[Abandoned] Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders"

[Topid]

Unknown's condemnation was repealed, largely due to the passage of time despite the other justifications provided in the repeal resolution.

As the guy who wrote both Condemn Unknown and Repeal Condemn Unknown, I'm not seeing how this is in line with that precedent personally. Condemn Unknown was not at all repealed because 'time passed' or anything of the sort. Unknown was condemned for forum destruction, and their region faded into inactivity not-so-long afterwards. One of the first things Kshrlmnt did upon reviving Unknown and bringing it back to prominence was issue an apology not just for the forum destruction but for their lack of reaction. They took some other steps that I felt represented real change, and that the region was no longer deserving of the moniker of harboring forum destroyers.

I absolutely would not have written or supported a repeal of that condemnation for simply time passing, and this resolution would be much better served to give examples of how the nominee has progressed from when they committed the destruction if it wants to claim to be following in Repeal Condemn Unknown's footsteps.

[Solorni]

Why not condemn the Ascendancy if you feel that way about them Cormac?

[KaelThas Quilor]

Or, you know, condemn the forum destroyers themselves, or the other regions you talk about that are harboring them.

The idea that EuroIslanders is being singled out makes little sense to me. That it has a condemn and no one else does shows a deficiency when it comes to writing relevant WASC legislation on the subject. Your argument for 'consistency' would imply the SC has routinely shot down forum destroyer condemns, which, AFAIK, it has not.

[Cormac Stark]

Why not condemn the Ascendancy if you feel that way about them Cormac?

I previously authored a condemnation of The Ascendancy, back when they were actually active. There was so much opposition to the draft that I abandoned it.

Or, you know, condemn the forum destroyers themselves, or the other regions you talk about that are harboring them.

If I condemn The Black Riders for harboring Ridersyl or Ceirien for harboring Shadoke, here's what will happen: Several prominent invaders will come to this forum to insist that because the Association of Imperialism forum was recovered, the destruction of that forum by Shadoke and Syl was no big deal. They will also make this argument in the several GCRs in which they reside, a few invader sympathizing large endo count Delegates like Mousebumples will stomp against it, and the condemnation(s) will be defeated.

So, no, condemning the regions harboring the recent forum destroyers isn't actually an option. Wasting my time on the drafts is an option but one I would prefer not to pursue. And besides, I have no confidence at all that The Black Riders wouldn't treat another condemnation -- even one for forum destruction -- as an additional badge of honor.

That said, in recognition that the current invader dominated political climate is not one in which this is likely to pass the Security Council, I have decided to indefinitely postpone submission of this proposal.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Some invaders might make that argument (albeit the AoI forum incident is hardly the only region to harbor forum destroyers). Many others and a number of Imperialists and Independents would support such a condemnation.

You aren't writing those condemns because you don't want to. All you care about is whitewashing the history of a leftist defender region because you've decided you're on the leftist defender side this week.

[Cormac Stark]

Some invaders might make that argument (albeit the AoI forum incident is hardly the only region to harbor forum destroyers). Many others and a number of Imperialists and Independents would support such a condemnation.

You aren't writing those condemns because you don't want to. All you care about is whitewashing the history of a leftist defender region because you've decided you're on the leftist defender side this week.

Nobody could whitewash the history of ASE and the RLA if they tried. I was interested in fairness, but that isn't going to happen.

And you're right, I don't feel like authoring several condemnations to watch them fail at the hands of Mousebumples and Rachel while they justify their votes as something other than siding with invaders, because they are, themselves, invaders.

[Solorni]

I don't think Mouse has ever participated in a single invasion and I myself haven't participated in any military action in a very long time. While we might oppose these, it is for rational rather than emotional reasons.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Some invaders might make that argument (albeit the AoI forum incident is hardly the only region to harbor forum destroyers). Many others and a number of Imperialists and Independents would support such a condemnation.

You aren't writing those condemns because you don't want to. All you care about is whitewashing the history of a leftist defender region because you've decided you're on the leftist defender side this week.

Nobody could whitewash the history of ASE and the RLA if they tried. I was interested in fairness, but that isn't going to happen.

And you're right, I don't feel like authoring several condemnations to watch them fail at the hands of Mousebumples and Rachel while they justify their votes as something other than siding with invaders, because they are, themselves, invaders.

But neither Mouse nor Rachel is going to defend TBR for harboring a forum destroyer. Because neither of them (nor their regions) are Raiders.

You're not old enough to be allowed to use the old terminology.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Calling Mouse an invader. I'm dying of laughter.

[Redsward]

Calling Mouse an invader. I'm dying of laughter.

KEKEKEKE

이 들썩 들썩입니다, MALL.

[Chester Pearson]

Calling Mouse an invader. I'm dying of laughter.

Last time I checked the Europian Navy isn't a defender organization. They are imperialist, and as both President, and Delegate of Europia, you can't sit there and tell me that Mouse does not have some knowledge of their activites....

[Redsward]

Calling Mouse an invader. I'm dying of laughter.

Last time I checked the Europian Navy isn't a defender organization. They are imperialist, and as both President, and Delegate of Europia, you can't sit there and tell me that Mouse does not have some knowledge of their activites....

Imperialists are not invaders.

[Onderkelkia]

Europeia is not even Imperialist. It is simply Independent.

The basis for describing Mousebumples as a raider basically seems to be the fact she does not conform to the diktats of moralistic defender doctrine.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Calling Mouse an invader. I'm dying of laughter.

Last time I checked the Europian Navy isn't a defender organization. They are imperialist, and as both President, and Delegate of Europia, you can't sit there and tell me that Mouse does not have some knowledge of their activites....

Not defender =/= Raider

[The Other Otter]

Imperialists are not invaders.

-chuckles-
What do you think they do? Sit around and look imperialistic?

[Solorni]

Calling Mouse an invader. I'm dying of laughter.

Last time I checked the Europian Navy isn't a defender organization. They are imperialist, and as both President, and Delegate of Europia, you can't sit there and tell me that Mouse does not have some knowledge of their activites....

Yeah, Europeia has never been imperialist...

[Cormac Stark]

Calling Mouse an invader. I'm dying of laughter.

Mousebumples, as President of Europeia, had proposed sending the ERN to invade regions that approved Repeal "Commend Westwind," the other proposal I'm working on. You really don't get much more invader than that.

I'll use whatever terminology I'd like, thanks Cerian.

Since you're all still so interested in discussing this, I think I will go ahead and submit it after all once Repeal "Commend Westwind" either drops out of the approval queue or finishes at vote.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Imperialists are not invaders.

-chuckles-
What do you think they do? Sit around and look imperialistic?

Engaging in the act of raiding doesn't make a region 'Raider'. Raider regions (TBR, TBH, Etc) Only raid, and they raid purely for the hell of it.

Imperialist regions aim to have a lively domestic political life and a strong set of foreign affairs relationships (whereas Raider regions don't have strong networks of FA apparati, generally) with military activity (be it engaging in raids, defenses, occupations or liberations) as part of that larger portfolio. Moreover, the military is subordinate to the political interests and views of the government, rather than abstract ideologies or purely the cause of 'fun'.

[Cormac Stark]

Engaging in the act of raiding doesn't make a region 'Raider'. Raider regions (TBR, TBH, Etc) Only raid, and they raid purely for the hell of it.

It's a good thing then that I've been referring to them as invaders -- which refers to actions, not ideology -- rather than raiders. It's much more convenient than differentiating between all of you all the time when, at the end of the day, you all still invade regions and disrupt their communities for your own amusement. It's just that some of you come up with flimsy political justifications for it and others don't, but you're all still invaders.

This proposal has been submitted.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Cormac, NS, like any game, accumulates its own terminologies that don't match the real world, something you know full well. All 'Invader' is and ever was was an old, now thoroughly obsolete, term for Raiders. You can say it describes an action, but so does 'Raider' (they 'Raid' regions, after all).

You, having not been around when Invader was a term, do not get to use it. When The Bruce (for example) uses it, it looks like an old nostalgic player forgetting what era he's actually in (or at least not caring). When you do it, it just looks ridiculous.

[Topid]

Using the term raiders or invaders to describe people who participate in raids and invasions is not an old concept lost to NS for years. It was still around when I joined NS and is basically all I use also. Raiders /invaders are people who are active in military gameplay and mostly raid. Defenders are people who are active in military gameplay and mostly defend. Taggers are people who are involved in military gameplay and mostly tag.

[KaelThas Quilor]

There is a distinction between a 'Raider' and a 'Person Who Raids'. For a Raider, raiding is what they do. Its their whole thing. For a person who raids, its just one part of them activities, one thing they do.

I also believe there is a distinction between a 'Defender' and a 'Person Who Defends', though it seems that this is less common on the defending side of things, as far as I can tell.

[Evil Wolf]

It's a good thing then that I've been referring to them as invaders -- which refers to actions, not ideology -- rather than raiders.

Hi, as a guy who has been using those two terms for nearly a decade I just wanted to stop by and say, no, no it doesn't.

[KaelThas Quilor]

It's a good thing then that I've been referring to them as invaders -- which refers to actions, not ideology -- rather than raiders.

Hi, as a guy who has been using those two terms for nearly a decade I just wanted to stop by and say, no, no it doesn't.

I don't think contrary facts work on Cormac. He knows the difference. He's argued the exact same thing I'm arguing before.

[Cormac Stark]

You, having not been around when Invader was a term, do not get to use it.

I'm pretty sure I can use whatever terms I want. That it bothers you so much is incentive to continue using it, and I fully intend to continue using it.

It's a good thing then that I've been referring to them as invaders -- which refers to actions, not ideology -- rather than raiders.

Hi, as a guy who has been using those two terms for nearly a decade I just wanted to stop by and say, no, no it doesn't.

And as a guy who has noted that invaders prefer to be called the softer and friendlier term "raiders" rather than invaders, and imperialists and independents prefer to be called neither, I don't care. That's what it means to me and how I'm using it, and I will not have the terminology I use dictated to me by -- wait for it -- invaders.