[Abandoned] Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders"

[Ynys Prydain]

Recalling that following these acts of forum destruction, the Red Liberty Alliance, of which Allied States of EuroIslanders was a founding member, conducted a thorough investigation of these offenses and expelled the nations responsible for these acts from its membership while also prohibiting forum destruction;

That's... not actually true.

The Red Factions was punished...the second time, when he destroyed the Invaders Army forum. However, he wasn't "expelled", he was suspended for 6 months from the RLA, if memory serves. The first time, when he destroyed The DEN HQ forums, he was given a promotion for his fine spy work.

The guy who destroyed TBH's forums was Nick, he was given some sort of a commendation for his work tricking Halc into giving him Admin access to TBH forums.

So the cited clause isn't true either.

Thank you, I'm a bit sketchy on some of the historical details. I know The Red Factions and his accomplice for the Invaders Army incident were both expelled, not suspended, from the RLA for a certain period, after which time they could re-apply and may be accepted. And then The Red Factions resigned elsewhere and, as far as I know, left the game.

I have edited the clause to be more accurate.

[Onderkelkia]

However, he wasn't "expelled", he was suspended for 6 months from the RLA, if memory serves.

Indeed, although he was barred from re-applying to the Central Soviet for 30 days, rather than 6 months.

He also returned after that period, so as you indicate it was effectively a suspension whether or not it was termed expulsion.

[Shizensky]

...A lot of raiders weren't happy about what they did.

It could have damn well started an uncontrollable cascade of retaliation from both sides.

The first statement is true. To be honest, I felt like the raiders were a lot more sympathetic at the time and the defenders saw it as more of an opportunity to make the other side look bad.

In regards to the second claim, there were a few high profile folks who were denouncing forum destruction in public, but encouraged me to seek revenge through comparable methods in private. A lot of it happened exactly as EW has said - DEN attacked the RIA forums because we were defenders, and by hitting us they were somehow hitting back at people we'd never worked with. That same sentiment was being whispered back at me. We wouldn't have been able to infiltrate DEN to do the same, they'd be expecting it, so we would have needed to have gone after a different group. Escalation was in the works, but thankfully never came to fruition.

I don't think I could support a repeal of any individual or group behind a forum destruction. The forum destruction conversation has come up again recently, with an unsettling amount of support seeming to be indifferent towards the severity of this method as a legitimate tactic. Repealing this condemnation sends a message I cannot support.

[Cormac Stark]

I don't think I could support a repeal of any individual or group behind a forum destruction. The forum destruction conversation has come up again recently, with an unsettling amount of support seeming to be indifferent towards the severity of this method as a legitimate tactic. Repealing this condemnation sends a message I cannot support.

I actually agree that the level of support or acceptance for forum destruction as a tactic -- which is coming exclusively from invader figures, from what I've seen -- is unsettling. That's part of what prompted this repeal proposal. If the interregional consensus against forum destruction has changed, or at least softened, it's incredibly unfair to leave condemnation of ASE on the books while a growing number of gameplayers, again mostly invaders, are once again more comfortable with forum destruction as a tactic.

It seems to me that we are continuing to punish ASE as a token of a consensus that has largely deteriorated and we're afraid repealing the condemnation will destroy that consensus, but the consensus has already been destroyed and it's been destroyed by invaders who are either advocating or accepting forum destruction.

[Guy]

This entirely follows the Unknown precedent, and the two cases cannot be distinguished on relevant grounds.

If you think that the SC has been too lax in condemning cases of forum destruction, that's fine. But the precedent for condemning a region for it, as Cormac states, is on the books; you can't just displace the way that we had gone about things previously. Repeal Condemn Unknown passed by an overwhelming majority, and had almost unanimous support from both defenders and invaders.

[Solorni]

I feel like this is being done because the region was one of defender origin, a chance to whitewash history so to speak.

[Cormac Stark]

I feel like this is being done because the region was one of defender origin, a chance to whitewash history so to speak.

Was Unknown's condemnation repealed because the region was of invader origin?

Leaving this condemnation in place distorts history, in that many other regions and nations have been involved in forum destruction and none are condemned.

[Evil Wolf]

Setting aside the fact I think Unknown should still be Condemned for the Forum Destruction incidences, there is a glaring difference between their case and ASE's.

Unknown came out and officially apologized for their involvement. Allied States of EuroIslanders, EuroSoviets, and the entire RLA never, not once, apologized for even one of their Forum Destructions. Not even the Invaders Army destruction, they merely "punished" those responsible without issuing an apology.

They remain, to this day, unrepentant. Not that it matters, saying "sorry" can only get you so far, but it is interesting to note that they haven't even given that small gesture.

[Cormac Stark]

Setting aside the fact I think Unknown should still be Condemned for the Forum Destruction incidences, there is a glaring difference between their case and ASE's.

Well, at least you're consistent in believing Unknown should still be condemned, but that doesn't change the fact that both the author of their condemnation (Topid) and 7,794 of his closest friends, 81% of WA votes at that time, disagreed and Unknown is no longer condemned.

Unknown came out and officially apologized for their involvement. Allied States of EuroIslanders, EuroSoviets, and the entire RLA never, not once, apologized for even one of their Forum Destructions. Not even the Invaders Army destruction, they merely "punished" those responsible without issuing an apology.

They remain, to this day, unrepentant. Not that it matters, saying "sorry" can only get you so far, but it is interesting to note that they haven't even given that small gesture.

This is not entirely with the truthiness, Wolf. I've yet to be able to locate a record of any official statement from ASE, but in this report published by the RLA after the Central Soviet concluded its investigation of the Invaders Army forum destruction, they said the following:

We firmly denounce the tactics that Ketoprofen and The Red Factions have used and equally denounce the tactic of forum destruction, which has been banned by the Central Soviet of the Red Liberty Alliance.

While not an apology, this contradicts your assertion that the RLA remains, to this day, unrepentant. This is not even to mention the numerous former senior RLA officials, such as Blackbird, who have repeatedly expressed regret over the Invaders Army forum destruction.

EDIT: EuroSoviets also made these remarks in an interview with Unibot in 2013. While stressing that he does not oppose forum destruction under all circumstances -- which is no worse than statements made by several invaders in Gameplay just days ago, and certainly no worse than statements made in the past by Kurosaki of Lone Wolves United -- I think it's a stretch to say that EuroSoviets remains unrepentant to this day in regard to the forum destruction and the way it was handled by ASE and the RLA.

The RLA never said sorry, that I ever recall, for the forum destruction. It was. In the absolute barracking and the crescendo of patronising, arrogant, self-serving rubbish that flowed in our direction, it was forgotten that actually we are against this sort of thing. We were forced, in some respects, to defend Ketoprofen and The Red Factions because they were ours and we had great respect for them. I am sorry it happened. I know firsthand how much effort we all put into our communities.

I stress that I am not against forum destruction. The situation would have to be dire for me to consider it, but such judgments are armchair judgments, made in hindsight. I was not the agent in the heat of the moment, with absolute knowledge of how things worked in DEN or Invaders. My discomfort with the tactic is hedged about with loyalty to my agents, to two spectacular intelligence agents and two honest, capable socialists. If I contradict myself at points above, I suppose these competing impulses are why.

[Evil Wolf]

While not an apology, this contradicts your assertion that the RLA remains, to this day, unrepentant. This is not even to mention the numerous former senior RLA officials, such as Blackbird, who have repeatedly expressed regret over the Invaders Army forum destruction.

Blackbird is also the one who authorized the destruction of TBH and The DEN HQ forums, so forgive me if I don't believe that his personal statements of regret, demanded and given under duress while his home region TPC was being raided, are genuine. RLA only issued the punishments to TRF and Ketoprofen to save face with the ADN, who were pissed, for once, that the RLA destroyed the Invaders Army forum since ADN and Invaders actually got along pretty well.

Begrudgingly issuing a few token punishments to avoid further angering your Defender allies is not even close to being repentant.

While stressing that he does not oppose forum destruction under all circumstances -- which is no worse than statements made by several invaders in Gameplay just days ago, and certainly no worse than statements made in the past by Kurosaki of Lone Wolves United -- I think it's a stretch to say that EuroSoviets remains unrepentant to this day in regard to the forum destruction and the way it was handled by ASE and the RLA.

Kurosaki is also not a known forum destroyer and has never run an alliance that actively destroyed forums. He also knows well enough that he can state his opinion all he wants in Lone Wolves United without rebuke, but if he ever tried destroying a forum in our name, he would be gone faster than a twinkie at a weight watchers meeting.

Forum Destruction and Region refounding is also nowhere near being the same thing, no matter how your extremest mind tries to justify it.

Stop trying to turn this around, Cormac. Forum Destruction is reprehensible, and you're trying to defend and justify the actions of some of the worst perpetrators in Nationstates History simply because they were Defenders.

[Cormac Stark]

Blackbird is also the one who authorized the destruction of TBH and The DEN HQ forums, so forgive me if I don't believe that his personal statements of regret, demanded and given under duress while his home region TPC was being raided, are genuine. RLA only issued the punishments to TRF and Ketoprofen to save face with the ADN, who were pissed, for once, that the RLA destroyed the Invaders Army forum since ADN and Invaders actually got along pretty well.

Begrudgingly issuing a few token punishments to avoid further angering your Defender allies is not even close to being repentant.

Blackbird has reiterated and reaffirmed those statements of regret since that time. Are you really arguing that nobody from the RLA regrets those incidents, even if they say they do, and in the same breath trying to convince us this isn't about petty retribution? You're being the definition of unreasonable. "That regret is not really regret!"

Kurosaki is also not a known forum destroyer and has never run an alliance that actively destroyed forums. He also knows well enough that he can state his opinion all he wants in Lone Wolves United without rebuke, but if he ever tried destroying a forum in our name, he would be gone faster than a twinkie at a weight watchers meeting.

I'm not saying Kurosaki is a forum destroyer, but I'm saying you can't conflate support or acceptance of forum destruction as a legitimate tactic with the actual act of forum destruction. I don't support it, and I think it's reprehensible to support it -- but supporting it and accepting it are not the same thing as doing it. In the case of Invaders Army, those responsible destroyed the Invaders Army forum without authorization and against the explicit order given by Blackbird, and yet responsibility for that incident is heaped upon ASE and the RLA as if they are as responsible for it as the incidents they actually authorized, all because some of them still supported or accepted forum destruction as a tactic, and despite the RLA banning forum destruction.

Forum Destruction and Region refounding is also nowhere near being the same thing, no matter how your extremest mind tries to justify it.

Yes, that's what invaders constantly say, but when a community's historical and cultural record is entirely kept on its RMB and that RMB is destroyed in re-founding, there is no real difference. There is only a difference in your mind because you are a gameplayer elitist who values off-site communities and looks down on on-site communities as targets for your amusement, and nothing more.

Stop trying to turn this around, Cormac. Forum Destruction is reprehensible, and you're trying to defend and justify the actions of some of the worst perpetrators in Nationstates History simply because they were Defenders.

I'm not trying to defend or justify their actions, I am simply saying in the face of your unreasonable thirst for retribution that they, like Unknown, have done their time and the stigma and isolation should come to an end. You can spin this however you want, you can reprehensibly try to associate me with forum destroyers because you're desperate to prevent repeal, but at the end of the day I'm right. ASE is the only region condemned for forum destruction, no nation is condemned for it, there is precedent for repealing such condemnation after the passage of time, and the interests of justice are not served by satisfying the petty insistence of an invader minority upon permanent retribution.

[Redsward]

From what I've heard, EuroIslanders was one of the worst perpetrators of forum destruction, thus I do not support this repeal.

Seconded. ASE is the only region currently condemned for something other than raiding. Forum destruction is more serious, and all raiders want the black badge to show their full alignment with the yin.

[Cormac Stark]

From what I've heard, EuroIslanders was one of the worst perpetrators of forum destruction, thus I do not support this repeal.

Seconded. ASE is the only region currently condemned for something other than raiding. Forum destruction is more serious, and all raiders want the black badge to show their full alignment with the yin.

As stated previously in this thread, ASE is not condemned because they were the only nor even the worst forum destroyers, but simply because for a while it was in vogue for gameplayers to go after forum destroyers and that manifested itself against ASE and Unknown before gameplayers found something new to get worked up about and moved on. There are other nations and other regions even more deserving of condemnation for forum destruction than ASE, it's just that nobody has bothered.

So now we are keeping the condemnation of ASE to pat ourselves on the back and feel like we've accomplished something, while meanwhile other forum destroyers continue playing the game in peace. I'm pretty sure one of the most notorious forum destroyers is a member of the royal family in an otherwise lovely British-themed region. We keep this condemnation because when invaders whine loudly enough most people will back down from any suggestion that singling ASE out for stigmatization and isolation is unjust retribution rather than justice. That needs to end.

[Evil Wolf]

As stated previously in this thread, ASE is not condemned because they were the only nor even the worst forum destroyers, but simply because for a while it was in vogue for gameplayers to go after forum destroyers and that manifested itself against ASE and Unknown before gameplayers found something new to get worked up about and moved on. There are other nations and other regions even more deserving of condemnation for forum destruction than ASE, it's just that nobody has bothered.

And the person who "stated previously in this thread" was you, Cormac. ASE was condemned for being forum destroyers, and not because it was a "passing trend". The only one who seems to think that there is some sort of crazy conspiracy to condemn ASE but no other region is you, Cormac. In this thread so far, anyway.

We keep this condemnation because when invaders whine loudly enough [...]

Yup, and there it is. It's fairly obvious Cormac sees this Condemn as yet another battle in the Raider/Defender wars. ASE was condemned because they're Forum Destroyers, Cormac, not because of some mass raider conspiracy. If other regions haven't been condemned as well when they too have destroyed forums it's because no one, including yourself, proposed condemns against them.

To date, I have yet to see a SC vote Condemning forum destroyers get rejected. This is not a raider plot, this is merely a lack of effort. Forum Destruction is an abomination and show be held up as an example of the sort of behavior no one in NS should tolerate regardless of side.

[Cormac Stark]

I hear what you're saying, Wolf, but there are no other regions or nations condemned for it. Nobody is stepping forward and saying, "I'll condemn ______" either. It's been years and multiple incidents of forum destruction since this condemnation passed, but no more have been proposed for forum destruction.

It's inappropriate to single out ASE for condemnation, stigmatization, and isolation. You can argue that other regions and nations should be condemned for it -- hell, I even agree with you -- but the reality is that they aren't and aren't going to be. You're not authoring a condemnation of anyone else for forum destruction, I'm not either, and neither is anyone else. So our options are to leave ASE the only region condemned for it in a sea of other regions and nations that deserve to be, or to repeal this condemnation. I choose the latter.

[Evil Wolf]

So our options are to leave ASE the only region condemned for it in a sea of other regions and nations that deserve to be, or to repeal this condemnation. I choose the latter.

Does that mean that you also support the repeal of all the Condemns against raiders, since there are other raiders out there but not all of them have been Condemned? Of course not.

Your logic makes very little sense and the "all or none" attitude only serves to distract from the seriousness of the offense ASE committed. You claim that ASE and the RLA were not the worst Forum Destroyers with three forums under their belt. Well, I know of no one else with three or more. Until someone tells me otherwise, I'm pretty sure they are the worst Forum Destroyers in NS history, making them well worthy of a Condemn.

Even if they are not number one on the list of shame, they are quite easily in the top three. Again, they deserve this for their actions, unless, Cormac, you don't believe Forum Destruction to be something people should be Condemned over?

[Cormac Stark]

Does that mean that you also support the repeal of all the Condemns against raiders, since there are other raiders out there but not all of them have been Condemned? Of course not.

No, but the condemnations of raiders are more a part of gameplay than these condemnations are. Raiders enjoy getting them, defenders enjoy writing them -- that isn't the case with condemnations for forum destruction, which is probably why more haven't gotten written. Forum destruction is barely a gameplay matter and much more an OOC matter. It can and should be handled OOC between gameplay communities.

Your logic makes very little sense and the "all or none" attitude only serves to distract from the seriousness of the offense ASE committed. You claim that ASE and the RLA were not the worst Forum Destroyers with three forums under their belt. Well, I know of no one else with three or more. Until someone tells me otherwise, I'm pretty sure they are the worst Forum Destroyers in NS history, making them well worthy of a Condemn.

I'm fairly sure Gerzam of The Ascendancy has had a hand in more than three forum destructions, but someone with more knowledge of his record would need to comment. Certainly several members of The Ascendancy had a combined total that came to more than three.

Even if they are not number one on the list of shame, they are quite easily in the top three. Again, they deserve this for their actions, unless, Cormac, you don't believe Forum Destruction to be something people should be Condemned over?

I'm leaning in this direction, yes. Forum destruction is barely a gameplay matter. The Security Council is supposed to be an enjoyable part of the game -- do you know anyone who enjoys writing condemnations for forum destruction? Me neither, and that's probably why there have only ever been two and one is now repealed. We need to deal with forum destruction in a less sensationalized way. These grandiose gestures aren't doing anyone any good while we have forum destroyers currently playing NationStates, harbored by regions and enjoying their time there.

[Evil Wolf]

Forum destruction is barely a gameplay matter and much more an OOC matter. It can and should be handled OOC between gameplay communities.

And Roleplay isn't a Gameplay matter at all and yet we still pass Condemns based upon Roleplaying, so the argument that it's "barely" a gameplay matter, so we shouldn't write Condemns based upon it isn't sounds logic.

I'm fairly sure Gerzam of The Ascendancy has had a hand in more than three forum destructions, but someone with more knowledge of his record would need to comment. Certainly several members of The Ascendancy had a combined total that came to more than three.

Admittedly I know next to nothing about The Ascendancy other than they didn't get along with Unknown.

However, this would still place ASE at number two, still well deserving of a Condemn. The question therein isn't "why haven't we repealed ASE's Condemn?" but rather "Why haven't we Condemned The Ascendancy?"

I say we keep the Condemn on ASE for being the number two Forum Destroyers in NS history, and Condemn TA for being the number one. Savvy?

[Cormac Stark]

I say we keep the Condemn on ASE for being the number two Forum Destroyers in NS history, and Condemn TA for being the number one. Savvy?

If we try to condemn The Ascendancy now, here's what will happen:

"Lol that region is dead and this is unnecessary. Against."

Besides, I'm fairly sure I tried to condemn The Ascendancy once.

[Evil Wolf]

If we try to condemn The Ascendancy now, here's what will happen:

"Lol that region is dead and this is unnecessary. Against."

Uhh, the region is still alive and I'm positive we have a Condemn still in effect against Macedon even though the group has since moved to Macedonia. If I recall correctly, the argument against repealing that Condemn was that the original Region Destroyers still owned the region, and no one should forget what they did.

Try another argument, maybe?

[Cormac Stark]

Alternatively, I'm going to try precisely the argument in the OP and see how it goes. Unknown's condemnation was repealed, and I'm not going to let a vocal minority -- comprised of you -- deter me. Sorry.

If anyone has suggestions to improve the draft, I'm happy to hear them.

[Shizensky]

I'm not sure how concrete of a precedent has been set by the repeal of "Condemn Unknown", as the timing does not appear to support that claim.

Condemn Unkown was passed on July 31, 2010.

Condemn Unknown was repealed on October 27, 2011.

Condemn ASE was passed only 2 weeks later, on November 10, 2011.

I do not believe that Condemn Unknown can serve as a precedent to forgive all forum destruction when the World Assembly turned around and condemned region destruction in less than a month.

Noting that the attitudes of many regions toward forum destruction and the penalties required to satisfy justice have evolved over time, and that nations which have perpetrated acts of forum destruction are now sometimes permitted to continue residing in their regions without diplomatic consequences for the regions in which they are residing;

This language tells me that the World Assembly is prepared to accept forum destruction as a legitimate gameplay tactic. Perhaps a better option would be to use the feeling of that section against the following piece from the contested resolution:

Recognizing that a region's forums are not only the halls of government, but also the heart and soul of the community, where the history and culture can be forever memorialized even after the region falls away,

We can focus on the evolution towards respecting both the RMB and the forums as the cultural heart of a region, as there are certainly more regions where a majority of the action is on the RMB, rather than an off-site forum.

[Cormac Stark]

That probably would be a more productive use of that clause, thank you. With the current language, it wasn't my intention to say or imply that the Security Council accepts forum destruction as a legitimate tactic -- only to note reality, which is that there are regions harboring forum destroyers, even very recent ones, with no consequences for either those individuals or the regions harboring them.

But I think you're right that the language is sending the wrong message, and I think contesting the forum fixation of SC#73 is probably the better course of action. I will consider alternative wording and update the draft.

[Mallorea and Riva]

If you want to see forum wreckers treated more harshly then don't go repealing condemnations of them in order to make things consistent. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Consular]

If you want to see forum wreckers treated more harshly then don't go repealing condemnations of them in order to make things consistent. Two wrongs don't make a right.

He's basically adopting the everything or nothing approach. In the name of "consistency", which I think is a vastly overrated ideal.