game.

Forget neutrality. Neutrality is boring. Neutrality is Influence, which practically killed this side of the game. Step up, embrace the role of villain and wear your Condemnation as a badge of honor, and we'll all have a lot more fun.

[Grays Harbor]

The World Assembly is involved, remember, a rogue delegate is as much a bad representative of his endorsers as the institution to which he gains his power from.

I would like to rephrase Hotrodia's concluding questions.

Does the SC have the power to override Regional Sovereignty?
As I said, it can, for sure. The SC can demand that a delegate cannot password a region.

Does the SC have the right to override Regional Sovereignty?
It depends on if ambassadors believe the situation calls for it, if ambassadors don't believe the issue calls for an overriding of regional sovereignty -- than the SC does not have the right.

Does the SC have the duty to override Regional Sovereignty?
Our mission statement according to the admin and SC#9 is "to dedicate ourselves to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary." That 'force' is the overriding of regional sovereignty. So to rephrase the statement, we have the duty to override regional sovereignty when inter-regional peace and goodwill is threatened. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation.

Does the SC have the obligation to override Regional Sovereignty?
No. We our not obligated to override regional sovereignty. To essentially plagiarize Texan Hotrodders :

The SC can always decide that an issue is not worthy of its consideration, or rightfully belongs to the delegate, his endorsers and the region. The SC also has the ability to change its mind at a later date, as member nations come and go. Consequently, all previous resolutions may now be repealed, assuming some member can create a compelling case to do so.

so what ever the majority wants determines the purpose and use of the security council?

An organization full of lemmings now has the ability to tip the balance of the raider/defender conflict without any rules or limits. True, there is no "right and wrong" but last I checked the answers to these questions are not something that should be decided on my the masses, morality is not the will of the majority it is what it is, and it will be different for everyone, and thus an organization like the WA (which should be neutral because everyone raider,imperialist, defender, neutrals, liberals, and conservatives, can be a member and can write proposals to discriminate against a group, any group defeats the purpose of the WA is [quote=FAQ]The WA is the world's governing body.

and thus everyone must be treated equally, it can't be used as a tool for one group, many deny it's sovereignty over the game, and regions, to use it's SC to liberate regions, and condemn or commend people essentially over their views or what they've done, is not it's business, it's job is to provide legislation for it's members and help them with their budgets. It's job is to govern, not be a world police or a intervening committee. It is not supposed to support neutrality, it is supposed to be neutral, not urge others to be neutral, or take a side. It should be silent on gameplay matters and return to the IC world. The Admin/mods have made it clear the SC is not going away, if you want to get rid of "password griefing" then make it illegal in the game rules, don't make it the duty of this lemming filled body to decide, as for the remaining SC functions, use them on WA nations that violate WA resolutions, not for settling vandettas, or as a tool to recruit for your region.[/quote]

It is rather sad that some will always reject majority rule except when it suits them. That they sing the praises of democracy, then demand that whatever their pet cause of the week is be enacted regardless of what the vote outcome is. Sad. It makes one cry tears of warm ice, it does.

[Kalibarr]

Kali, I understand where you're coming from, because raiders have had the run of things without having to think in terms of ethical dilemmas for about 3 years...

I believe both raiders and defenders have ethical justification for almost everything, they both have a few weak areas (like regional sovereignty) where no matter which side you are you get attacked there.

I swear, you'd think being evil had gone out of style.

There is a chance here for you to carve out a place for yourselves - not only to conquer other regions, but to spit in the WA's face as you do so. Take a page out of the NPO's handbook: oppress others for their own good, and do it with conviction - you'll find people coming out of the woodwork to join you. Make your arguments compelling, and repolarize the political world. I've only experienced the last gasp of that sort of world politics myself, but even so diluted it's the chance for more that keeps me coming back to the game.



Forget neutrality. Neutrality is boring. Neutrality is Influence, which practically killed this side of the game. Step up, embrace the role of villain and wear your Condemnation as a badge of honor, and we'll all have a lot more fun.

Ironically I blame neutrality(or attempted neutrality) for most of the problems in my region, inactivity, suspected spies(from both sides), anger, and several divisions in the friendship of my regionmates. I realize this is a game, people want to have fun, often conflict brings fun to a game. Given what i've seen while participating in the SC and watching how people vote and some of their arguments, perhaps "oppessing other for their own good" is needed, for their own good.

I suspect you are all tired of me whining about neutrality, perhaps it is time to stop.

[The Republic of Lanos]

GA rules don't apply to the SC.

if there are any rules for the SC at all...

[Urthigsville]

Here we go, what a great argument this is! All this furore heading in various directions about the SC could be considered a kind of 'game' all on it's own. But apart from that wacky idea, in a war of any sort, there's no point in a side complaining to their opponents over them bringing in a new weapon. So rather than the folk of a raiding disposition moaning continuously over defenders arming themselves with the SC, why don't you all spend your anger into coming up with some clever new idea to get back on level pegging? The genius of this game is that there is so little restriction in terms of game mechanics. There's bound to be some way of cancelling out the SC, it is just yet to be discovered.
That's my ten cents spent.

[New Buckner]

There is a very easy way of cancelling out the security council.

All one must do it forge a majority vote that can ensure that should a resolution come before for vote, it doesn't pass. The other fun side of evil, bounce around, invade at a whim...it takes how long for a resolution to make it before a vote? Days...weeks....it takes awhile. Invade, conquer, password, and move on...

Being evil is only depended on the other persons view. To you, you could be the savior of your people, but one uppity guy doesn't like what your doing, and suddenly wiping out an entire native people becomes an "evil" thing...

[Greater Hyrkania]

A WA nation should not have anything to say to events occuring in other regions than its own. I don't care how many players who shares a view. It's a blatant attack on regional sovereignty to pass resolutions concerning life within a region. Stick to the resolutions affecting single nations.

[Bears Armed]

A WA nation should not have anything to say to events occuring in other regions than its own. I don't care how many players who shares a view. It's a blatant attack on regional sovereignty to pass resolutions concerning life within a region.

And it's a "blatant attack on regional sovereignty" for raiders to seize control of a region, too: If they were to stop doing that then the SC could stop doing this...

[Kalibarr]

Yes and when interregional politics and the whole gameplay side of the game dies you'll be happy then?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Considering the recent events in the SC and the Macedon crisis thing I personally decided to cut back from the SC affairs and focus more on the GA side so I could get a bit of a breather.