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

[Eumaeus]

Fyi, you did not need to add that first line yourself:

[Numero Capitan]

Fyi, you did not need to add that first line yourself:
(Image)

Really trying to drill the message in...

[Ransium]

I think attributing the authorship to another nation (not co-authorship) violates R4d. Suck it up and switch WA nations or accept the puppet that submits the proposal gets the credit.

[Numero Capitan]

I think attributing the authorship to another nation (not co-authorship) violates R4d. Suck it up and switch WA nations or accept the puppet that submits the proposal gets the credit.

Am I looking at the same rules to you?

4. Your proposal must read as representing the opinion of the World Assembly, and as targeting a Nation or Region.
This means:
...
(d) Your proposal must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

This might be relevant (from the Compendium).

Co-authors:
Multiple co-authors are allowed in the Security Council. Co-authors must be nations, not regions/organisations:
Ardchoille wrote:
An authorship credit is for doing almost as much work on the proposal as the author -- a complete re-write, for example. It's not for collective critiquing, whether done by a forum or by region members.

There is no limit on co-authors, but a "reality-imposed limit" of 3 has been suggested. Nations which no longer exist can be cited, so long as they actually contributed to the authoring of the resolution. However, citing nations which are dead and clearly didn't contribute to the proposal may get your proposal deleted - as in this case (more on it here). Only those who contributed to the text of the proposal should be listed, so campaigners, lobbyists etc. should not be named - see here. Listing your own puppet nation as a co-author is illegal, unless your puppet nation was clearly involved in an earlier version of the proposal (see here). Note that the text should make crystal clear that the listed nations are co-authors, or it may be considered a list of supporters, as per this ruling.

You can list nations that are representative of "working groups" as per this ruling and this explanation However, it must still be a nation cited.

[Numero Capitan]

Thanks, its been withdrawn and being resubmitted

[Ransium]

Not buying this. There is no evidence the nation you submitted the proposal under contributed at all.

[Ransium]

I realize now you’re likely two different people. In that case this submission is fine.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

Wait, so the basis of the evidence against EuroIslanders comes from an anecdote by a player now DoS for being a two-time cheater and lying about it? Hm

[Armaros]

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.

Wait, so the basis of the evidence against EuroIslanders comes from an anecdote by a player now DoS for being a two-time cheater and lying about it? Hm

Halcones was not DoS at the time, and his DoS was separate from this issue. It came from the admin logs of the TBH forums which the RLA destroyed, according to Halcones. I’m no fan of Halcones (lol), but I can definitely believe him on this: ES bragged about “destroying [invader] forums all over again” on the ASE RMB.

[Onderkelkia]

It is sadly unsurprising to see The South Pacific adopt wilful blindness in order to re-establish the principle that defenders are entitled to do as they please in their efforts to destroy those they label as their enemies. From the RLA to this day, that has been the nature of the defender political project.

Never mind that the RLA only punished anyone after the Invaders Army case in December 2005, months after the earlier DEN and TBH forum destructions, when the resolution falsely claims that nations were punished for all the acts cited in the original condemnation, not just the Invaders Army incident.

Never mind that the "punishment" imposed on The Red Factions consisted of a 30-day removal from the Central Soviet, which was laughably weak, so much so that it can hardly be claimed to have "addressed" the issue with any adequacy in a way that mitigates the RLA's responsibility for the incident.

Never mind that the RLA Intelligence rules expressly permitted forum destruction prior to the controversy over the Invaders Army forum destruction.

Never mind the ASE proudly proclaiming that they "destroyed invaders and their forums wherever we found them" on their WFE.

Never mind the statement by ASE founder EuroSoviets screnshotted by Evil Wolf or the threat to commit further forum destruction by ASE veteran Xhadam.

As per usual, all facts are to be ignored on the basis that defenders are entitled to impunity. This is the long-time nature of defender politics.

[Cormactopia Prime]

It is sadly unsurprising to see The South Pacific adopt wilful blindness in order to re-establish the principle that defenders are entitled to do as they please in their efforts to destroy those they label as their enemies. From the RLA to this day, that has been the nature of the defender political project.

[...]

As per usual, all facts are to be ignored on the basis that defenders are entitled to impunity. This is the long-time nature of defender politics.

Did you just imply that the South Pacific, and other defenders in the present day, condone forum destruction?

[Onderkelkia]

It is sadly unsurprising to see The South Pacific adopt wilful blindness in order to re-establish the principle that defenders are entitled to do as they please in their efforts to destroy those they label as their enemies. From the RLA to this day, that has been the nature of the defender political project.

[...]

As per usual, all facts are to be ignored on the basis that defenders are entitled to impunity. This is the long-time nature of defender politics.

Did you just imply that the South Pacific, and other defenders in the present day, condone forum destruction?

I would not say that present defenders "condone forum destruction" specifically so much as that modern defenders continue to believe that defenders are entitled to a degree of impunity when acting against their enemies, and that they are accordingly willing to overlook/misrepresent the truth regarding forum destruction in order to cast defenders as "the good guys" without confronting the RLA's past and/or overtly endorsing the RLA's acts.

This is not a resolution saying that forum destruction is a good thing. Rather, it is a resolution which flagrantly and intentionally lies about the ASE's record on the subject in order to (a) avoid acknowledging the fact that that the ASE destroyed forums and (b) relatedly cast defender history in a positive light.

The belief that defenders do no wrong, and that lying about it is justified in service of the wider cause, has been a serious and persistent problem throughout the history of defending. It is the same sense of entitlement which meant RLA members felt morally empowered to destroy forums and subsequently boast about it previously. I do not claim that modern defenders would commit the same actions, but the desire to excuse the RLA's actions is ultimately rooted in the same belief in defender moral and political superiority. Much like when defenders classify some military operations as unacceptable raids and others as acceptable, the idea is that defenders get to regulate and what is and what isn't allowed, and what is and isn't the truth.

The ASE has unequivocally claimed responsibility for destroying forums on multiple occasions. The RLA as a whole permitted the practice with the RLAI Director's consent prior to the December 2005 Invaders Army forum destruction. This is a resolution that ignores the facts surrounding the incidents concerned in order to remove a condemnation of ASE. Modern defenders do not destroy forums like the RLA. However, they will inevitably be sending a message that such acts can be overlooked if they ignore the evidence in order to repeal the ASE's condemnation on the basis of gross distortions.

I am not saying that any repeal of the ASE's condemnation inherently sends the same message. But the resolution drafted by Numero Capitan, by flagrantly and deliberately misrepresenting the truth regarding what the ASE did, is essentially asserting that it is fine to lie about such actions in service of the defender cause. Such lies are so open and so blatant that they they are not even meant to be believed; they are meant to provide the cover to rehabilitate the ASE and the RLA's reputation. In doing so, they trivialise forum destruction and they do carry a genuine risk that the stigma surrounding such actions will be reduced. That may not be the aim of the author or the TSP, but rehabilitating the RLA is clearly a higher priority for them.

This travesty of a resolution lies about the ASE and RLA's actons and culpability, but the part that matters to the author is given away by this clause:

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 II, who was commended in Security Council Resolution #34 for such efforts),

The message is clear: The facts around the ASE and the RLA's actions don't matter. What matters is that the ASE was an important defender region. It is because ASE was an important defender region that Numero and now TSP are misrepresenting the facts on the ASE's behaviour. This is shameful.

[Greater Cesnica]

It is sadly unsurprising to see The South Pacific adopt wilful blindness in order to re-establish the principle that defenders are entitled to do as they please in their efforts to destroy those they label as their enemies. From the RLA to this day, that has been the nature of the defender political project.

[...]

As per usual, all facts are to be ignored on the basis that defenders are entitled to impunity. This is the long-time nature of defender politics.

Did you just imply that the South Pacific, and other defenders in the present day, condone forum destruction?

That's a fucking bold claim.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I would not say that present defenders "condone forum destruction" specifically so much as that modern defenders continue to believe that defenders are entitled to a degree of impunity when acting against their enemies, and that they are accordingly willing to overlook/misrepresent the truth regarding forum destruction in order to cast defenders as "the good guys" without confronting the RLA's past and/or overtly endorsing the RLA's acts.

This is not a resolution saying that forum destruction is a good thing. Rather, it is a resolution which flagrantly and intentionally lies about the ASE's record on the subject in order to (a) avoid acknowledging the fact that that the ASE destroyed forums and (b) relatedly cast defender history in a positive light.

The proposal doesn't lie about ASE's record. If ASE participated in acts of forum destruction, there is no evidence they participated in the acts of forum destruction targeted by SC#73. Those acts of forum destruction were carried out by the RLA, of which ASE was only one member region (albeit a founding one), and specifically by residents of The Proletariat Coalition, not ASE. Those are facts. If someone wants to target ASE for condemnation for the acts of forum destruction it supposedly committed, fine, though I'll note no one can actually produce evidence that it ever committed forum destruction other than unsubstantiated boasting by EuroSoviets. The boasting could have just been EuroSoviets trolling ASE's detractors. Or maybe it wasn't. We don't know.

If someone wants to target The Proletariat Coalition for these acts of forum destruction, well, fine, but that brings me to my next point.

If you want to talk about impunity, let's talk about impunity. Today, SC#73 is the only condemnation for forum destruction that is on the books. If you only looked at SC resolutions, you'd be forgiven for believing these were the only incidents of forum destruction other than those perpetrated by agents of Unknown, mentioned in a resolution that has now been repealed because for some reason Unknown deserved forgiveness whereas the RLA for some reason didn't. But we who are involved in gameplay know the truth is very different. We know about acts of forum destruction carried out by rival raiders against Unknown, acts that went uncondemned. We know about acts of forum destruction carried out against other regions by other raiders, including some in their own regions. We know about acts of forum destruction, spamming, etc., that have occurred in many other places at many other times.

Where are those condemnations? Why are these defender acts of forum destruction from 2005 the only ones that deserve condemnation? I asked that question when I proposed repealing SC#73 more than four years ago, and the response was that rather than repealing SC#73, we should focus on condemning other acts of forum destruction. I said then that it wouldn't happen, and it hasn't happened. So if you want to talk about impunity, Onder, let's talk about the quiet impunity that has been granted to raiders to target each other's regional forums for destruction without a peep from the SC. Let's talk about repealing Condemn Unknown while leaving Condemn ASE in place. Let's talk about how the raider sphere has politicized this issue to insist on permanent condemnation for a region that wasn't even responsible for the acts of forum destruction in question, but hasn't done anything to hold raiders who have engaged in forum destruction to account in the same way, and that has, from time to time, completely overlooked acts of forum destruction and allowed forum destroyers to continue full participation in their regions. That's impunity. And it's hypocrisy. And it's very good reason to repeal SC#73.

Avakael was right earlier in the thread. Gameplay doesn't take forum destruction seriously. Gameplay politicizes forum destruction. Gameplay weaponizes forum destruction. But gameplay doesn't take forum destruction seriously. The matter of forum destruction, an out-of-character matter that has been politicized and weaponized for years by people who have hypocritically allowed their own to act with impunity, has no place in an in-character institution like the SC. SC#73 should be repealed, and we should have no more SC resolutions related to forum destruction. Let's distribute condemnations as badges for regions and individuals who are good at being the in-character bad guys, rather than applying them to actual out-of-character bad guys, selectively, and according to our in-character political preferences. Nobody should want the SC to be used for that purpose.

[Lord Dominator]

I will, at this point, maintain my earlier position that if forum destruction is held to be so beyond the pale as an OOC bad action, that C&Cs shouldn't be applied to regions oror individuals in such relation. Same as what we applied to Condemnations related to Predator or the Commendations for people later found to have engaged in certain OOC bad actions.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I will, at this point, maintain my earlier position that if forum destruction is held to be so beyond the pale as an OOC bad action, that C&Cs shouldn't be applied to regions oror individuals in such relation. Same as what we applied to Condemnations related to Predator or the Commendations for people later found to have engaged in certain OOC bad actions.

Agreed. The concept of punishing an OOC action like forum destruction with an SC condemnation is a product of a bygone era. We should repeal SC#73, and not pass anymore condemnations related to forum destruction, to make clear that we're moving on from that and are only interested in IC condemnations.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I will, at this point, maintain my earlier position that if forum destruction is held to be so beyond the pale as an OOC bad action, that C&Cs shouldn't be applied to regions oror individuals in such relation. Same as what we applied to Condemnations related to Predator or the Commendations for people later found to have engaged in certain OOC bad actions.

Agreed. The concept of punishing an OOC action like forum destruction with an SC condemnation is a product of a bygone era. We should repeal SC#73, and not pass anymore condemnations related to forum destruction, to make clear that we're moving on from that and are only interested in IC condemnations.

I was neutral with regards to this proposal, but both your arguments have convinced me to vote for it if it gets to the vote.

[Onderkelkia]

The proposal doesn't lie about ASE's record. If ASE participated in acts of forum destruction, there is no evidence they participated in the acts of forum destruction targeted by SC#73. Those acts of forum destruction were carried out by the RLA, of which ASE was only one member region (albeit a founding one), and specifically by residents of The Proletariat Coalition, not ASE. Those are facts. If someone wants to target ASE for condemnation for the acts of forum destruction it supposedly committed, fine, though I'll note no one can actually produce evidence that it ever committed forum destruction other than unsubstantiated boasting by EuroSoviets. The boasting could have just been EuroSoviets trolling ASE's detractors. Or maybe it wasn't. We don't know.

I see no reason to dismiss the repeated public admissions by EuroSoviets as "unsubstantiated boasting". Rather, an admission by EuroSoviets is very likely the strongest form of evidence possibly available (short of IP evidence from the admin logs of the destroyed forums). Armaros has drawn attention to a statement by Halcones implicating EuroSoviets in the destruction of TBH's forum). In and of itself, that is unreliable because of the source, so I would not necessarily place much reliance on that on its own, but it is corroborated by the statements of EuroSoviets, which I regard as more credible. Furthermore, even if EuroSoviets did not personally participate in any acts of forum destruction, the key question is whether he or Xha'dam was aware of either the DEN or TBH forum destructions before they occurred. Again, short of getting their instant messaging logs, the statements of EuroSoviets and Xha'dam are the most credible evidence that could be obtained. Given the pattern - including Torino as well as the three cases cited in the resolution - of agents reporting to the RLA repeatedly destroying forums and the RLA disclaiming responsibility - the subsequent admissions by EuroSoviets are actually highly plausible.

It is not good enough to pretend that the public statements by EuroSoviets don't exist or are unsubstantiated. A confession is substantiation. And given that EuroSoviets was a top RLA leader when RLA members committed the acts described in the original resolution, it is not unreasonable to link the admission.

It is also significant that the RLA expressly permitted forum destruction as part of its intelligence rules prior to the Invaders Army forum destruction in December 2005, provided that the act of forum destruction was undertaken with the consent of the RLAI Director. It was only in December 2005, after the Invaders Army incident, that forum destruction was prohibited. So when the DEN and TBH forum destructions occurred, forum destruction was not prohibited by the RLA but recognised by them as a legitimate tactic. When the DEN and TBH forums were destroyed, no sanctions were imposed. Indeed, after DEN's forum was destroyed, The Red Factions/Grippsholm was lauded for his intelligence success, in spite of what had occurred.

This brings me to an unequivocal falsehood in the text of the proposed repeal:

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,

Contrary to what is stated, the destruction of the DEN and The Black Hawks forums both went "unpunished or unaddressed by the Red Liberty Alliance of which the Allied States of EuroIslanders were a leading member" - indeed the ASE was the premier member-region of the RLA in practice. Only the Invaders Army forum destruction incident led to any punitive action by the RLA and then only after an avalanche of public pressure directed against it.

Furthermore, the actions that the RLA took in December 2005 in response to the Invaders Army incident was completely inadequate. They reflected the fact that the forum destruction itself was not against the RLA rules at the time it occurred; rather, their perceived offence was failing to obtain Blackbird's consent. The Red Factions was prevented from re-joining the RLA Central Soviet, the legislative body of the RLA, for 30 days. Ketoprofen received a similar sanction for 45 days, but the extra 15 days were for refusing to spare the RLA's embarrassment by not resigning when he was asked to do so.

This is a far cry from the RLA punishing and addressing the acts to the extent that it would count in their favour. Instead, the RLA imposed no punishment for the destruction of the DEN and TBH forums. For the destruction of the Invaders Army forum, it imposed a tokenistic punishment for PR reasons.

So if you want to talk about impunity, Onder, let's talk about the quiet impunity that has been granted to raiders to target each other's regional forums for destruction without a peep from the SC. Let's talk about repealing Condemn Unknown while leaving Condemn ASE in place. Let's talk about how the raider sphere has politicized this issue to insist on permanent condemnation for a region that wasn't even responsible for the acts of forum destruction in question, but hasn't done anything to hold raiders who have engaged in forum destruction to account in the same way, and that has, from time to time, completely overlooked acts of forum destruction and allowed forum destroyers to continue full participation in their regions. That's impunity. And it's hypocrisy. And it's very good reason to repeal SC#73.

Whatever one's view of this argument, it is not the argument made by the repeal resolution as presently submitted. The argument of the repeal resolution is that the ASE is not culpable for the acts of forum destruction described in the original condemnation and that the RLA punished the individuals responsible.

If the argument is that forum destruction is not condemnable, then that is different from saying the ASE was not responsible or that the RLA addressed the issue. The repeal resolution before us is principally about clearing the ASE/RLA's name. It is not concerned with the issues that you are talking about.

The Unknown resolution was repealed in large part to contrition on the part of Unknown. Whether or not one regards that as the correct decision, that is a distinguishing factor in this case. It is also why others have not sought to condemn The Proletariat Coalition, as they issued an apology following a previous invasion. The distinguishing factor regarding the ASE was and is the flagrant claims of responsibility and boasting regarding committing forum destruction. Rightly or wrongly, the Security Council decided it was "Satisfied by the statements and changes in Unknown since the original condemnation". Since the original condemnation, ASE has threatened to commit more acts of forum destruction, so there have been no similar changes. We should not be satisfied.

Parts of the raider sphere, including Unknown under previous leadership, have acted abominably in this regard in the past. I agree with that position entirely. The repeal of Unknown's condemnation acknowledged that. By contrast, this repeal is about exonerating the ASE and the RLA for the acts of forum destruction, and even praises the the ASE for defending regional sovereignty through its RLA membership. That is hardly the appropriate gravity.

Avakael was right earlier in the thread. Gameplay doesn't take forum destruction seriously. Gameplay politicizes forum destruction. Gameplay weaponizes forum destruction. But gameplay doesn't take forum destruction seriously. The matter of forum destruction, an out-of-character matter that has been politicized and weaponized for years by people who have hypocritically allowed their own to act with impunity, has no place in an in-character institution like the SC. SC#73 should be repealed, and we should have no more SC resolutions related to forum destruction. Let's distribute condemnations as badges for regions and individuals who are good at being the in-character bad guys, rather than applying them to actual out-of-character bad guys, selectively, and according to our in-character political preferences. Nobody should want the SC to be used for that purpose.

I don't know about "Gameplay"; frankly, I do not really agree with any conception of the Gameplay community as a single cohesive unit which thinks and acts in the same way. As far as I am concerned, there is the NS world, which has regions which need to be governed and can have relations (good and bad) with other regions. Gameplay is governing these regions and related political and military activities, but there should be no Gameplay community.

Regions should however take forum destruction seriously. Just because some regions don't do so at the moment is no reason to stop doing so. Rather, the regions which do not presently take forum destruction seriously should start doing so, in the interests of protecting all NS regional forums. I know the LKE has maintained an absolute policy of permanently banning any individual proven to have participated in forum destruction. In my view, all regions should have similar absolutist policy and, if they are not already banning all forum destroyers on sight, they should strive to do so in future going forward.

Some regions do not have the right policies in banning forum destroyers, but the regions with the right policies should not give up.

There is an argument for the approach you describe (treating forum destruction purely as an OOC matter without any place in SC condemnations). However, that is not fundamentally what the repeal resolution before us is concerned with. The resolution before us is about exonerating the ASE and RLA. If a new approach is to be taken to SC resolutions on this issue, it should not be on the back of revising the historical record to excuse destructions of raider forums while praising the organisation responsible. This is a partisan defender resolution, not an attempt to reset the approach to this issue in the Security Council.

If the Security Council's approach to the issues is to be reset, it should not be with a repeal which exonerates, excuses and glorifies the ASE and the RLA.

[Cormactopia Prime]

If the Security Council's approach to the issues is to be reset, it should not be with a repeal which exonerates, excuses and glorifies the ASE and the RLA.

More than four years ago, I tried to repeal SC#73 without exonerating either ASE or the RLA. I was thanked for my efforts by being libeled, by having it outright stated that I condoned forum destruction. The proposal didn't even make quorum because of the robust counter-campaigning efforts made against it. You were among the opponents of that proposal, and the raider-imperialist sphere led the opposition to it, and the libel against me.

Please don't insult my intelligence, or anyone else's, by pretending there is any scenario in which you and your ilk will support repeal of SC#73.

Meanwhile, I will support any effort to get it off the books, because I am tired of the hypocrisy and inconsistency.

[Onderkelkia]

If the Security Council's approach to the issues is to be reset, it should not be with a repeal which exonerates, excuses and glorifies the ASE and the RLA.

More than four years ago, I tried to repeal SC#73 without exonerating either ASE or the RLA. I was thanked for my efforts by being libeled, by having it outright stated that I condoned forum destruction. The proposal didn't even make quorum because of the robust counter-campaigning efforts made against it. You were among the opponents of that proposal, and the raider-imperialist sphere led the opposition to it, and the libel against me.

Please don't insult my intelligence, or anyone else's, by pretending there is any scenario in which you and your ilk will support repeal of SC#73.

Meanwhile, I will support any effort to get it off the books, because I am tired of the hypocrisy and inconsistency.

I readily acknowledge that the draft you presented previously was superior in this important respect to the draft presented by Numero Capitan and his puppets in The South Pacific. Yet without straying too far, I believe that the earlier draft had other serious deficiencies, especially the following clauses:

Acknowledging that, prior to these incidents, forum destruction had been a tactic that had not yet been universally condemned and had been used by other regions and organizations without significant consequence;

[...]

Noting that the attitude expressed by SC#73 in regard to regional forums ignores the importance of other regional forms of communication, which are routinely suppressed and even destroyed by invading forces without condemnation;

Particularly the latter clause, which can be read as implying an equation of the destruction of off-site forums with regional RMB suppression and re-founding. That is fundamentally incorrect.

What is implied there is very different from your argument made in this thread that forum destruction is an OOC issue outside the province of SC resolutions. In terms of whether I would support another repeal of Condemn ASE if it was worded correctly, I would need to reflect on whether I accepted your argument that forum destructions should never be condemned by the WA. While the condemnation of the ASE is the only resolution condemning forum destruction currently on the books, the condemnation of Unknown shows that it has been considered to be within the purview of the Security Council in the past and that resolution was not repealed using the argument that you advance here either, but on the grounds that Unknown was contrite. That does not necessarily mean that the previous precedent is correct, but I would need to think about it further before coming to a view on the subject.

However, what is absolutely clear is that the text of the resolution presented by Numero Capitan is about exonerating, excusing and glorifying the ASE and the RLA, and it is nothing to do with any principle regarding whether SC resolutions should cover forum destruction or not. As such, it should be opposed whether or not I or anyone else agrees with the argument that we would be better off resetting the Security Council's approach to these issues.

[North East Somerset]

And here we are, over 10 years after the events, in yet another iteration of a resolution - still arguing about the same fundamental concept:

Defending absolves all sins.

Here we have a Region on the public record stating in its WFE that:

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

Never mind the personal correspondence from founder Eurosoviets to Evil Wolf threatening forum destruction, or the threat in 2014 against TBH by a member of the region and former Commander of the RLA.

We even have, courtesy of Onder who witnessed a lot of it first hand, all the evidence of the internal processes of the RLA doing the bare minimum to "punish" the individuals concerned, and the general attitude of their leadership being that other than the PR fallout, this was a justifiable action in the fight against Raiders.

But all of this is not enough - because ASE was involved in defending - which overrides forum destruction, right? Well I hope not.

So why write this, why now? Why keep opening these old wounds back up? For Cormac and the others who have been from time to time, at the forefront of the revivalist Defender cause, this was definitely about whitewashing defender history. If all the forefathers of defenderism were saints and saviours, outstanding citizens of the game - then presumably those who wish to do "good" in the game in the future would gravitate to the cause. Or indeed, perhaps more sinisterly, the goal could be simply to re-invoke a moral license for unlimited hypocrisy - if they can justify this back then, they can justify similar interventions going forwards, albeit not as blatant for now.

That makes sense perhaps for the last repeal, but why though would a conked-out old defender of the FRA who has no honest or transparent stake in the future of defenderism want to push this. Surely not, sheer pettiness? I am sure the author is better than that... although the fact they were willing to blow 5,000 telegrams pushing a de-endorsement campaign in Balder just a couple of weeks ago, perhaps indicates otherwise?

Numero, the intelligence maestro of the FRA, of all people should know better than to push this. He more than Cormac, knows the reality of the ASE's intentions in 2005-6, and he thus surely knows damn well that key members of the ASE both led the RLA and took pride in sanctioning forum destruction. For he is a man with an unblemished record with regards to forum destruction, albeit some other strange activities nonetheless. That said, one now begins to wonder now whether that was down to his moral fortitude, or just because he never had a chance?

Regardless, he can take solace in the fact that chivalry is not dead in the non-defender world, as I handed back his forums (AWP) unharmed after infiltrating the FRA to the highest levels - through his own region. Indeed, I may have other sins, like raiding, but forum destruction is not one of them. And I draw a line there, and so have many others for a long time. Let us continue to draw that line. Then, now, and into the future.

[Cormactopia Prime]

For Cormac and the others who have been from time to time, at the forefront of the revivalist Defender cause, this was definitely about whitewashing defender history. If all the forefathers of defenderism were saints and saviours, outstanding citizens of the game - then presumably those who wish to do "good" in the game in the future would gravitate to the cause. Or indeed, perhaps more sinisterly, the goal could be simply to re-invoke a moral license for unlimited hypocrisy - if they can justify this back then, they can justify similar interventions going forwards, albeit not as blatant for now.

And the libel continues. This time, not only am I accused of condoning forum destruction, but perhaps of wanting to commit it at some point in the future. Apparently the depths to which raiders and imperialists will sink in order to keep their hypocritical propaganda on the books knows no limit.

I want SC#73 off the books for the reason I've been stating for over four years: It's inconsistent and hypocritical for the Security Council to condemn only this one region for forum destruction when such acts have also been committed by others without condemnation, sometimes without consequences of any kind, and I don't believe this out-of-character matter has any place in the Security Council. I don't see any reason Condemn Unknown should have been repealed and Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders should remain on the books. I don't see any reason Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders should exist, but Condemn The Ascendancy or Condemn [Insert Region That Has Harbored Forum Destroyers Here] shouldn't. I don't see any reason a defender region should bear the sole black mark for forum destruction when numerous raiders have committed such acts. The continued existence of Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders, to the exclusion of any other region or individual responsible for forum destruction, politicizes forum destruction. You folks are weaponizing these acts of forum destruction against defenders. You're doing it still today. It's reprehensible, it's unacceptable, and it needs to stop.

[Armaros]

For Cormac and the others who have been from time to time, at the forefront of the revivalist Defender cause, this was definitely about whitewashing defender history. If all the forefathers of defenderism were saints and saviours, outstanding citizens of the game - then presumably those who wish to do "good" in the game in the future would gravitate to the cause. Or indeed, perhaps more sinisterly, the goal could be simply to re-invoke a moral license for unlimited hypocrisy - if they can justify this back then, they can justify similar interventions going forwards, albeit not as blatant for now.

And the libel continues. This time, not only am I accused of condoning forum destruction, but perhaps of wanting to commit it at some point in the future. Apparently the depths to which raiders and imperialists will sink in order to keep their hypocritical propaganda on the books knows no limit.

Trying to state that raiders and imperialists are horrible in their propaganda and are willing to politicise forum destruction is rather ironic: not all raiders and imperialists are represented by these two comments, which is a gross generalisation, and secondly, trying to say raiders complaining about their forums being destroyed is politicising the issue with the intent of smearing defenders sounds a lot like politicising this issue yourself. While this may not be the intention (and, for the record, I do not believe your or current defenders condone forum destruction, which is a rather gross claim), your statements do kind of read like you are considering this a raider-defender issue.

I want SC#73 off the books for the reason I've been stating for over four years: It's inconsistent and hypocritical for the Security Council to condemn only this one region for forum destruction when such acts have also been committed by others without condemnation, sometimes without consequences of any kind, and I don't believe this out-of-character matter has any place in the Security Council. I don't see any reason Condemn Unknown should have been repealed and Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders should remain on the books. I don't see any reason Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders should exist, but Condemn The Ascendancy or Condemn [Insert Region That Has Harbored Forum Destroyers Here] shouldn't. I don't see any reason a defender region should bear the sole black mark for forum destruction when numerous raiders have committed such acts. The continued existence of Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders, to the exclusion of any other region or individual responsible for forum destruction, politicizes forum destruction. You folks are weaponizing these acts of forum destruction against defenders. You're doing it still today. It's reprehensible, it's unacceptable, and it needs to stop.

Wait, so the RLA did the following:
-considered forum destruction a valid tactic
-destroyed not one, not two, but three forums
-bragged about it
-bragged some more
-died
And EuroSoviets did:
-consider it a good idea
-encouraged it
-authorised it
-bragged about it
-claimed he’d do it again
And then you go on about how raiders are weaponising these issues. Leave the raider-defender claims out of here; they have nothing to do with it. If this was a raider organisation who destroyed three forums, I’d be arguing here for it to be condemned all the same. This is, for the record, the same as I have to say for Onder and NES: raider and defender arguements have no place here.

[Numero Capitan]

And here we are, over 10 years after the events, in yet another iteration of a resolution - still arguing about the same fundamental concept:

Defending absolves all sins.

Yeah thats not the point of this at all, but thanks for stopping by. I'll try and make this crystal clear in as little text as possible (I know that's not your style):

Still no condemnation for the Proletariat Coalition, whose nations actually destroyed the forums in question - that says it all. This is a condemnation directed at ASE by ADN members and their spawn who didn't like Eurosoviets and now defended by Imperialists who don't like defender regions.

Until TPE gets that treatment and all the actual forum destroyers, this condemnation makes very little sense beyond personal vendettas. You can chuck in all the personal comments and irrelevant references you want but deep down you know I'm right here.