Liberate Belgium... again?

[Unibot III]

I didn't intend to submit a WA proposal ever again. But apparently the code allows you to liberate a region twice. There's room for this feature being useful - you could double up liberations if you there's a chance your opponents could get a repeal in place for the original resolution. Buys you time if you're expecting a hostile repeal campaign.

Liberate Belgium
A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region.

Category: Liberation

Nominee (region): belgium

Proposed by: Unibot III

The Security Council,

Bearing in mind, Belgium's prior extant liberation in SC#4,

Seeking clarity as to the full remit of its powers and unaware of previous relevant precedent,

Acknowledging the benefits of a second liberation of Belgium in terms of its own regional security,

Hereby,

Liberates Belgium.

Frankly, I didn't expect the proposal to be accepted by the system. And no, I don't intend to pursue this resolution to vote... it's not exactly my best work.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

While the code may allow it the rules don’t. Rule 2(b):

(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.

[Kuriko]

While the code may allow it the rules don’t. Rule 2(b):

(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.

This isn't a duplication, so unfortunately it's legal. Also, Unibot, we're all aware a second liberation can be passed upon an already liberated region. It's in the SC discussions area of this forum if you deign to read through them. This is unnecessary to do.

[Unibot III]

This is unnecessary to do.

I don't intend to do anything. *shrugs* The easy way to check something is to do it.

While the code may allow it the rules don’t. Rule 2(b):

Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.

The rule is about textual duplication, I'm not duplicating the substance of the resolution's text. Kuriko's explanation covers this.

[Kuriko]

This is unnecessary to do.

I don't intend to do anything. *shrugs* The easy way to check something is to do it.

While the code may allow it the rules don’t. Rule 2(b):

Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.

The rule is about textual duplication, I'm not duplicating the substance of the resolution's text. Kuriko's explanation covers this.

The thing is though, is that you're drawing attention to Belgium when they don't need the attention. Anyone looking at the SC will see this, and Belgium as you know is a founderless region with less than ten endos on its delegate. No one should be drawing attention to a founderless region unless absolutely necessary.

[Ransium]

The arguments, such as they are, seem unique to me - I think it’s legal.

[Eumaeus]

Several things:

1) I concur with Kuriko: while it does not elaborate at all on the benefits, the third clause puts forth the argument that having a second liberation would benefit Belgium. While it's not a very strong argument, it is still a different argument, and the proposal serves a different purpose than the original. Of course the lack of elaboration opens it up to interpretation, so if a Mod decides that it is duplication I would not be shocked.

2) If there is anything in this proposal that is brushing up against the boundaries of the rules I think it is the second clause. I think it may be flirting with a Rule 2c technical suggestion (comment?) violation. It basically says "oh look at what the game lets you do, neat". The phrasing may save it though. Also, this tingles my Rule 4d senses (it reads more as the author was unaware than the SC), but I also think it is not actionable.

3) I think the second clause might violate Rule 3 however, which I would appreciate a mod opinion on. The resolution seems to be stating that the Security Council is testing the extents of its powers, which I think is going beyond the usual sort of non-operative actions the SC gets away with (the various forms of "pointing out", "recognizing", "lamenting", "expressing outrage", "admiring", "remembering", etc.). To be clear, I understand that the Security Council has the power to ascribe symbolic meaning to its actions, such as sending a warning through a Condemnation or even calling for a change to the game mechanics (so long as it isn't mandating change and is R4 compliant), but this instance does not fall into this category. The second clause is not symbolically acknowledging that it is dealing with untested waters: it is implying that the SC is proactively experimenting to see what it is allowed to get away with.

4) Moving away from the topic of SC rules and towards more practical aspects of this discussion, I would like to point out that if your enemies have enough sway to repeal a Liberation, they would almost certainly have enough sway to shoot down a second Liberation as well.

[Twobagger]

2) If there is anything in this proposal that is brushing up against the boundaries of the rules I think it is the second clause. I think it may be flirting with a Rule 2c technical suggestion (comment?) violation. It basically says "oh look at what the game lets you do, neat". The phrasing may save it though. Also, this tingles my Rule 4d senses (it reads more as the author was unaware than the SC), but I also think it is not actionable.

I don't know, I could go the other way on this. The rule in question reads as follows:

Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions.

This proposal (especially the clause you note) seems like it was explicitly designed to ask the question "Is it legal to Liberate a region which is already Liberated?" There certainly are better places to ask these questions, such as the Q&A thread stuck on this forum. It seems that usually, this rule is applied to bar resolutions from reporting rule violations in resolutions when they should be reporting them to moderators. Even though this proposal doesn't address a rules violation or a technical suggestion, it seems like this proposal certainly raises an issue (this question) that should have been raised somewhere else. This seems kind of borderline to me, though.

[Jakker]

Just as a note, it has been established for years that a region can have multiple Liberations as long as the proposals have unique arguments. See links below:

viewtopic.php?p=7464088#p7464088

viewtopic.php?p=22549607#p22549607

viewtopic.php?p=22802424&sid=7db629e86981747848bddd3207571e71#p22802424

[Cormactopia Prime]

The thing is though, is that you're drawing attention to Belgium when they don't need the attention. Anyone looking at the SC will see this, and Belgium as you know is a founderless region with less than ten endos on its delegate. No one should be drawing attention to a founderless region unless absolutely necessary.

Unibot made clear that while he submitted the proposal, he doesn't intend on taking it further (i.e., to vote), so the attention drawn is minimal. I'd definitely agree with you though that taking it to vote would draw unnecessary attention to the region, so I'm glad that's not happening.

In any case, I don't think raiders exactly forgot about Belgium.

[Neon District]

Dutch Restoration of Order to the Belgian Provinces

[Unibot III]

4) Moving away from the topic of SC rules and towards more practical aspects of this discussion, I would like to point out that if your enemies have enough sway to repeal a Liberation, they would almost certainly have enough sway to shoot down a second Liberation as well.

No, not necessarily.

There’s been some very tight liberations - Liberate Free Thought being the closest - for which a single GCR’s internal politics could have changed the fate of.

I’ve also seen dozens of insta-repeals over the years.

I could anticipate scenarios where you might double-up with liberations, especially if you see your opponent drafting repeal(s) on the official forum or with WALL.

[Eumaeus]

4) Moving away from the topic of SC rules and towards more practical aspects of this discussion, I would like to point out that if your enemies have enough sway to repeal a Liberation, they would almost certainly have enough sway to shoot down a second Liberation as well.

No, not necessarily.

There’s been some very tight liberations - Liberate Free Thought being the closest - for which a single GCR’s internal politics could have changed the fate of.

I’ve also seen dozens of insta-repeals over the years.

I could anticipate scenarios where you might double-up with liberations, especially if you see your opponent drafting repeal(s) on the official forum or with WALL.

I guess you have a point. I do have to say that I do not think this would be a particularly successful counter to an insta-repeal, especially without precedent, mostly because the average WA voter would most definitely react by saying "but we just repealed them!" then voting against. Getting the second Liberation passed before the repeal goes to vote would prove a challenge and voters would probably start getting annoyed if this strategy was attempted over the course of only a couple days. There are other scenarios though in which doubling up might prove more effective.

[Lord Dominator]

In any case, I don't think raiders exactly forgot about Belgium.

We plan on stealing all their tulips in three days time.