[DRAFT] Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders"

[Lord Dominator]

Given the current state of queue, I will likely submit in a few days.

Please don't. We don't condemn certain irl bad actions because the actors revel in the fame. ASE doesn't meet that standard - they're unapologetic for what they've done, because they still believe destroying raider forums was right. The condemnation serves a purpose to this day, with no downside.

I'm fairly sure I've already expressed that I don't consider it relevant that they are unapologetic about their actions & don't like the badge - nor of course does my draft here exactly let them off the hook on anything more than whether or not they have the actual badge.

[The Lake-]

given that the described actions of forum destruction should not be recognized in any manner by this body

[Lord Dominator]

given that the described actions of forum destruction should not be recognized in any manner by this body

Much appreciated on that catch.

[Honeydewistania]

This failed to reach quorum. I have a question though. We’re ASoE the ones that did the destroying, or did they merely condone it? I think that their level of involvement could also be an argument (unless you’re going for the purely OOC bad argument)

[Lord Dominator]

This failed to reach quorum.

That'd be Tinhampton's doing.

have a question though. We’re ASoE the ones that did the destroying, or did they merely condone it? I think that their level of involvement could also be an argument (unless you’re going for the purely OOC bad argument)

I'm not clear what their level of involvement was, but I consider it irrelevant, for which yes I'm going purely for the latter argument.

[WayNeacTia]

This failed to reach quorum.

That'd be Tinhampton's doing.

Why does Tinhampton have an iron in the particular fire?

[Free Las Pinas]

Based on what I’ve read, it was merely their leader who did it, and they might not have been representing ASE when they did it to start with. I also understand that this was brought up 5 years later it happened, only after there were threats to destroy the region and threats fired too by their leader.

Please correct me if you were around. If all I mentioned is right, I do think it’s worth mentioning what ASE’s involvement really was in a future draft.

[Honeydewistania]

Based on what I’ve read, it was merely their leader who did it, and they might not have been representing ASE when they did it to start with. I also understand that this was brought up 5 years later it happened, only after there were threats to destroy the region and threats fired too by their leader.

Please correct me if you were around. If all I mentioned is right, I do think it’s worth mentioning what ASE’s involvement really was in a future draft.

I assume you mean in a future draft of this repeal, and I agree . Restate that forum destruction is bad, but say that they weren’t even guilty of it (if the above is true)

[Free Las Pinas]

I assume you mean in a future draft of this repeal, and I agree . Restate that forum destruction is bad, but say that they weren’t even guilty of it (if the above is true)

Yep, that’s what I mean.

[Lord Dominator]

That'd be Tinhampton's doing.

Why does Tinhampton have an iron in the particular fire?

"Please unapprove Lord Dominator's proposal to Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders" by clicking here. You may have received a telegram from Cretox State - a nation which, until a few months ago, was not significantly engaged in international politics - urging you to approve this repeal on the basis that such actions should not be recognised by the Security Council, a restatement of this proposal's main argument.
This repeal relies on specious reasoning: X is a morally abhorrent action. Region 1 was Condemned for doing X. Regions 2 and 3 did X, but they were not Condemned. X should not be recognised by the SC. Therefore, X can never be Condemned and Region 1's Condemnation must be repealed. In which case, how does "some regions but not others have been Condemned for X" become "X cannot be Condemned under any circumstances?" Repeals that are grounded in fuzzy logic should not be allowed to pass; I thus invite you to unapprove "Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders.""
Ta muchly,
Tinhampton"

Based on what I’ve read, it was merely their leader who did it, and they might not have been representing ASE when they did it to start with. I also understand that this was brought up 5 years later it happened, only after there were threats to destroy the region and threats fired too by their leader.

Please correct me if you were around. If all I mentioned is right, I do think it’s worth mentioning what ASE’s involvement really was in a future draft.

I assume you mean in a future draft of this repeal, and I agree . Restate that forum destruction is bad, but say that they weren’t even guilty of it (if the above is true)

Regardless of the truth, I consider the argument to be a distraction (and an argument I'm not well informed on to being with) from my main point and won't be adding anything about it. The lack of any other argument than the singular one I have is deliberate.

[Honeydewistania]

Imo, ‘condemning a whole region for the actions of one’ and ‘the region didn’t do much worthy of a condemnation’ are much better arguments than ‘the region is too bad to be condemned’. But it’s your proposal, and I support it (to an extent) regardless.

[Jakker]

Imo, ‘condemning a whole region for the actions of one’ and ‘the region didn’t do much worthy of a condemnation’ are much better arguments than ‘the region is too bad to be condemned’. But it’s your proposal, and I support it (to an extent) regardless.

From what I can tell, it is not clear that one person did all of the forum destruction. All of these RMB posts that I link below seem to tell somewhat different stories. I think it does seem clear that multiple parties were involved, but as to all of the involved party's direct affiliation with ASE is where it gets a bit tricky I think. Regardless, I don't think it is accurate to definitively say that the forum destruction was all done by one person.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=9820783
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=811281
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=604086

Also, I am a little confused by the argument that similar acts of forum destruction have not been worthy of condemnation. Again, hard to know exact involvement, but it seems like they had connections with the destruction of multiple forums. I think that raises the bar a bit compared to a single incident. Condemn Unknown was repealed but as far as I can tell, it was largely because they directly apologized to those affected for the forum destruction. ASE did no such thing.

[Daytime to Night]

Based on what I’ve read, it was merely their leader who did it, and they might not have been representing ASE when they did it to start with. I also understand that this was brought up 5 years later it happened, only after there were threats to destroy the region and threats fired too by their leader.

Please correct me if you were around. If all I mentioned is right, I do think it’s worth mentioning what ASE’s involvement really was in a future draft.

I assume you mean in a future draft of this repeal, and I agree . Restate that forum destruction is bad, but say that they weren’t even guilty of it (if the above is true)

Guilt by association. Eurosoviets (ASE) was commander of the RLA military but the acts of forum destruction were committed by their intelligence wing, led by Blackbird of the Proletariat Coalition. Actual forum destructions referred to in the condemnation* were committed by The Red Factions/Ketoprofen who were also both in the Proletariat Coalition (TPC), not ASE, and organised over instant message. It was always claimed as a TPC operation and the fact that this Condemnation is targetted at someone else is just odd.

The only person from ASE that was alleged to have had some involvement was Xha'dam, but an internal RLA investigation cleared them - obviously to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The actual destruction of the TBH and DEN forums was committed by the Red Factions under the name Grippsholm and the destruction of the Invaders Army forum was committed by Ketoprofen under the name Sekuu.

The issue appears to be that there are few people still around who like/liked Eurosoviets and were all too happy to pin this on him - not helped by the fact that he continued to celebrate the destructions years later and threatened to come out of retirement and destroy forums. For the same reason, people are probably unlikely to be too enthusiastic about removing a condemnation from ASE, even if it misstates their involvement. Eurosoviets was aggressively anti-invader but also made a lot of enemies amongst defenders by trying to impose his political views on matters, including reforms in ADN (that led to him leaving the organisation).

There is some more discussion on this from Onder here (who was an RLA Central Soviet member at the time): viewtopic.php?p=21573181#p21573181

*iirc there has been allegations that others were committed but not mentioned in the resolution, and the circumstances of those may have been different

[Lord Dominator]

Indeed, the disagreements that DtN alludes to, as well as the somewhat complex history are what I'm deliberately avoiding - that and I'm reasonably sure that attempting to say they (ASE) didn't do it would probably bring someone out of the woodwork, so I'm sticking with my best argument (in my view).

[Daytime to Night]

It should also be noted that ASE members revel in being condemned for their actions and being the scary, raider bullying defenders. Xha'dam at the time stated:

If you would, I would appreciate it if you could arrange for an additional condemnation of myself. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the mark my region carries. That codified sign that we are your opposition. That we stand against what you stand for. That we are not like you. I want that also, on a personal level. That my name is still spoken after so long is great for my ego, but if you could go that extra mile and brand me as your enemy, officially, I would be most grateful.

Yours truly and forever,
Xha'dam

Plenty of reasons to repeal this, but every attempt seems to result in wires being crossed and people ending up too distracted to decide why they should be repealing it.

[Lord Dominator]

It should also be noted that ASE members revel in being condemned for their actions and being the scary, raider bullying defenders. Xha'dam at the time stated:

If you would, I would appreciate it if you could arrange for an additional condemnation of myself. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the mark my region carries. That codified sign that we are your opposition. That we stand against what you stand for. That we are not like you. I want that also, on a personal level. That my name is still spoken after so long is great for my ego, but if you could go that extra mile and brand me as your enemy, officially, I would be most grateful.

Yours truly and forever,
Xha'dam

Plenty of reasons to repeal this, but every attempt seems to result in wires being crossed and people ending up too distracted to decide why they should be repealing it.

Indeed - my inspiration was from the last full attempt, where I viewed the argument here being the single best one (and based on the various votes of the major regions, I likely right).

[Tinhampton]

That'd be Tinhampton's doing.

Why does Tinhampton have an iron in the particular fire?

LD's first telegram for approval was sent upon submission, which is normal. What I had a concern with was the timing of the second approval telegram, which I received from Cretox State 30 hours (i.e. more than a day) before the proposal went to vote, when it needed 13 approvals to get to the floor. I would have understood the need for this had it been sent 3 hours or even 13 hours before it was set to fall out of queue - doing so thirty hours beforehand when the proposal in question requires one approval every two-and-a-quarter hours, however, more resembles an attitude of "we need to get this to quorum ASAP" than "we just need one last push to get our proposal to vote."

I can reassure you that, had Cretox submitted his second campaign later, I would have allowed this to get to vote. (I once successfully submitted a second approval telegram for Morover's repeal of Military Identification Tag Act when it required something like 22 approvals in 12 hours.)

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Why does Tinhampton have an iron in the particular fire?

LD's first telegram for approval was sent upon submission, which is normal. What I had a concern with was the timing of the second approval telegram, which I received from Cretox State 30 hours (i.e. more than a day) before the proposal went to vote, when it needed 13 approvals to get to the floor. I would have understood the need for this had it been sent 3 hours or even 13 hours before it was set to fall out of queue - doing so thirty hours beforehand when the proposal in question requires one approval every two-and-a-quarter hours, however, more resembles an attitude of "we need to get this to quorum ASAP" than "we just need one last push to get our proposal to vote."

I can reassure you that, had Cretox submitted his second campaign later, I would have allowed this to get to vote. (I once successfully submitted a second approval telegram for Morover's repeal of Military Identification Tag Act when it required something like 22 approvals in 12 hours.)

Why do you care so much about some arbitrary standard on timing a second campaign run that you will run a counter-campaign as a result?

[Honeydewistania]

LD's first telegram for approval was sent upon submission, which is normal. What I had a concern with was the timing of the second approval telegram, which I received from Cretox State 30 hours (i.e. more than a day) before the proposal went to vote, when it needed 13 approvals to get to the floor. I would have understood the need for this had it been sent 3 hours or even 13 hours before it was set to fall out of queue - doing so thirty hours beforehand when the proposal in question requires one approval every two-and-a-quarter hours, however, more resembles an attitude of "we need to get this to quorum ASAP" than "we just need one last push to get our proposal to vote."

I can reassure you that, had Cretox submitted his second campaign later, I would have allowed this to get to vote. (I once successfully submitted a second approval telegram for Morover's repeal of Military Identification Tag Act when it required something like 22 approvals in 12 hours.)

Why do you care so much about some arbitrary standard on timing a second campaign run that you will run a counter-campaign as a result?

To be honest, the recent ruling on campaign telegrams and the subsequent flurry of them has annoyed me to an extent - more campaign telegrams means more delegates blocking, which means harder for things to get to vote, such as my stuff. So I think what Cretox did was completely unnecessary, as there was more than enough time for it to get to vote. However I’m sure that’s not Tinhampton’s issue, since they are in fact the biggest criminal with regards to this ‘spam’

[Praeceps]

I find it quite disappointing that Tin took an elitist stance and is deriding newer participants in the Security Council.

[WayNeacTia]

However I’m sure that’s not Tinhampton’s issue, since they are in fact the biggest criminal with regards to this ‘spam’

Yes.... It has become an issue. There is however options to combat this. It takes one all of five minutes to spin up a free AWS Windows Server VPS. The one can drop a handy dandy telegram client on such. Create a puppet nation, and a region to acquire an API key. The one can pretty much run counter-campaigns to every one of Tinhampton's proposals forever. Ain't politics grand?

[Cretox State]

Why does Tinhampton have an iron in the particular fire?

LD's first telegram for approval was sent upon submission, which is normal. What I had a concern with was the timing of the second approval telegram, which I received from Cretox State 30 hours (i.e. more than a day) before the proposal went to vote, when it needed 13 approvals to get to the floor. I would have understood the need for this had it been sent 3 hours or even 13 hours before it was set to fall out of queue - doing so thirty hours beforehand when the proposal in question requires one approval every two-and-a-quarter hours, however, more resembles an attitude of "we need to get this to quorum ASAP" than "we just need one last push to get our proposal to vote."

I can reassure you that, had Cretox submitted his second campaign later, I would have allowed this to get to vote. (I once successfully submitted a second approval telegram for Morover's repeal of Military Identification Tag Act when it required something like 22 approvals in 12 hours.)

You would have allowed this to get to vote. Alright then.

So your argument in your counter-campaign TG was that I haven't been involved in "international politics" until a few months ago, and therefore anything I say should be immediately disregarded, right? And now you're trying to justify the counter-campaign by saying that my campaign TG was arguably unnecessary (it wasn't- approvals were stagnating, and 17 to go in roughly a day warranted a second campaign in my opinion). So your logic is that an allegedly superfluous campaign forced you to... send out a third TG? Do I have that right?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you either have a vested stake here or this is the classic attention-seeking Tinhampton Special^TM.

[Refuge Isle]

Why does Tinhampton have an iron in the particular fire?

LD's first telegram for approval was sent upon submission, which is normal. What I had a concern with was the timing of the second approval telegram, which I received from Cretox State 30 hours (i.e. more than a day) before the proposal went to vote, when it needed 13 approvals to get to the floor. I would have understood the need for this had it been sent 3 hours or even 13 hours before it was set to fall out of queue - doing so thirty hours beforehand when the proposal in question requires one approval every two-and-a-quarter hours, however, more resembles an attitude of "we need to get this to quorum ASAP" than "we just need one last push to get our proposal to vote."

I can reassure you that, had Cretox submitted his second campaign later, I would have allowed this to get to vote. (I once successfully submitted a second approval telegram for Morover's repeal of Military Identification Tag Act when it required something like 22 approvals in 12 hours.)

The reason for your involvement is still unclear to me, as I haven't the first clue of what could possibly justify being obstructionist on this topic, or how it impacts you. I would interpret the swipe at Cretox to be some extrordinary display of elitism, most especially when he has proven to be a far more palletable World Assembly author. As a result, I can only assume that the point of the counter-campaign was to exercise power over the quorum process to recover relevancy after your recent marathon of defeats.

Such misrepresentative messages are better served in this debate thread than a telegram. Certainly I'm now vasly more inclined to support this proposal in the future.

[Honeydewistania]

most especially when he has proven to be a far more palletable World Assembly author.

Palatable to read, not so palatable when you read between the lines... (GA#400, GA#509, GA#510, SC#318)... though I’d take GMO International Trade Accord any day over Pedagogical Freedom

[WayNeacTia]

So your argument in your counter-campaign TG was that I haven't been involved in "international politics" until a few months ago, and therefore anything I say should be immediately disregarded, right?

If this is Tinhampton’s motive, I suspect it may be an attempt to divert attention away from the colossal ass whooping that pretty much all of her proposals have been taking the last little while. If so, this was a serious miscalculation on her part, that is likely to have long term consequences on any further attempts at legislation on Tin’s part.

I for one intend to counter-campaign ANY proposal put forth by Tinhampton, on the grounds she is far to new to be passing legislation.