[DRAFT] Repeal SC #73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders

[Numero Capitan]

Security Council Resolution #73 “Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING that, regardless of the victim, forum destruction is a crime against regional culture and heritage, worthy of condemnation due to the irreparable destruction of regional infrastructure,

HOWEVER, NOTING that the condemnable acts described in Security Council Resolution #73 were undertaken by the nations known as the Red Factions and Ketoprofen, which were not member nations of the Allied States of EuroIslanders, but of the Proletariat Coalition,

CONSIDERING that the acts committed by these nations did not go unpunished or unaddressed by the Red Liberty Alliance of which the Allied States of EuroIslanders were a leading member,

GRATEFUL that the actions of the guilty parties thankfully did not prevent the terrorized regions from continuing to thrive for many years, whereas the nations who committed those acts have faded into obscurity,

ACKNOWLEDGING also that the activities of the region targeted by the condemnation largely focused on the defense of regional sovereignty across the world, both through its membership of multi-regional alliances (including the Marxist, Anarchist, Socialist, and Syndicalist Alliance, Red Liberty Alliance and Alliance Defence Network), and through its member nations (including Ananke, who was commended in Security Council Resolution #34 for such efforts),

DETERMINING that, based on this knowledge, the Allied States of EuroIslanders should never have been the target of condemnation through Security Council Resolution #73,

HEREBY REPEALS the condemnation of Allied States of EuroIslanders.

This isn't complicated, it makes no sense that ASE is the target of this resolution, other than EuroSoviets being someone who annoyed a few ex-ADN types. Whilst he didn't object to forum destruction outright personally, he outlawed it in the RLA largely as a result of lobbying from other prominent nations (such as Bamada) and wasn't involved in the acts described in the resolution, which were perpetrated by nations within another region.

Either way, the region is not the right target for this condemnation, it just seems to be an awkward and misinformed retrofit to address something that happened in 2005 and whose actual perpetrators are long gone.

Code: Select all

[url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=73/council=2]Security Council Resolution #73 “Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders”[/url] shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING that, regardless of the victim, forum destruction is a crime against regional culture and heritage, worthy of condemnation due to the irreparable destruction of regional infrastructure,

HOWEVER, NOTING that the condemnable acts described in Security Council Resolution #73 were undertaken by the nations known as [nation]the Red Factions[/nation] and [nation]Ketoprofen[/nation], which were not member nations of the [region]Allied States of EuroIslanders[/region], but of [region]the Proletariat Coalition[/region],

CONSIDERING that the acts committed by these nations did not go unpunished or unaddressed by the Red Liberty Alliance of which the [region]Allied States of EuroIslanders[/region] were a leading member,

GRATEFUL that the actions of the guilty parties thankfully did not prevent the terrorized regions from continuing to thrive for many years, whereas the nations who committed those acts have faded into obscurity,

ACKNOWLEDGING also that the activities of the region targeted by the condemnation largely focused on the defense of regional sovereignty across the world, both through its membership of multi-regional alliances (including the Marxist, Anarchist, Socialist, and Syndicalist Alliance, Red Liberty Alliance and Alliance Defence Network), and through its member nations (including [nation]Ananke II[/nation], who was commended in [url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=34/council=2]Security Council Resolution #34[/url] for such efforts),

DETERMINING that, based on this knowledge, the [region]Allied States of EuroIslanders[/region] should never have been the target of condemnation through [url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=73/council=2]Security Council Resolution #73[/url],

HEREBY REPEALS the condemnation of [region]Allied States of EuroIslanders[/region].

Authored by [nation]Numero Capitan[/nation]

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Links in the text to the original Condemnation would be nice. Also as it stands your proposal is not compliant with R3. The operative clause is repealing a Commendation, not a Condemnation.

[Numero Capitan]

Links in the text to the original Condemnation would be nice. Also as it stands your proposal is not compliant with R3. The operative clause is repealing a Commendation, not a Condemnation.

Ah sorry were hyperlinks in my draft but didn't copy them across, would links to the other resolutions referenced be useful or will that look cluttered?

Thanks for spotting the typo!

[Roavin]

Not bad. One thing I noticed:

(including Ananke who was commended in Security Council Resolution #34 for such efforts).

The use of "who" might actually be a R4b violation, as it implies Ananke is an individual rather than a nation (you'd say "Germany, which was commended" rather than "Germany, who was commended..."). On the other hand, "Ananke, which was commended" looks weird subjectively because we know Ananke as a personality rather than just a nation. Maybe something like "including Ananke, a nation commended ...."?

[Cormactopia Prime]

I tried to do this more than four years ago. It, umm, did not go well. We'll see if gameplay has changed sufficiently since then.

If there's anything you'd like to use from my earlier draft, please feel free. Best of luck with this.

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

Full support.

[Evil Wolf]

That's gonna be a hard no from me.

He's absolutely unrepentant about the destructions that he authorized. He continued to harbor forum destroyers and encourage forum destruction as a "legitimate" tactic for years and continued to threaten people with forum destruction. Nothing has changed since the Condemn first past and the passage of time didn't fix anything.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Not bad. One thing I noticed:

(including Ananke who was commended in Security Council Resolution #34 for such efforts).

The use of "who" might actually be a R4b violation, as it implies Ananke is an individual rather than a nation (you'd say "Germany, which was commended" rather than "Germany, who was commended..."). On the other hand, "Ananke, which was commended" looks weird subjectively because we know Ananke as a personality rather than just a nation. Maybe something like "including Ananke, a nation commended ...."?

Use of “who” is discouraged but not illegal. Sedge’s ruling on it is here:

viewtopic.php?p=21482192&sid=fb3e711322c931b5995364e14dc6eb25#p21482192

[Numero Capitan]

-

Let me put this in terms you might understand better...

Here's the words of a recognisable invader in 2005 when it happened: "Hell I know if I were in the position in which I could pump ANY fenda forum for info and then destroy it, honestly, I wouldn’t think twice about it. Yes, destroying forums is wrong, yes, its also semi-immoral, but really, we are talking a game and in a game you would do anything to get the edge for your side.

TRF (and I do hate to say it, I really do) was just doing what he thought best for his side and now he's getting shelled for it, so much for unity in the face of a foe eh? And Invaders really shouldnt be moaning so loudly, you got beat, plain and simple, now rebuild and get on with it cause I am sick and tired of hearing about this every time I log onto NationStates!”

I think you might be the only invader still moaning about the same thing 14 years later, but those were your words.

Now, two nations from another invader region went on to destroy a defender forum a year later after you made that quote. Should we condemn Lone Wolves United for the acts of DEN members? No, because that makes no sense whatsoever (I'm kindly ignoring the fact that Meri was also a general in your army at the time...). I'm sure you'd fight that even more vociferously, so take your hypocrisy elsewhere.

I tried to do this more than four years ago. It, umm, did not go well. We'll see if gameplay has changed sufficiently since then.

If there's anything you'd like to use from my earlier draft, please feel free. Best of luck with this.

Cormac, thanks for drawing my attention to that but with respect your repeal and every counter-argument made missed the crucial element - that the acts described were undertaken by nations from a completely different region and it makes no sense for ASE to be condemned for it.

People didn't like EuroSoviets, fine, but it makes a mockery if we use the Security Council to settle personality clashes rather than actual facts.

[Evil Wolf]

-Snip-

So because fourteen years ago I said something dumb, EuroIslanders is off the hook?

Yeah, let me tell you why that doesn't work.

As for Meri, she was by her own admission a triple agent, a spy sent by DEN to RIA who, in turn, sent her to spy on LWU. She made off with all our IPs to give to DEN after she destroyed the RIA forums on DEN's orders, not to mention probably handed them over to the RIA itself to gain their trust. I have never approved of forum destruction. I've always felt it would lead to a tit-for-tat series of retaliations and skirts the line of RL legality.

Eurosoviets on the other hand, knew what was going on in his organization, headed the RLA, and openly supported forum destruction. EuroIslanders was the crown jewel of the RLA, just as Nasicournia was the crown jewel of the ADN.

A region with a forum destruction supporting founder, belonging to a notorious forum destroying group responsible for the destruction of at least four forums, plus absolutely no objections to this behavior from any prominent natives means your region get a Condemn.

[Armaros]

Good thing then that Meridianland was banned for that.

“Founder who didn’t object to forum destrction”
Really? Is this what we’re doing now? Claiming he merely “didn’t object”? Because you’re either blatantly lying or just uninformed. He didn’t just approve of it, he actively partook in it.

[Benevolent Thomas]

Full support! There's been a nice string of proposals before the SC that have been worth logging on to vote for. This injustice has been on the books for far too long.

Hello again, Numero. I see this game still has a loose grip on even the eldest of us

There may value to be had by skimming the arguments around the proposal authored by Cormac a few years ago. I'm sure we will be seeing the same arguments this time around on both sides of the proposal at hand.

I'm fairly sure Sector ZYX did face consequences, but his act of forum destruction was six years ago and I believe the consequences occurred then. I'm not entirely sure.

Regardless, this resolution was proposed primarily because I saw the way invaders were treating the forum destroyers in their midst -- literally as if nothing even happened -- and I thought it unjust for ASE to continue to be stigmatized. The reaction to this proposal has confirmed for me that gameplay is every bit the toxic, poisonous, hypocritical environment I know it to be, and that most gameplayers don't actually care about forum destruction unless they can score political points. I'll remember that next time the same people still invading with Syl and Shadoke call for the heads of a forum destroyer they don't like, and I will no longer support any worse consequences for a forum destroyer than for a region destroyer.

You are quite correct, Cormac.

Back in the days in which these events took place, invaders were more than happy to invade founderless regions, expel and grief all the natives, and refound it to prevent the community from existing again. Defenders united to fight against these invader scum.

When members of the Red Liberty Alliance, none of whom were members of the Allied States of Euroislanders, committed forum destruction, the Executive Committee of the Red Liberty Alliance, of which Eurosoviets was the head, and the Supreme Soviet of the Red Liberty Alliance, the highest legislative body of the Red Liberty Alliance, roundly and emphatically condemned the forum destruction, punished the offenders, and expelled them.

The only reason the Allied States of Euroislanders was targeted is that some people don't like its founder, and it's very easy to play with the politics of forum destruction. Invaders had no qualms about destroying communities back then, and though I do not pretend to be a follower of current events, as I understand it their regions and alliances continue to harbor those who have committed these acts.

It is simply rank hypocrisy, rank not because of its transparent self-serving nature, but rank because it is old and stale: it is part and parcel of the trends of invaders to try to make themselves "respectable" by playing a game of politics that they could never win.

[edit grammar is hard]

[Numero Capitan]

Good thing then that Meridianland was banned for that.[/url]

So were TRF and Ketoprofen from the RLA (I don’t agree with the length of the ban but I’ve worded the resolution to make reference to the fact that they did act on it at least)

With respect, what you’re saying about EuroSoviets is false and you’re relying on the words of Halcones to support your argument.

I wasn’t involved in those events on either side but I do have the benefit of having been given admin access to the entire RLA forum since so I can speak with some authority on the matter, so you might want to reconsider calling me ‘uninformed’. I’m not sure Halcones has any authority on anything given his nature and resultant acts, don’t be so swayed by hearsay.

I’ve got no loyalty to EuroSoviets but the condemnation is just fundementally wrong. If you wanted to condemn The Proletariat Coalition for the acts of their nations (who have CTEd so would be a pointless target of a specific condemnation) then I wouldn’t fight you, but ASE makes no sense.

[Onderkelkia]

HOWEVER, NOTING that the acts described in Security Council Resolution #73 were undertaken by the nations known as the Red Factions and Ketoprofen, citizen nations of the Proletariat Coalition and not the region condemned.

CONSIDERING that the acts did not go unpunished or unaddressed by the Red Liberty Alliance of which the condemned region was a leading member.

ACKNOWLEDGING that these punishments led to said nations ultimately ceasing to exist and fading into obscurity.

On the contrary, the destruction of the DEN and The Black Hawks forums went "unpunished [and] unaddressed by the Red Liberty Alliance". The RLA only punished any members much later, after the destruction of the Invaders Army forum in December 2005, when a public outcry forced it into action.

Furthermore, the punishments imposed by the RLA on The Red Factions and Ketoprofen were laughably weak. For destroying the Invaders Army forum, The Red Factions was permitted to resign his membership of the Central Soviet and then prevented from rejoining for 30 days. Ketoprofen was removed from the Central Soviet and prevented from rejoining for 45 days, with the additional 15 days as punishment literally for failing to spare the RLA's embarrassment by resigning like The Red Factions. The proportionate punishment for forum destruction would have been banishment for life, not removal from the RLA's legislative body for 30 days (not even a ban from the RLA's forums or a ban from the RLA member-regions themselves).

You say that these punishments led to "said nations ultimately ceasing to exist and fading into obscurity". That is not true. Both of them successfully re-applied to join the Central Soviet once their 30 and 45 day exclusion periods ended. Both of them remained involved involved in the RLA until the organisation as a whole "faded into obscurity" in the summer of 2006. When my region United Nations Socialist Party joined the RLA in April 2006, The Red Factions in particular remained very prominent in the RLA. It was the RLA as a whole which declined and drifted into obscurity, barring the subsequent failed revival efforts undertaken by EuroSoviets in November/December 2006 and a clique of mainly FRA/Soviet Union members led by you in spring 2008.

Until changes made amidst the controversy in December 2005, the RLA Intelligence Guidelines expressly permitted forum destruction subject to the approval of the RLA Intelligence Director (which is consistent with the failure to take any action over the DEN and The Black Hawks forum destructions). From the RLA's perspective, the offence of The Red Factions and Ketoprofen was not the act so much as the alleged failure to obtain Blackbird's consent. It was only after the report on the December 2005 Invaders Army incident, not before, that the RLA declared forum destruction to be a prohibited tactic.

In addition to the well-known cases of TBH, DEN and Invaders Army referenced in the existing resolution, there is also the destruction of the Torino forum in November 2006. The forum of Torino was destroyed by a spy reporting to EuroSoviets known as Omnia Americana, a persona whose actual identity is unknown. In his November 2006 revival attempt, EuroSoviets swapped roles with Blackbird and took on the role of RLA Intelligence Director. Subsequent to the forum destruction incident, some of Torino's members moved to the LKE and it would become an LKE colony for a period in 2007. When challenged in November 2006 by Euphobes, a member of Torino who would later go on to become LKE Prime Minister, EuroSoviets acknowledged Omnia Americana as an agent of his but denied ordering the forum destruction. When pressed, he stated: "That said, I've witnessed the destruction by defenders of plenty of invader forums. It's a scorched earth tactic that is pretty effective in driving them out of the game. Anything that beats invaders is fine by me."

A disturbing and revealing attitude, in light of which it is not hard to see why so many RLA intelligence operations ended as they did.

In later years, members of the Allied States of EuroIslanders, including EuroSoviets, openly and specifically boasted of their role in destroying invader forums. Most notably, for a period in 2010, EuroSoviets proudly displayed the following lines in the ASE's World Factbook Entry:

The Allied States of EuroIslanders was founded in March 2003 as NationStates' first participatory democratic region.

Since then we have led the Red Liberty Alliance, the Alliance Defence Network and destroyed invaders and their forums wherever we found them.

"[D]estroyed invaders and their forums wherever we found them." - the ASE's own admission, in their own words.

Now it no longer mattered politically, EuroSoviets confirmed that the ASE "destroyed invaders and their forums wherever we found them." That is as clear a claim of responsibility as you can find and it is claim of responsibility made by the Allied States of EuroIslanders on their own World Factbook Entry.

Nor is that the only such statement by senior ASE members. During the invasion of The Proletariat Coalition by The Black Hawks in September 2014, Xhadam stated that it was time to "dust off the old anti-forum missiles" on the ASE regional message board, adding in a subsequent post that the regions responsible for the invasion use ZetaBoards. These comments were clearly intended to imply a threat of forum destruction against the parties who invaded TPC. Xhadam was the Commander of Red Liberty Armed Forces, a close colleague of EuroSoviets and Blackbird, and a member of the ASE rather than TPC. Again, you can see the attitude which senior RLA members had towards forum destruction, viewing it as a legitimate tactic to deploy against their enemies.

I for one can certainly understand why failed and vanquished remnants of the Founderless Regions Alliance would want to minimise the RLA and the ASE's culpability. After all, the FRA and especially its intelligence operations owed much to their inheritance from the RLA. Apart from having the likes of Chin-Chillas and Dipes serving in your own ranks, not for nothing did the FRA have the Blackbird Award and the EuroSoviets Award. Yet in your eagerness to present a narrative of defender history as one of unvarnished nobility, you fail to appreciate either the facts of the RLA's actions or the extent of the ASE's own admissions. As soon as he thought he was politically free to do so, EuroSoviets had no problem announcing his role in forum destruction.

[Armaros]

Good thing then that Meridianland was banned for that.[/url]

So were TRF and Ketoprofen from the RLA (I don’t agree with the length of the ban but I’ve worded the resolution to make reference to the fact that they did act on it at least)

With respect, what you’re saying about EuroSoviets is false and you’re relying on the words of Halcones to support your argument.

I wasn’t involved in those events on either side but I do have the benefit of having been given admin access to the entire RLA forum since so I can speak with some authority on the matter, so you might want to reconsider calling me ‘uninformed’. I’m not sure Halcones has any authority on anything given his nature and resultant acts, don’t be so swayed by hearsay.

I’ve got no loyalty to EuroSoviets but the condemnation is just fundementally wrong. If you wanted to condemn The Proletariat Coalition for the acts of their nations (who have CTEd so would be a pointless target of a specific condemnation) then I wouldn’t fight you, but ASE makes no sense.

Cool story. Sadly for you, I'm not buying it:

So were TRF and Ketoprofen from the RLA (I don’t agree with the length of the ban but I’ve worded the resolution to make reference to the fact that they did act on it at least)

LOL. They were only banned after they destroyed the Invaders Army forums, which was executed using some worse tactics then usual. The RLA didn't do anything at all to punish the destruction of the forums of DEN and TBH.

With respect, what you’re saying about EuroSoviets is false and you’re relying on the words of Halcones to support your argument.

...and I should believe you, without you providing evidence, over the admin of the TBH forums for... what reason?

And then you say two things: 1. that you have no reason to defend EuroSoviets and 2. that the RLA (remember, EuroSoviets was influential within the RLA) trusted you with admin on their forums. The latter kind of undermines the former. Oh, and you try to repeal a resolution that puts a stain on the RLA's history (a much deserved condemnation badge) while you have admin on the RLA boards. No chance of bias at all here, nope.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

I approve.

Gameplay, for some time now, has by and large stopped caring about the objective act of forum destruction. Plenty think they care, but the majority of people wouldn't lift a finger to help a victim they weren't already close friends with. Interest in the matter is mostly based around the opportunity to project oneself as a moral authority, compared to a traditionally taboo act, with the occasional preexisting grudge thrown in for flavour. I've given up trying to get anywhere a long time ago. Everyone has a double standard, even me; we all wind up reaccepting communities and people based on whoever happens to be reformed, or useful, or usually just "hip".

Please remove this badge, and stop awarding new ones over the matter.

[Eumaeus]

I'm going to start off by saying that I do not know anything about the incident this resolution addresses, and thus am not in a position to make comments on substance. I do generally trust Evil Wolf (edit: and Onder as well; I didn't see his post), however, and feel that he raises valid concerns, so I am not going to support this proposal. With that out of the way, here are my notes:

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that forum destruction is a crime worthy of condemnation due to the irreparable destruction of regional infrastructure, and that forum destruction is a crime against regional culture and heritage regardless of the target,

This is a compound sentence with the same subject in both halves, and sounds kind of awkward. I would change it to:

RECOGNIZING that, regardless of the victim, forum destruction is a crime against regional culture and heritage, worthy of condemnation due to the irreparable destruction of regional infrastructure,

HOWEVER, NOTING that the condemnable acts described in Security Council Resolution #73 were undertaken by the nations known as the Red Factions and Ketoprofen, which were not citizen nations of the region targeted by the condemnation, but of the Proletariat Coalition.

I tried my hand at rephrasing this. I'm not going to say that this reads better, but put a couple minutes into trying it and figured I would post what I came up with.

CONSIDERING that the acts committed by these nations did not go unpunished or unaddressed by the Red Liberty Alliance, of which the condemned region was a leading member.

ACKNOWLEDGING that these punishments led to said nations ultimately ceasing to exist and fading into obscurity.

GRATEFULLY NOTING that the actions of the guilty parties thankfully did not prevent the terrorised regions from continuing to thrive for many years.

I'll admit, the "from" may not be grammatically necessary. The "gratefully" and "thankfully" are redundant, and I would recommend removing one of them.

FURTHER NOTING that the Allied States of EuroIslanders and its actual member nations made a significant contribution to the defense of regional sovereignty across the world, both through its membership of multi-regional alliances (including the Marxist, Anarchist, Socialist, and Syndicalist Alliance, Red Liberty Alliance, and Alliance Defence Network), and through its member nations (including Ananke, who was commended in Security Council Resolution #34 for such efforts).

I would add region tags to the target region at least once, however I would like to point out that throughout most of this proposal ASE is referred to using variations of "the target region" instead of by name. I would use the actual name in the second clause, and "target region" in this one. I would strike that one part because as it is this clause reads "the ASE and its member nations made a contribution to the defense of regional sovereignty... through its member nations". Oxford comma. There should be a comma after Ananke. Also, if it is worth mentioning Ananke and their commendation, it is worth linking to both their nation and commendation.

Personally, I don't really like this clause. The rest of the proposal comes off as trying to exonerate ASE through fact based evidence, whereas this is purely character evidence. More specifically, it is unimportant character evidence, because ASE was condemned not because they were bad people but because they did a bad thing. The main argument addresses the latter, but this clause addresses the former.

DETERMINING that, based on this knowledge, the Allied States of EuroIslanders should never have been the target of condemnation through Security Council Resolution #73.

This clause exacerbates my criticism of the above clause, because its proximity means that the "knowledge" that will be thought of first is the fact they were defenders, instead of the more important argument that they were not chiefly responsible. I would suggest moving the "further noting" clause, either to the beginning of the proposal or after this clause.

ALSO RECOGNIZING the actions of the Security Council in Resolution #71, which repealed a condemnation of a region associated with forum destruction little more than a year since it was passed, rather than 14 years after the event in this case, as the condemned region had “suffered from stigma of being a 'forum destroying' region for long enough, and has faced the consequences for their mistakes”.

After a brief skim over this precedent, it seems clear that the two situations were quite different. Unknown acknowledged their mistakes and apologized to the victims, whereas this proposal is arguing that the target region was not responsible in the first place. Furthermore, SC #71 differs from this proposal because:

...Unknown has not only paid for the mistake of failing to punish the unstable agent in question by the negative label of forum destroyers, but also because the agent later took control of the founder nation of Unknown and ejected many nations from the region,

Seems their actions caused much more immediate repercussions for them than ASE's did. Anyways, the SC does not follow strict stare decisis rules (or whatever the legislative equivalent is called), and the connection of this precedent to the current case is, in my opinion, tenuous at best. Furthermore, the actual text of this clause is a bit confusing. I would scrap the whole clause, but at the very least the name of the repeal being discussed and a link should be provided.

Btw, you use "noting" and "recognizing" as the beginning of three separate clauses each. You should probably switch things up a little bit. Might I recommend the word "adducing" in the place of one of the "noting"s?

[Numero Capitan]

Thanks for the comments, and great edits which I will make shortly.

I had been considering scrapping the reference to #71 anyway, it’s not really central to the point of this repeal, and as a general point I don’t think accurate condemnations should be treated as temporary so it is slightly inauthentic to use that as justification for my repeal.

Onder, thank you for your input but the Condemnation doesn’t make reference to Torino so all the points in my repeal still stand. If you wanted to direct a condemnation at the attitude of, or acts committed by agents of EuroSoviets then I am sure you are as well placed as anyone to do so, but the current resolution doesn’t do that and is therefore misdirected.

It is notable of course that you chose to make your region a member of the RLA after the acts described in the condemnation occurred. So clearly you, like EW, only seem to care about the morality of this when it suits you.

I’ve reaffirmed an objection to acts of forum destruction in the repeal and I’ve said on record I wouldn’t object to any condemnation targeted at the Proletariat Coalition if people still care about this - so any suggestion I’m trying to remove a stain on the RLA’s record is nonsense. The repeal text actually provides an irreversible record of those acts and the people responsible on the records of the Security Council.

If there are still people here that think Halcones is trustworthy then that’s very concerning but not something I’m going to waste time arguing about here.

EDIT: I have made amendments to the draft text, largely those suggested by Eumaeus, and some further revisions of my own that should hopefully streamline the whole thing

[Onderkelkia]

It is notable of course that you chose to make your region a member of the RLA after the acts described in the condemnation occurred. So clearly you, like EW, only seem to care about the morality of this when it suits you.

This is baseless and disingenuous. When my region was invited to join the RLA in March/April 2006, I was new to gameplay and had no knowledge or understanding of these incidents. I was approached by EuroSoviets because the RLA wished to increase its engagement with the United Nations and my small and new region - United Nations Socialist Party - was focused on UN issues. After I learned more about the RLA and its history, I switched sides and subsequently dedicated the larger part of the remainder of my NS career to defeating the remnants of the RLA and the successors to the RLA.

Onder, thank you for your input but the Condemnation doesn’t make reference to Torino so all the points in my repeal still stand. If you wanted to direct a condemnation at the attitude of, or acts committed by agents of EuroSoviets then I am sure you are as well placed as anyone to do so, but the current resolution doesn’t do that and is therefore misdirected.

First, there are probably other cases like Torino, involving smaller groups, which we do not know about and which are not in the existing condemnation. Torino is a less high-profile case which I know about because its members migrated to the LKE, but there is no reason why the example of Torino would need to be a central or necessary part of any condemnation. Rather, the example backs up what is already there by providing another example of the same pattern - agents reporting to the RLA Intelligence Director destroying a forum, followed up by the RLA Intelligence Director disclaiming responsibility and EuroSoviets saying he has no problem with the tactic. The use of forum destruction was a systemic problem with the culture of RLA intelligence operations. Through a combination of malicious intention and sheer recklessness, forum destruction was a tactic employed prolifically by the RLA.

Second, there is a lot more rebuttal in my post than the paragraph regarding Torino, so the idea that "all the points in [your] repeal still stand" is nonsense.

For instance, before discussing Torino, my post made the following points refuting the specifics of your resolution:

1.

On the contrary, the destruction of the DEN and The Black Hawks forums went "unpunished [and] unaddressed by the Red Liberty Alliance". The RLA only punished any members much later, after the destruction of the Invaders Army forum in December 2005, when a public outcry forced it into action.

2.

Furthermore, the punishments imposed by the RLA on The Red Factions and Ketoprofen were laughably weak. For destroying the Invaders Army forum, The Red Factions was permitted to resign his membership of the Central Soviet and then prevented from rejoining for 30 days. Ketoprofen was removed from the Central Soviet and prevented from rejoining for 45 days, with the additional 15 days as punishment literally for failing to spare the RLA's embarrassment by resigning like The Red Factions. The proportionate punishment for forum destruction would have been banishment for life, not removal from the RLA's legislative body for 30 days (not even a ban from the RLA's forums or a ban from the RLA member-regions themselves).

3.

You say that these punishments led to "said nations ultimately ceasing to exist and fading into obscurity". That is not true. Both of them successfully re-applied to join the Central Soviet once their 30 and 45 day exclusion periods ended. Both of them remained involved involved in the RLA until the organisation as a whole "faded into obscurity" in the summer of 2006. When my region United Nations Socialist Party joined the RLA in April 2006, The Red Factions in particular remained very prominent in the RLA. It was the RLA as a whole which declined and drifted into obscurity, barring the subsequent failed revival efforts undertaken by EuroSoviets in November/December 2006 and a clique of mainly FRA/Soviet Union members led by you in spring 2008.

4.

Until changes made amidst the controversy in December 2005, the RLA Intelligence Guidelines expressly permitted forum destruction subject to the approval of the RLA Intelligence Director (which is consistent with the failure to take any action over the DEN and The Black Hawks forum destructions). From the RLA's perspective, the offence of The Red Factions and Ketoprofen was not the act so much as the alleged failure to obtain Blackbird's consent. It was only after the report on the December 2005 Invaders Army incident, not before, that the RLA declared forum destruction to be a prohibited tactic.

---

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, answer this: How do you explain the ASE's public claim of responsibility for committing acts of forum destruction?

To reiterate my previous post, this is what the ASE had on its World Factbook Entry for several months in 2010:

The Allied States of EuroIslanders was founded in March 2003 as NationStates' first participatory democratic region.

Since then we have led the Red Liberty Alliance, the Alliance Defence Network and destroyed invaders and their forums wherever we found them.

The Allied States of EuroIslanders "destroyed invaders and their forums wherever we found them." That is the ASE's own chosen self-description.

Once the ASE was no longer a politically significant region, its founder EuroSoviets happily acknowledged and indeed boasted that the ASE "destroyed invaders and their forums wherever we found them." As the RMB posts I linked above show, Xha'dam even threatened to destroy more forums in 2014.

I understand why you want to revisit the historical record on this, but you are barking up the wrong tree. EuroSoviets has already revealed the facts.

[Numero Capitan]

I wouldn’t call my comments about United Nations Socialist Party baseless, you did exactly what I said, but I’m happy to take you at your word about your naivety, I’m not trying to drag anyone’s name through the mud here.

At the time there was never any suggestion that EuroSoviets had anything to do with the acts described in the resolution. Some people accused Blackbird of being ‘aware’ but the vast majority of opinion in 2005 was that he didn’t have any knowledge of either the intention or actions of the forum destroyers until they had committed those acts. Halcones implicated him once, six years later, without producing any evidence and accidentally excluded one of the publicly known culprits in the same sentence – which should tell everyone how accurate that comment was. Others who have accused him since only created their nations in the last five years or so and have no actual knowledge of the situation.

You refer to your other comments, but I’m not going to go through all your essays line by line, I’ve got better things to do with my life, but I did read them and made specific amendments in the revised draft which hopefully to address some of the points you made.

I agree that there was a failure (on the part of the whole RLA) to act against the initial destruction significantly or severely enough to discourage further acts (but we have the benefit of hindsight). I’ve already voiced my own personal disapproval of the length of the bans before you even brought them up but I really don’t see the point in that discussion here. The fact is that the acts described in the resolution were committed by nations from TPC under the leadership of Blackbird - also from TPC - and the condemnation being directed as ASE makes no sense, other than peoples personal dislike of EuroSoviets.

The original author, whamabama, likely learned most of what they knew about the events from Westwind who hated EuroSoviets with a passion, and changed the who structure of ADN to remove EuroSoviets influence entirely, whilst Blackbird continued to be involved in ADN as SoS and was respected by many of his peers there, so it is understandable that the initial mistake was made, but the Security Council isn't a tool for personal vendettas and has to look at this objectively

The fact EuroSoviets seemed to wear the objectionable acts of others as his own badge of honour in more recent years is, in my opinion, further reason to not give him or ASE the 'credit' for them, so I'm going to move forward with this repeal with or without your backing.

The prolonged discussion on the wider events has been done to death over 14 years, feel free to have that debate within your own region if you want to persuade your delegate to vote against the repeal. But unless you have useful revisions (which I'd welcome) from your knowledge of the situation, there is little use in continuing that discussion here.

[Onderkelkia]

The fact EuroSoviets seemed to wear the objectionable acts of others as his own badge of honour in more recent years is, in my opinion, further reason to not give him or ASE the 'credit' for them, so I'm going to move forward with this repeal with or without your backing.

On what basis do you claim that the ASE was lying when they put the words "destroyed invaders and their forums wherever we found them" in their WFE?

When he wrote that, EuroSoviets knew more about what he said and did in conversations with Blackbird, The Red Factions and Ketoprofen than you do. You can read the RLA's forum, but you cannot read what was said between these individuals in instant messaging where one assumes shadier acts were planned.

Why not adopt the straightforward, literal reading that EuroSoviets was owning up to responsibility for his prior acts? Acts potentially ranging from the three cases cited in this condemnation to the November 2006 destruction of Torino's forum, which he had previously denied authorising for political reasons. By 2010, the ASE was not politically relevant, so it makes sense that he would no longer be as worried about whether he was held responsible or not.

If the ASE currently wants a badge of honour for these acts, then why did they edit the line out subsequently once it caused problems for them? The fact that they have not displayed the line in the WFE since 2010 is a pretty clear indication that they do not regard the condemnation as a "badge of honour".

Furthermore, this is not just about statements by EuroSoviets personally (though he is the founder of the Allied States of EuroIslanders). Xha'dam, senior ASE member and the former head of the RLA's military, threatened to "dust off the old anti-forum missiles" against the regions which invaded TPC in September 2014. That is clearly a reference to previous acts of forum destruction and a suggestion that he would like to pursue them again in the future.

I wouldn’t call my comments about United Nations Socialist Party baseless, you did exactly what I said, but I’m happy to take you at your word about your naivety, I’m not trying to drag anyone’s name through the mud here.

Based purely on the UNSP joining the RLA, you stated: "So clearly you, like EW, only seem to care about the morality of this when it suits you." That is a baseless personal attack and it was made disingenuously in an effort to throw "mud" around. You use the term "naivety". It was not naivety so much as an inevitable lack of knowledge on the part of a new region which previously had nothing to do with gameplay and which was invited to join the RLA in order to collaborate on UN-related initiatives. Contrary to your claims that I cared nothing about the morality of forum destruction, I switched sides shortly after joining as I learned about the RLA's history and subsequently worked against the RLA's remnants and its successor organisations as a fierce critic.

In mid-2008, when you were a more experienced gameplayer than I was when the UNSP was admitted to the RLA in April 2006, you didn't switch sides like I did. Instead you were busy leading efforts to revive the RLA. Sadly you still have not moved on and are here propagandising for the RLA today.

Before you go doubting my approach to these issues, remember that a TNI agent was granted both administrator status and access to the founder nation of your region. Neither was ever misused. TNI could have destroyed the forums of 00000 A World Power if we had so wished. We never so much as contemplated it because we were and are fiercely and staunchly opposed to the kinds of tactics historically employed by defender intelligence operatives. We genuinely regard it as a moral line which should not be crossed. I hope that you would take the same attitude against the RLA's behaviour.

I agree that there was a failure (on the part of the whole RLA) to act against the initial destruction significantly or severely enough to discourage further acts (but we have the benefit of hindsight). I’ve already voiced my own personal disapproval of the length of the bans before you even brought them up but I really don’t see the point in that discussion here.

These points are directly relevant to your proposed repeal and to the wider question of whether ASE should be condemned or not.

You claim that "these nations did not go unpunished or unaddressed by the Red Liberty Alliance of which the Allied States of EuroIslanders were a leading member". In fact, no punishments were imposed for the destruction of the DEN and TBH forums. Your claim is simply false as regards those two cases.

The December 2005 "punishments" were strictly about the Invaders Army forum destruction. Furthermore, the "punishments" awarded over the Invaders Army forum destruction incident were completely inadequate - they were not "bans", they were merely a 30-day suspension of membership in the RLA's Central Soviet. If a punishment is that inadequate, a slap on the wrist at best, then how can it be claimed that the RLA addressed that incident?

When someone has committed a serious crime that would merit a life sentence, you don't say they have been "punished" or that their acts have been "addressed" if they receive a small fine. That is essentially the real-life equivalent of what happened here. The cover-up arguably makes it worse. The RLA did not even attempt to address the destruction of the DEN and TBH forums. They did not go far enough to address the IA forum destruction.

It is also relevant that the RLA Intelligence Guidelines prior to December 2005 specifically permitted forum destruction with the RLAI Director's consent. It suggests that there was a corporate acceptance of forum destruction as a tactic for which the ASE as a "leading member" is accountable. There is a causal relationship between the RLA Intelligence Guidelines recognising forum destruction as a legitimate tactic and RLA agents then performing those acts.

The prolonged discussion on the wider events has been done to death over 14 years, feel free to have that debate within your own region if you want to persuade your delegate to vote against the repeal. But unless you have useful revisions (which I'd welcome) from your knowledge of the situation, there is little use in continuing that discussion here.

On the contrary, "continuing that discussion here" allows everyone to see the truth regarding the RLA's responsibility for these events.

Ironically, you complain that the discussion "has been done to death over 14 years", yet you are the one reviving the topic with a revisionist account of history. Your resolution does not need to be revised or edited. It needs to be defeated based on the fundamental misrepresentations contained within it.

If you as an author intend to continue to pursue it, then the question becomes one for the remainder of the game as to whether we will campaign or vote against it. If you don't want to discuss it further, then you have the prerogative to ignore my posts, but the truth of the matter is on the record.

[Numero Capitan]

a lot of text

Onder, you and I might care a lot about all of that stuff but 99% of the people visiting this forum don't, feel free to telegram me if you want to discuss those matters further but I think my opinions are adequately covered in the discussion above and the text of my proposed repeal.

I'll leave this around 48 hours and then start moving it to submission if I don't get any more suggested amendments.

[Lord Dominator]

I don't know, I'm pretty interested here in what Onder has to say on the matter.

Unrelated to truthfulness of the original resolution, I may support off the belief that a Condemn/Commend obligates respect for the target exist.

[WayNeacTia]

I don't know, I'm pretty interested here in what Onder has to say on the matter.

Unrelated to truthfulness of the original resolution, I may support off the belief that a Condemn/Commend obligates respect for the target exist.

I agree with the repeal. What does condemning them achieve? Notoriety? Isn't that exactly what people like them crave? No different than condemning a Nazi region, for being Nazi's.

[Gloria Victis]

Good luck.