[No Longer Needed] Liberate Communist Americas

[Lord Dominator]

Just a little fun thing suggested to me
For fun, I'll just point out that the delegate of this particular op is one West Durthang. Hmm...

The Security Council,

Bearing in mind the current condemnation levelled by the World Assembly upon the region The Pacific and its government the New Pacific Order (NPO),

Acknowledging that said region presently uses the region of Communist Americas as a trophy region,

Noting With Deep Concern that the World Factbook of the latter region claims that the region was liberated from a particular brand of imaginary subversives the NPO uses as a propaganda boogeyman, rather than the nazi & fascist forces it was actually liberated from,

Calling into question the depth of the NPO's anti-fascist commitment at the time given the recently revealed concealment of a known fascist collaborator and willingness to blame the stopped invasion on their imaginary enemies rather than the actual fascists and nazis involved,

Firmly Convinced that Communist Americas should not have such a blatant attack on the moral character of the wide variety of nations the NPO has deemed to fit their expansive definition of their particular boogeyman subversives nor should the region be used to give further attention to the regime,

Hereby Liberates Communist Americas.

[Region Pan]

I have the RO slot there in case either native wants the password changed/removed or the WFE edited (not sure who wrote the original one). But unless the natives want it (which hopefully they'd TG us first) seems to be unnecessarily destructive.

[Lord Dominator]

I have the RO slot there in case either native wants the password changed/removed or the WFE edited (not sure who wrote the original one). But unless the natives want it (which hopefully they'd TG us first) seems to be unnecessarily destructive.

Not sure how you'd edit the WFE when only the delegate has appearance

Edit: Wait, I suppose Karenus also has it, on a CTE puppet

[La Navasse]

There's a distinct lack of native community I detect, which warrants no need of a traditional Liberation.

[Lord Dominator]

There's a distinct lack of native community I detect, which warrants no need of a traditional Liberation.

You imply this Liberation is at all related to the native community.

[Drop Your Pants]

There's a distinct lack of native community I detect, which warrants no need of a traditional Liberation.

You imply this Liberation is at all related to the native community.

So is it a joke proposal or a just a horrible attempt at a political jab?

[Lord Dominator]

You imply this Liberation is at all related to the native community.

So is it a joke proposal or a just a horrible attempt at a political jab?

It's not a joke to the extent that I am capable of not joking, and it's at least a passable attempt at a political jab.
Or maybe, you could see the rather obvious purpose by reading the second clause (third if you include the first three words as a clause)

[Drop Your Pants]

It's not a joke to the extent that I am capable of not joking, and it's at least a passable attempt at a political jab.
Or maybe, you could see the rather obvious purpose by reading the second clause (third if you include the first three words as a clause)

Speaking of, how are TBH's trophy regions?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

It's not a joke to the extent that I am capable of not joking, and it's at least a passable attempt at a political jab.
Or maybe, you could see the rather obvious purpose by reading the second clause (third if you include the first three words as a clause)

Speaking of, how are TBH's trophy regions?

Funny thing, we have less enemies these days than your NPO does - and a far better record of treatment of our own allies.

[Lord Dominator]

It's not a joke to the extent that I am capable of not joking, and it's at least a passable attempt at a political jab.
Or maybe, you could see the rather obvious purpose by reading the second clause (third if you include the first three words as a clause)

Speaking of, how are TBH's trophy regions?

I'm sure passing a Liberation on Illuminati will totally work now

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

Seems like a good proposal to me.

[Drop Your Pants]

Funny thing, we have less enemies these days than your NPO does - and a far better record of treatment of our own allies.

*scratches head*
What on earth does that have to do with TBH trophy regions?

[Lord Dominator]

Funny thing, we have less enemies these days than your NPO does - and a far better record of treatment of our own allies.

*scratches head*
What on earth does that have to do with TBH trophy regions?

Presumably the ability to get Liberation proposals passed on the basis of disliking the group.

[Drop Your Pants]

Presumably the ability to get Liberation proposals passed on the basis of disliking the group.

Really? It's a really weird answer to a unrelated question.

On the proposal, is the term 'userites' an acceptable SC term? Too lazy to look back to see if it's been user before.

[Wrapper]

On the proposal, is the term 'userites' an acceptable SC term? Too lazy to look back to see if it's been user before.

I’m leaning no on that one. I have a problem with “individuals” as well, that reeks of describing a player and not a nation.

[Lord Dominator]

On the proposal, is the term 'userites' an acceptable SC term? Too lazy to look back to see if it's been user before.

I’m leaning no on that one. I have a problem with “individuals” as well, that reeks of describing a player and not a nation.

Shoot, the individuals one was a dumb mistake on my part. I have fixed that.
As to the term 'userite' I would argue that it's a term in the NPO's own ideology and propaganda and thus a valid term.

The Userite - nations loyal to User Created Regions (UCRs), that seek to exploit the resources of the GCRs, subjugate them to a Userite ideology, or otherwise abuse them for the advancement, glory, and empowerment of their User Created Region(s).

While the emphasis on UCRs is most likely problematic, aside from that the rest of it is easily completely IC. If needs be I can add something linking the term userite to said ideology.

[Wrapper]

If its definition relies on the term “User Created Regions” then that reinforces that the term should be illegal.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

If its definition relies on the term “User Created Regions” then that reinforces that the term should be illegal.

It doesn’t look like “userite” or “feederite” has been used before, but Commend Europeia does say -

“Noting that Europeia was host to the UCR-UCR Conference, which produced a widely-recognized standard for regional recruitment activities known as the Arnhelm Declaration of Recruitment Standards;”

...naming the “UCR-UCR” conference. Proper name? Hm.

It’s worth considering that the term is used to describe an element of NSGP. Could it just be considered a proper noun in a void, “nonsense” per se?

[Lord Dominator]

Hmm

Would it be legal (at least for the first, harder to change reference) if I defined userite in-resolution;

Noting that the NPO defines a userite as any nation subverting a Feeder or Sinker on behalf of a region or ideology not of a Feeder or Sinker,

would it be legal?

[Aclion]

I can't see how one could interpret feeder and sinker in an IC way.

[Lord Dominator]

I can't see how one could interpret feeder and sinker in an IC way.

Both have long been legal terms

[Cormactopia Prime]

If its definition relies on the term “User Created Regions” then that reinforces that the term should be illegal.

While the NPO's definition does rely on user-created regions, the term userite means a nation that purportedly exploits the resources of the Feeders or Sinkers for other regions' gain, or in other words, a nation that uses Feeders or Sinkers for other regions' gain. So I would assert that much like other gameplay terms that have been ruled legal (forum, Feeder, Sinker, etc.), userite can have both an OOC and an IC application, and can be a legal term as long as the context is clearly IC rather than OOC. Since the etymology of it can simply be taken to mean nations that inappropriately use the Feeders or Sinkers for other regions' gain, as long as users in the technical sense and user-created regions aren't explicitly referenced I'm not seeing the problem.

To use the forum example again, that's been ruled "legal unless it 'plainly refers to the electronic entity.'" So it seems to me that userite should also be legal unless it plainly refers to user-created regions. Particularly with Lord Dominator's proposed definition, I can't see how using the term would be illegal.

[Lord Dominator]

Mods, may I reasonably assume the above point is under discussion in your sekrit lair and that is the reason for the lack of response to above questions/points?

[Ransium]

LD, you’re way too optimistic about the mods. 99% of the time when we don’t respond we’re just not paying attention. I just happened to stumble across this discussion.

My two cents is that it shouldn’t be legal. Referring to a user created region is not legal. I’ve never heard Cormac’s alternative definition, and using that standard any term could be made legal by making up some legal alternative definition to the term and then claiming we have to accept it. Forum and userite are very different words, one has a plain english meaning that is legal, the other is a made up word that has no plain English meaning. Anyone can associate any definition to made up words. The most plain and obvious meaning/reference in the term userite is to refer to nations from user-created regions.

Most of those legal terms you refer to Cormac are legal because they’re used by the game. User-created nation is not. See legal/illegal terms:

Legal/illegal terms:

Firstly, there are certain terms banned by Rule 4, and others which are still allowed. This list should not be considered definitive - the mods deliberately didn't provide a list of 'banned words' as so many words have multiple meanings - for example, the word "player" would be illegal if one was referring to someone as a player of NS the game, but would be legal if referring to a nation as a "major player" within a region.

We've written the following rubric to help determine whether terms fit within Rule 4 or not:

1. Is the term something that could be applied to real-world nations. If yes, then fine. If no, see #2.
2. Is the term something that could be applied to the NationStates world? If yes, see point 3, if no, then what on earth are you writing about?
3. Is the term referring to NationStates as a game, or to the people behind the nations? If yes, it's not acceptable. If no, it's fine.

This allows language used to describe the unique aspects NationStates world to be used within proposals - not just the gameplay aspects, but also one from roleplay and other communities.

• NationStates or NationStates community- legal (see here and here)
• Multiverse - legal, as it's a term that is acceptable to all parts of the game (see here)
• Personal pronouns - illegal when referring to the nation (see here, here and here). However, using the personal pronoun "who" to refer to a nation, while discouraged, is considered a grammatical error, not a rules violation (see here)
• Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - now legal; see here.
• Roleplayer, Gameplayer - illegal (see here and here)
• Any term included within NationStates the game - eg. passwords, World Factbook Entries, founders, eject, 'black helicopters transporting nations between regions' - legal (see here, here, here, here and here)
• Forums - legal unless it "plainly refers to the electronic entity" (see here and here)
• Thread (as in a forum topic) - illegal - simply describe what is done within the thread (see here). You cannot link to threads either.
• Post (as in 'post' on the forums or an RMB) - illegal (see here)
• Reference to paid aspects of the site is legal (see here), but must be worded carefully. There is no ruling yet on specific terms such as "postmaster general" or "stamps".

Using 'defining' clauses to include any of these terms is also illegal:

Not when you're using definitions in this fashion, to get words that talk about the game as a game into proposals. It's too easy to move on to "Defining roleplaying as ..." "Defining the proper way to play this game as ..." "Defining moderators as ..."

Additionally, proper nouns explicitly referencing game mechanics illegal under Rule 4 are not allowed (see here).

[Lord Dominator]

LD, you’re way too optimistic about the mods. 99% of the time when we don’t respond we’re just not paying attention. I just happened to stumble across this discussion.

I prefer optimism to pessimism.

My two cents is that it shouldn’t be legal. Referring to a user created region is not legal. I’ve never heard Cormac’s alternative definition, and using that standard any term could be made legal by making up some legal alternative definition to the term and then claiming we have to accept it. Forum and userite are very different words, one has a plain english meaning that is legal, the other is a made up word that has no plain English meaning. Anyone can associate any definition to made up words. The most plain and obvious meaning/reference in the term userite is to refer to nations from user-created regions.

Anyways, assuming this is the general opinion the mods will hold I'll figure out my relevant edits.