NationStates

La Navasse wrote:The proposal Liberate USSD shall be put on hold due to voter fatigue

Can this be applied to the rest of your liberations too?

Why would you want to 'liberate' us anyway? We've done nothing but have our own ideology, and you want to get us liberated?

It should be scrapped entirely, rather than just put on hold. These liberations are out of control, and need to stop. Using ideology as an excuse to violate the sovereignty of regions and the right to practice the ideology they see fit is unjust, and abusive of the purpose of liberations.

USSD is a widely-blacklisted region across NationStates, and has many repulsive qualities. However, I find no reason to essentially bring attention to a region that isn't exactly deserving of any Neoliberation, or indeed any sort of recognition for its atrocious acts, especially in light of its invasion of The Monarchist Entente. Therefore, I have Shelved this proposal and will end any support or campaign for this draft.

La Navasse wrote:USSD is a widely-blacklisted region across NationStates, and has many repulsive qualities. However, I find no reason to essentially bring attention to a region that isn't exactly deserving of any Neoliberation, or indeed any sort of recognition for its atrocious acts, especially in light of its invasion of The Monarchist Entente. Therefore, I have Shelved this proposal and will end any support or campaign for this draft.

That didn't stop you with Nazi Europa though did it?

Indo-Malaysia wrote:

La Navasse wrote:USSD is a widely-blacklisted region across NationStates, and has many repulsive qualities. However, I find no reason to essentially bring attention to a region that isn't exactly deserving of any Neoliberation, or indeed any sort of recognition for its atrocious acts, especially in light of its invasion of The Monarchist Entente. Therefore, I have Shelved this proposal and will end any support or campaign for this draft.

That didn't stop you with Nazi Europa though did it?

#VeryTrue

La Navasse wrote:USSD is a widely-blacklisted region across NationStates, and has many repulsive qualities. However, I find no reason to essentially bring attention to a region that isn't exactly deserving of any Neoliberation, or indeed any sort of recognition for its atrocious acts, especially in light of its invasion of The Monarchist Entente. Therefore, I have Shelved this proposal and will end any support or campaign for this draft.

I have decided to Revive this proposal and continue drafting Liberate USSD, along with other potential proposals. Feel free to provide constructive criticism to the proposal or the other concept proposals.

Here we go again

Kuriko wrote:Here we go again

At least you could provide some constructive criticism.

For the liberation of USSD, for the same reason I'm for the liberation of CCD. Also for the liberation of Amestris for derailing Repeal Preventing the Execution of Innocents the first time it was submitted. Raiding simply for the sake of raiding should absolutely be condemned. Never heard of Farkasfalka. My RL interventionist outlook informs my aggressive position on liberations. Authoritarianism and illiberalism are on the rise, and "interfering in our internal affairs" is a line frequently trotted out by authoritarian regimes IRL, giving them carte blanche to murder their own people with impunity, and I'm sick of it. I also have a personal vendetta against authoritarianism, having lived under its thumb for many years.

Such regimes are not worthy of having their sovereignty respected and ideally should be utterly destroyed if possible. Unfortunately, RL has its share of unintended consequences, and we can't simply invade and destroy all of these regimes IRL, but we CAN do so to ideologically similar regions in NS with minimal repercussions. We mustn't allow them to fester and grow. We must nip them all in the bud before they even have a chance to destroy us all.

How about we don’t try this again, considering nobody supported this idea the last time? It hasn’t exactly gotten more popular.

I'm against all of these.

New Bremerton wrote:For the liberation of USSD, for the same reason I'm for the liberation of CCD. Also for the liberation of Amestris for derailing Repeal Preventing the Execution of Innocents the first time it was submitted. Raiding simply for the sake of raiding should absolutely be condemned. Never heard of Farkasfalka. My RL interventionist outlook informs my aggressive position on liberations. Authoritarianism and illiberalism are on the rise, and "interfering in our internal affairs" is a line frequently trotted out by authoritarian regimes IRL, giving them carte blanche to murder their own people with impunity, and I'm sick of it. I also have a personal vendetta against authoritarianism, having lived under its thumb for many years.

Such regimes are not worthy of having their sovereignty respected and ideally should be utterly destroyed if possible. Unfortunately, RL has its share of unintended consequences, and we can't simply invade and destroy all of these regimes IRL, but we CAN do so to ideologically similar regions in NS with minimal repercussions. We mustn't allow them to fester and grow. We must nip them all in the bud before they even have a chance to destroy us all.

Thank you for your supportive opinion. I must note that the liberation does not liberate USSD or Amestris on the basis of their raiding, nor of their authoritarianism - both are fine when done efficiently for the region and with a healthy OOC attitude, both traits that USSD and Amestris do not have. USSD and Amestris are both blacklisted communities, the former due to both its founder Vetelo and its nepotistic regime Vetelo has built around himself, and the latter due to its founder King Bradley being blacklisted for a variety of reasons, which include backstabbing, leaks, manipulation, and illegal data collection while under the alias 94 Block. Both Vetelo and King Bradley have done ghastly actions in the past, which statistically speaking, they will repeat, and as they appear to be doing nothing more then carrying on what they've done before and training a new generation of GPers that are also likely be blacklisted, it is pertinent that they be immediately reprimanded for they actions via offensive liberations that will hopefully cause them to either change course or hold their regions vulnerable in the case of their nations disappearing, opening their respective regions for invasion.

Farkafalka is the direct successor to The Iron Order, an infamous medium sized fascist region with reported Nazi tendencies, cloaked under a sham "decreeist" government. Although the region itself does not have much history, its predecessor has, and when I was previously on my anti-fascist drafting spree, they appeared to change regions to avoid an offensive liberation. I think there's potentially sufficient evidence to offensively liberate under the actions the region has done as The Iron Order, but I am currently listening for further discussion to determine whether the concept is plausible.

Kaboomlandia wrote:How about we don’t try this again, considering nobody supported this idea the last time? It hasn’t exactly gotten more popular.

The failure of my last submitted proposal, Liberate Arcem, is not reflective of the failure of the concept of offensive liberations. In fact, Lord Dominator's passage of Liberate Confederation of Corrupt Dictators shows otherwise; the offensive liberation is alive and thriving. Although Liberate Federation of Conservative Nations and Liberate The Coalition of Fascist Nations have been defeated at vote, I believe that the former failed due to the relative inexperience of the author, their illegal methods, insufficient communication with GCR delegates, and the lack of blacklist upon the region accompanied with a lack of negative publicity. The latter failed due to a lack of active recruitment, a lack of revisionist foreign policy, and general irrelevancy of The Coalition. I am confident that I can overcome these obstacles with Liberate USSD and Liberate Amestris, and I am currently pondering over whether this is also true for Farkasfalka.

You realise that your being the author of these resolutions probably isn't going to help their chances, regardless of what merit they may or may not have, right?

La Navasse wrote:Farkafalka is the direct successor to The Iron Order, an infamous medium sized fascist region with reported Nazi tendencies, cloaked under a sham "decreeist" government. Although the region itself does not have much history, its predecessor has, and when I was previously on my anti-fascist drafting spree, they appeared to change regions to avoid an offensive liberation. I think there's potentially sufficient evidence to offensively liberate under the actions the region has done as The Iron Order, but I am currently listening for further discussion to determine whether the concept is plausible.

The Iron Confederacy is TIO's new successor state.

The pre-emptive liberation against CCD isn't "thriving" no matter how much you try and spin it. Not only has absolutely no action been taken against the region since then, but I cannot foresee any action ever coming. The second-place nation in endorsements has 120, which is pretty much out of the realm of possibility. A liberation is just not practical in this circumstance, with an active founder and a strong backup plan.

Also, I wonder how many delegates have you blocked from last time?

Kaboomlandia wrote:Also, I wonder how many delegates have you blocked from last time?

I think if you're going to try this again, then you should probably take the criticisms received when you first made this thread and apply them. The USSD does not have any one ideology, and "Stalinist" in no way describes how our region operates. A part of our government is directly elected and transparent, I wouldn't really call that "Stalinist". So maybe go think of some actual reasons to liberate us. Not that I expect this resolution to ever pass, but it's a minor nuisance to our region at best anyways. We only password during Z-Day. I'm not quitting this game anytime soon, and if I do, I will hand my founder nation over to someone who I trust.

It has been determined that an offensive Liberate Amestris proposal is not required nor necessary at this time, primarily to its interregional irrelevance and fragile argument for offensive action. A plausible offensive liberation against Farkasfalka is still being thoroughly evaluated, and a separate offensive liberation draft against the Federation of Conservative Nations should be created shortly.

Devi wrote:You realise that your being the author of these resolutions probably isn't going to help their chances, regardless of what merit they may or may not have, right?

I understand that I've had a reputation of pushing through multiple offensive Liberations at a time; however, this time around I intend to space them out by passing a General Assembly proposal between each offensive Liberation to reduce potential voter apathy. The Cloning Conventions will be my first post-retirement proposal to be submitted, after which would be Liberate USSD.

Jar Wattinree wrote:

La Navasse wrote:Farkafalka is the direct successor to The Iron Order, an infamous medium sized fascist region with reported Nazi tendencies, cloaked under a sham "decreeist" government. Although the region itself does not have much history, its predecessor has, and when I was previously on my anti-fascist drafting spree, they appeared to change regions to avoid an offensive liberation. I think there's potentially sufficient evidence to offensively liberate under the actions the region has done as The Iron Order, but I am currently listening for further discussion to determine whether the concept is plausible.

The Iron Confederacy is TIO's new successor state.

The Iron Confederacy is actually a separatist movement from Farkasfalka, which is inspired by The Iron Order before it was merged into Farkasfalka. Although The Iron Confederacy could be considered as TIO's present incarnation, I would prefer to Liberate Farkasfalka.

Kaboomlandia wrote:The pre-emptive liberation against CCD isn't "thriving" no matter how much you try and spin it. Not only has absolutely no action been taken against the region since then, but I cannot foresee any action ever coming. The second-place nation in endorsements has 120, which is pretty much out of the realm of possibility. A liberation is just not practical in this circumstance, with an active founder and a strong backup plan.

Also, I wonder how many delegates have you blocked from last time?

The preemptive liberation against CCD has guaranteed the immediate vulnerability of the region when the Founder is either deleted or ceases to exist, and an active Founder only increases the possibility that the nation may be deleted. If the "strong backup plan" includes sharing of the Founder region, that would increase the possibility of the nation's deletion as well. Therefore, I would consider for the Liberation to be thriving in that it has fully fulfilled its purpose of increasing regional vulnerability to a significant extent. On the topic of delegates who have blocked me, many have already changed since then, and I've planned to pair each offensive liberation with a companion General Assembly resolution for variety and to decrease voter apathy.

Vetelo wrote:I think if you're going to try this again, then you should probably take the criticisms received when you first made this thread and apply them. The USSD does not have any one ideology, and "Stalinist" in no way describes how our region operates. A part of our government is directly elected and transparent, I wouldn't really call that "Stalinist". So maybe go think of some actual reasons to liberate us. Not that I expect this resolution to ever pass, but it's a minor nuisance to our region at best anyways. We only password during Z-Day. I'm not quitting this game anytime soon, and if I do, I will hand my founder nation over to someone who I trust.

I will be removing the term "Stalinist," but due to Caelapes' criticisms rather than yours:

Caelapes wrote:USSD isn’t isolated because they are trying to apply “Socialism in one country” to NationStates as opposed to Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. They don’t have a coherent ideology beyond building up a cult of personality around toxic behavior. They aren’t “Stalinist” because nothing they do relates to Marxism-Leninism, which was the actual ideology practiced in the Soviet Union under Stalin’s leadership.

Furthermore, an offensive liberation is proposed with the express understanding that the Founder is either likely to cease to exist or be deleted due to the various qualities of the region that cause it to be offensively liberated in the first place.

La Navasse wrote:

Kaboomlandia wrote:The pre-emptive liberation against CCD isn't "thriving" no matter how much you try and spin it. Not only has absolutely no action been taken against the region since then, but I cannot foresee any action ever coming. The second-place nation in endorsements has 120, which is pretty much out of the realm of possibility. A liberation is just not practical in this circumstance, with an active founder and a strong backup plan.

Also, I wonder how many delegates have you blocked from last time?

The preemptive liberation against CCD has guaranteed the immediate vulnerability of the region when the Founder is either deleted or ceases to exist, and an active Founder only increases the possibility that the nation may be deleted. If the "strong backup plan" includes sharing of the Founder region, that would increase the possibility of the nation's deletion as well. Therefore, I would consider for the Liberation to be thriving in that it has fully fulfilled its purpose of increasing regional vulnerability to a significant extent. On the topic of delegates who have blocked me, many have already changed since then, and I've planned to pair each offensive liberation with a companion General Assembly resolution for variety and to decrease voter apathy.

1. Playing the long game as you theorized has not worked here, and the region has gotten at least 50% more endorsements on their WAD since the lib passed, and the backup delegate is now about where the original WAD was at the time of the lib endorsement-wise, with about 120 endos.

2. Even if the founder CTEs, you and what army is going to pull this off, especially considering most of the larger raider orgs likely still remember Dank Memes?

3. Delegates blocking all campaign telegrams happens and isn't often something that just gets taken off, and unless CTEing has something to do with it I don't know many people would have specifically removed you from their block list.

4. Your last sentence forces me to question whether you a) actually know how to write a GA resolution and b) actually think that idea will work.

Against. The last offensive liberation or neoliberation, against the coailtion of fascist nations failed,
I don't think these will passed just because of a founder being blacklisted and having a stalinist ideology. Also many people don't know about farkasfalka is. Its not as known as CCD where they ended up annoying people or nazi europa.

Kaboomlandia wrote:

La Navasse wrote:The preemptive liberation against CCD has guaranteed the immediate vulnerability of the region when the Founder is either deleted or ceases to exist, and an active Founder only increases the possibility that the nation may be deleted. If the "strong backup plan" includes sharing of the Founder region, that would increase the possibility of the nation's deletion as well. Therefore, I would consider for the Liberation to be thriving in that it has fully fulfilled its purpose of increasing regional vulnerability to a significant extent. On the topic of delegates who have blocked me, many have already changed since then, and I've planned to pair each offensive liberation with a companion General Assembly resolution for variety and to decrease voter apathy.

1. Playing the long game as you theorized has not worked here, and the region has gotten at least 50% more endorsements on their WAD since the lib passed, and the backup delegate is now about where the original WAD was at the time of the lib endorsement-wise, with about 120 endos.

2. Even if the founder CTEs, you and what army is going to pull this off, especially considering most of the larger raider orgs likely still remember Dank Memes?

3. Delegates blocking all campaign telegrams happens and isn't often something that just gets taken off, and unless CTEing has something to do with it I don't know many people would have specifically removed you from their block list.

4. Your last sentence forces me to question whether you a) actually know how to write a GA resolution and b) actually think that idea will work.

1. The long game cannot be said to not work when it hasn't even ended.
2. "You and what army" is a misrepresentation of my position. Although I author this offensive liberation, I don't lead any army - I believe USSD's blacklisted status by GP is sufficient for an invasion to occur whenever the Founder ceases to exist. Also, out of everyone in this thread only you bring up Dank Memes, which just goes to show how irrelevant it is.
3. WA Campaigns are still being sent out, and still bring proposals to quorum. Additionally, many WA delegates simply change by election or with time, and I'm using a new official campaigning nation called The La Navassean WA Delegation. Campaignmageddon hasn't happened yet.
4. See The Cloning Conventions.

Borovan entered the region as he wrote:Against. The last offensive liberation or neoliberation, against the coailtion of fascist nations failed,
I don't think these will passed just because of a founder being blacklisted and having a stalinist ideology. Also many people don't know about farkasfalka is. Its not as known as CCD where they ended up annoying people or nazi europa.

As I said, one instance of failure is not representative of the entire concept's failure. Additionally, the entire region is blacklisted, not just the Founder, and I've already removed mentions of Stalinism in the proposal as labeling the region as such would be a misnomer. Finally, I don't believe Farkasfalka wouldn't pass due to its lack of publicity (especially due to its predecessor being The Iron Order), but I've decided to put a potential Liberate Farkasfalka on hold until the new region has demonstrated sufficient activity that would warrant an offensive liberation.

La Nav, what have you done this time...

Navasse, your responses to my questions are showing that you have no real plan to see this through. I don't know if you plan on actually raiding these regions, but just throwing this at the wall and hoping someone else decides they want to randomly bring together an army of 90 people and actually spend time trying to attack USSD. I question whether you actually have the expertise to pull off that military operation. There is no "long game" because you don't have a plan at all.

As well, using a different nation for campaigning that still has your name on it isn't going to change people's opinions on you.

Kaboomlandia wrote:Navasse, your responses to my questions are showing that you have no real plan to see this through. I don't know if you plan on actually raiding these regions, but just throwing this at the wall and hoping someone else decides they want to randomly bring together an army of 90 people and actually spend time trying to attack USSD. I question whether you actually have the expertise to pull off that military operation. There is no "long game" because you don't have a plan at all.

As well, using a different nation for campaigning that still has your name on it isn't going to change people's opinions on you.

I'm not "just throwing this at the wall and hoping someone else decides they want to randomly bring together an army of 90 people and actually spend time trying to attack USSD." There is interest from leftist regions out there for this resolution, which unfortunately you appear to have ignored, starting with the very first reply to the proposal.

I'm sure using a different campaigning nation wouldn't change your opinion of me, but I have been retired for months. I would venture to say that I'm not in the minds of WA Delegates all the time, but I am in yours.