[PASSED] Condemn Raionitu

[The Dragon Spire Order]

I am opposed to this due to the fact, if they've conducted two large-scale significant raids already. I doubt condemming them will stop them. Instead, I would suggest we put systems in place to prevent our own reigon from being raided.

[Atsvea]

I mean, this isn't meant to stop them

If anything it's a commend for raiders

[Comfed]

I am opposed to this due to the fact, if they've conducted two large-scale significant raids already. I doubt condemming them will stop them. Instead, I would suggest we put systems in place to prevent our own reigon from being raided.

That’s not the point of condemnations.

[Determined Nation]

People voting against this proposal are you crazy this nation deserves punishment for it's wrong actions! I am in complete shock all the nations voting against this resolution. I am just really confused why you want this nation to go unpunished.

[SherpDaWerp]

Against 'cause of the infiltration raids.

It's a bit of a low blow to lie to a regional community (especially a UCR one, that already would struggle with recruitment and player interest - building up to 100 members is no small feat and represents significant investiture of time) and appear to be a helpful member of said community only to then turn around and destroy all their hard work.

[Honeydewistania]

Against 'cause of the infiltration raids.

It's a bit of a low blow to lie to a regional community (especially a UCR one, that already would struggle with recruitment and player interest - building up to 100 members is no small feat and represents significant investiture of time) and appear to be a helpful member of said community only to then turn around and destroy all their hard work.

This is a denouncing that though, but I guess it can be seen as an advertisement or promotion of these raids

[SherpDaWerp]

Against 'cause of the infiltration raids.

It's a bit of a low blow to lie to a regional community (especially a UCR one, that already would struggle with recruitment and player interest - building up to 100 members is no small feat and represents significant investiture of time) and appear to be a helpful member of said community only to then turn around and destroy all their hard work.

This is a denouncing that though, but I guess it can be seen as an advertisement or promotion of these raids

It's not denouncing it, it's "denouncing" it. This is a badge of honor and we all know it.

I don't think destroying a regional community via infiltration is worthy of recognition, be it IC good or IC bad. It's not difficult, it's not showing that you're a skilled raider (good at switching, good at triggering, good at amassing forces), it's showing that you're good at being deceitful, conniving, and untrustworthy. Native communities, especially ones that have no founder/executive delegate, can be GP-naive, and exploiting that naivety to sneak your way into destroying their region doesn't demonstrate to me that this nominee is worthy of recognition.

[Honeydewistania]

Hmm, you have a point

[A Bloodred Moon]

I don't think destroying a regional community via infiltration is worthy of recognition, be it IC good or IC bad. It's not difficult, it's not showing that you're a skilled raider (good at switching, good at triggering, good at amassing forces), it's showing that you're good at being deceitful, conniving, and untrustworthy. Native communities, especially ones that have no founder/executive delegate, can be GP-naive, and exploiting that naivety to sneak your way into destroying their region doesn't demonstrate to me that this nominee is worthy of recognition.

Apologies for the late reply. Even accepting the "region-destroying with aid from infiltration shouldn't be recognised by a condemnation" narrative (which I believe is flawed in and of itself - which in-game actions are more condemnable, after all?), there is several flaws I wish to point out:

From my knowledge, only a single region mentioned above was permanently destroyed by Rai's infiltration work, Illuminati. Illuminati's community was already tearing itself apart before the raid - several natives were in favour of burning it, including the former founder (and, if I do recall correctly, several of the former natives driven out by the founder aided in the locking down of the region). And the ones who didn't want to see it burned were most definitely not ignorant or naive of gameplay - they had several border control officers watching for invasions every update and they had 50+ endorsements on the delegate. While I believe founderless natives aren't naive at all of invasions (quite the contrary, in fact), Illuminati most certainly wasn't. To claim infiltrating and invading the place took no skill at all is false. As for amassing numbers, you are also incorrect - Illuminati saw over 50 updaters and more than 140 endorsements deploy in total.

Furthermore, condemning for skillfully infiltrating is not without precedent: see condemn Darkesia as one example. Condemn Lone Wolves United and Condemn The Black Hawks also include references towards infiltration work. This is not a new thing.

[Jakker]

This is a denouncing that though, but I guess it can be seen as an advertisement or promotion of these raids

It's not denouncing it, it's "denouncing" it. This is a badge of honor and we all know it.

I don't think destroying a regional community via infiltration is worthy of recognition, be it IC good or IC bad. It's not difficult, it's not showing that you're a skilled raider (good at switching, good at triggering, good at amassing forces), it's showing that you're good at being deceitful, conniving, and untrustworthy. Native communities, especially ones that have no founder/executive delegate, can be GP-naive, and exploiting that naivety to sneak your way into destroying their region doesn't demonstrate to me that this nominee is worthy of recognition.

Something I think that people keep forgetting about condemnations is that regardless of whether a nominee wants it or not, the majority of NS sees a condemnation as exactly what it is. Someone wanting a condemnation or not does nothing to change the condemnation itself: A symbolic acknowledgement that the region or player has committed actions that are condemnable. Do you know how often I receive telegrams or messages either saying "we don't want to join your region because you are condemned?" or "You are a condemned mod so I do not trust you" etc. At the end of the day, condemnations are still largely seen from NS as what they have always been.

Some of the conversations I have seen about condemnations of late really confuse me including yours. You say that infiltration is not worthy of recognition because it is deceitful and "not difficult." In regards to the deceitfulness, NationStates is literally founded and runs on deceitfulness daily. The level of that varies in politics, but I would find it incredibly hard to believe if someone, specifically in gameplay, has not been fully honest at one point or another. Now whether that becomes worthy of recognition is when it leads to actions that are condemnable. It sounds like by your logic that coups are not condemnable because they involve all of the characteristics you mentioned?

Well maybe you might say that coups are different because they are more difficult or maybe they involve communities that are more aware of gameplay. I think this notion of deciding what is difficult or not is subjective and tough to quantify. Also, NS is not the same as it was a decade ago. I would argue most regions are at least aware of raiding and many actively work to stop it in some way through passwords, non-exec delegacies, etc. There is a reason why the number of founderless regions that have more than a few regions have continuously decreased over the years. Virtually all of the regions mentioned in this proposal had various levels of GP understanding and to say they are naive is underestimating their own abilities and region as a whole. There will obviously be times when some infiltrations are less work than others, but some definitely require months upon months of work. Just like sometimes some occupations or tag raids or liberations have fewer challenges than others. For example, Illuminati was a region that was very much aware of GP practices. They even had active security where Border Control Regional Officers would watch the region against raids. Rai was able to eventually become a BC officer as well. Saying that knowing how to infiltrate well and actually succeeding is not a skill comparable to switching or gathering troops is ignorant of the practice itself.

[Refuge Isle]

From my knowledge, only a single region mentioned above was permanently destroyed by Rai's infiltration work, Illuminati.

Perhaps in the text, however the target is pretty much inseperable from that idea. I associate Rai with infiltration and, to my knowledge, so does he. As he said after RaiderCon 2018 "Don't make someone vice and send a regionwide telling people to endorse them when they've only been in your founderless region for 2 weeks. It won't end well, it's probably me." In some regards, the target transcends the draft content, just as many people voted down Souls for personal reasons.

This is not a new thing.

It is not, but the standards of expectations for this present Security Council are changing. Maybe the current politicial sentiment will shift back, maybe it won't. But condemnations have very strict expectations at the moment.

In regards to the deceitfulness, NationStates is literally founded and runs on deceitfulness daily. The level of that varies in politics, but I would find it incredibly hard to believe if someone, specifically in gameplay, has not been fully honest at one point or another.

When Somy released the alignment test 2.0 in the gameplay board, he made a note that his experience is largely based in being stuck inside a defender bubble, so the test might not be as accurate as it could be. I think it's worth obversing that you are in a similar raider bubble and this makes up the lens you see the game through. There are deceptive elements in NS, yes. To say that the game runs on a concept of deceit, and infiltration is acceptable because every action already leads up to a backstab anyway, is absolutely indicitive of that perspective limitation.

By the numbers, NS runs on 1) RP and RP communities. 2) social interactions, for everyone wants to get along and have friends and feel like they're contributing to something. 3) players interest for power and influence. But make no mistake, infiltrations are successful because they play off of 2 and 3 with players that aren't expecting or used to it, without those dynamics, infiltration would have no playground to scheme in.

[HumanSanity]

Something I think that people keep forgetting about condemnations is that regardless of whether a nominee wants it or not, the majority of NS sees a condemnation as exactly what it is. Someone wanting a condemnation or not does nothing to change the condemnation itself: A symbolic acknowledgement that the region or player has committed actions that are condemnable. Do you know how often I receive telegrams or messages either saying "we don't want to join your region because you are condemned?" or "You are a condemned mod so I do not trust you" etc. At the end of the day, condemnations are still largely seen from NS as what they have always been.

It's impossible to know how many people are turned off because of a Condemn and how many are attracted by it. I tend to think highly enough of your intelligence though that if Condemns didn't help TBH attract members, it wouldn't be a consistent feature of your recruitment telegrams.

Ultimately, the "condemns bad bc incentivize raiding" argument has two levels. 1) It's a form of propaganda for recruiting (as explained above). 2) Condemns like this are capstones to a career of occupations, infiltration, and some region destruction. If raiders want to generate awards systems to incentivize people to be better raiders, I'm inclined to make them do that work instead of having a SC Condemnation serve as an identifier of the crème de la crème of raiding, a goal for raiders to aspire towards as they go about their day-to-day political game.

I would argue most regions are at least aware of raiding and many actively work to stop it in some way through passwords, non-exec delegacies, etc. There is a reason why the number of founderless regions that have more than a few regions have continuously decreased over the years. Virtually all of the regions mentioned in this proposal had various levels of GP understanding and to say they are naive is underestimating their own abilities and region as a whole.

I think it's worth saying that for the vast, vast majority of founderless regions that are "prepared" for a raid or have some kind of GP knowledge, that knowledge only exists because it had to out of practical necessity. This awareness is itself coerced and therefore isn't real evidence of them having agreed/consented to playing an R/D game.

[Jakker]

Something I think that people keep forgetting about condemnations is that regardless of whether a nominee wants it or not, the majority of NS sees a condemnation as exactly what it is. Someone wanting a condemnation or not does nothing to change the condemnation itself: A symbolic acknowledgement that the region or player has committed actions that are condemnable. Do you know how often I receive telegrams or messages either saying "we don't want to join your region because you are condemned?" or "You are a condemned mod so I do not trust you" etc. At the end of the day, condemnations are still largely seen from NS as what they have always been.

It's impossible to know how many people are turned off because of a Condemn and how many are attracted by it. I tend to think highly enough of your intelligence though that if Condemns didn't help TBH attract members, it wouldn't be a consistent feature of your recruitment telegrams.

Ultimately, the "condemns bad bc incentivize raiding" argument has two levels. 1) It's a form of propaganda for recruiting (as explained above). 2) Condemns like this are capstones to a career of occupations, infiltration, and some region destruction. If raiders want to generate awards systems to incentivize people to be better raiders, I'm inclined to make them do that work instead of having a SC Condemnation serve as an identifier of the crème de la crème of raiding, a goal for raiders to aspire towards as they go about their day-to-day political game.

I would argue that there is a difference between regional condemnations and individual player condemnations. Player C&Cs play a smaller role in promoting recruitment to a specific region, but could still be involved. My point was not to say that condemnations are not also regarded as deserved by various people, but that the majority of the game still see it as an acknowledgement of condemning someone's actions. Does having a regional condemnation motivate some players to move there because of that? Sure. Are there also players that do not move to a region because they have a condemnation? Absolutely. We need to stop seeing things as black and white and as far as I can tell, condemnations have never been black and white.

I would argue most regions are at least aware of raiding and many actively work to stop it in some way through passwords, non-exec delegacies, etc. There is a reason why the number of founderless regions that have more than a few regions have continuously decreased over the years. Virtually all of the regions mentioned in this proposal had various levels of GP understanding and to say they are naive is underestimating their own abilities and region as a whole.

I think it's worth saying that for the vast, vast majority of founderless regions that are "prepared" for a raid or have some kind of GP knowledge, that knowledge only exists because it had to out of practical necessity. This awareness is itself coerced and therefore isn't real evidence of them having agreed/consented to playing an R/D game.

My point was to discount the notion that infiltration is somehow not the same level of skill as tagging, triggering, etc. I'm not sure what the relevance of your point is to what I am saying about the level of skill involved in infiltration.

[A Bloodred Moon]

In some regards, the target transcends the draft content, just as many people voted down Souls for personal reasons.

Souls’ condemnation differed from this one in both context and writing. I am mildly surprised this seems to be having more trouble passing than that condemnation, being honest, but it is what it is.

By the numbers, NS runs on 1) RP and RP communities. 2) social interactions, for everyone wants to get along and have friends and feel like they're contributing to something. 3) players interest for power and influence. But make no mistake, infiltrations are successful because they play off of 2 and 3 with players that aren't expecting or used to it, without those dynamics, infiltration would have no playground to scheme in.

In regards to the numbers, what are you basing that on?

As for the rest, are you claiming infiltration requires targets to be naive and unaware?

[HumanSanity]

I would argue that there is a difference between regional condemnations and individual player condemnations. Player C&Cs play a smaller role in promoting recruitment to a specific region, but could still be involved. My point was not to say that condemnations are not also regarded as deserved by various people, but that the majority of the game still see it as an acknowledgement of condemning someone's actions. Does having a regional condemnation motivate some players to move there because of that? Sure. Are there also players that do not move to a region because they have a condemnation? Absolutely. We need to stop seeing things as black and white and as far as I can tell, condemnations have never been black and white.

I don't see why anything I said is an effort to oversimplify. Sure, sometimes and at some moments, a Condemnation's effect goes one way whereas at other times and at other moments it goes the other way. We're trying to arbitrarily decide what, on balance, does and does not work. We have few ways to really measure these things, but one way is how the players who are the subject of the Condemnation use and explain it.

Of course, my original post hinted that I certainly understood these conflicting interests ("It's impossible to know how many people are turned off because of a Condemn and how many are attracted by it" which is a shorter version of what you said), but it was easier to act like I was engaging in some "black and white" thinking to support your argument.

Further, your argument about the distinction between nation and region commendations ignores the second part of my argument -- players who oppose raiding shouldn't just throw their hands up that "well it's IC bad to raid so Condemn away" because by ceding that overall approach we allow raiders to turn a Condemnation into the crowning achievement of raiding.

I think it's worth saying that for the vast, vast majority of founderless regions that are "prepared" for a raid or have some kind of GP knowledge, that knowledge only exists because it had to out of practical necessity. This awareness is itself coerced and therefore isn't real evidence of them having agreed/consented to playing an R/D game.

My point was to discount the notion that infiltration is somehow not the same level of skill as tagging, triggering, etc. I'm not sure what the relevance of your point is to what I am saying about the level of skill involved in infiltration.

Of course. But you layered your arguments, hinting at a warrant for your main argument (about skill) which had an independent and obvious implication (that people could and have prepared for raids, therefore it's OK to raid them). I feel okay about answering the argument you were subtly making even if you weren't making it explicitly

[Jakker]

Further, your argument about the distinction between nation and region commendations ignores the second part of my argument -- players who oppose raiding shouldn't just throw their hands up that "well it's IC bad to raid so Condemn away" because by ceding that overall approach we allow raiders to turn a Condemnation into the crowning achievement of raiding.

The reality is that the SC has a lot of factors outside of a player's control with whether something passes or not. I would recommend to anyone that they should not play with the intentions of getting a commendation or condemnation one day because more often than not it is not just about their own efforts in the game. People can oppose raiding and also support condemnations about raiding. Those two are not nor should they be exclusive.

If there are players like you who believe actions like in this proposal are condemnable, but you are choosing not to condemn them because you oppose the behavior, then you are literally going against what a condemnation is. Now, I get the whole concept of what you are getting at, but it sounds like you are essentially advocating for the removal of condemnations all together in some sense. If the condemnations that the SC will allow are only for behavior that is "IC bad" but not bad enough that someone actually opposes it, it greatly limits the badge as a whole. So by that point, perhaps either recommend the removal of condemnations all together, a rewrite of what they are, or some kind of effect if one receives them.

[HumanSanity]

If there are players like you who believe actions like in this proposal are condemnable, but you are choosing not to condemn them because you oppose the behavior, then you are literally going against what a condemnation is. Now, I get the whole concept of what you are getting at, but it sounds like you are essentially advocating for the removal of condemnations all together in some sense. If the condemnations that the SC will allow are only for behavior that is "IC bad" but not bad enough that someone actually opposes it, it greatly limits the badge as a whole. So by that point, perhaps either recommend the removal of condemnations all together, a rewrite of what they are, or some kind of effect if one receives them.

Nah, you could use condemnations for lots of things. I supported Condemn Noah's Second Country because the way Noah played the TCALS loophole distorted the card market significantly, but would eventually be technically fixed and wasn't the kind of behavior I cared about not incentivizing. I supported Condemn Australian RePublic because their work on issue writing is impressive but how they engage with the broader community is somewhat antagonistic, and the Condemn wasn't an effort to valorize that. I would support Condemn Auphelia today (I didn't at the time, ah well, my opinion changed) because it was a creative way to recognize someone for bolstering RMB activity. That's just the last 5 months of SC activity and it demonstrates that Condemns can make sense for cards, issue writing, issue answering, and various forms of role playing.

Could you use condemnations for gameplay? You probably could. You could condemn a player who's neglect caused a regional community to stagnate. You could condemn a player who passed a legislative agenda which the SC disapproved of or who promoted extensive isolationism in their region. You could (in some contexts) condemn a player who attempted to manipulate a regional election. Just not a raider who is taking the Condemn as a positive reflection on their career.

[Jakker]

Could you use condemnations for gameplay? You probably could. You could condemn a player who's neglect caused a regional community to stagnate. You could condemn a player who passed a legislative agenda which the SC disapproved of or who promoted extensive isolationism in their region. You could (in some contexts) condemn a player who attempted to manipulate a regional election. Just not a raider who is taking the Condemn as a positive reflection on their career.

You are speaking a lot in theory. I can promise you that it is highly unlikely that any of those things would ever be sufficient for a condemnation, especially someone who just stopped caring about their region.

[HumanSanity]

Could you use condemnations for gameplay? You probably could. You could condemn a player who's neglect caused a regional community to stagnate. You could condemn a player who passed a legislative agenda which the SC disapproved of or who promoted extensive isolationism in their region. You could (in some contexts) condemn a player who attempted to manipulate a regional election. Just not a raider who is taking the Condemn as a positive reflection on their career.

You are speaking a lot in theory. I can promise you that it is highly unlikely that any of those things would ever be sufficient for a condemnation, especially someone who just stopped caring about their region.

I think we all realize a condemn is made up of many actions. One of the things I said would not be sufficient for a condemnation. However, a pattern of actions, which could include some of those things, would be sufficient.

We're arguing about models of admissibility of actions for an SC Condemn. We're not arguing about what the standard is for a condemn.

Even if what you're saying is true, Condemns can still exist in my model -- just maybe not GP condemns.

[Jakker]

Even if what you're saying is true, Condemns can still exist in my model -- just maybe not GP condemns.

What I am saying is true. You are essentially advocating for GP to not exist in condemnations. If one includes issue answering, then maybe that would be there, but that is basically it. The fact that you would rather condemn someone for basically doing nothing long-term which caused a region to go stagnant is mind-boggling. The SC has largely been GP dominate over the years and I can appreciate the move towards acknowledging other communities. But essentially advocating for the removal of gameplay in condemnations is silly.

[HumanSanity]

Even if what you're saying is true, Condemns can still exist in my model -- just maybe not GP condemns.

What I am saying is true. You are essentially advocating for GP to not exist in condemnations. If one includes issue answering, then maybe that would be there, but that is basically it. The fact that you would rather condemn someone for basically doing nothing long-term which caused a region to go stagnant is mind-boggling. The SC has largely been GP dominate over the years and I can appreciate the move towards acknowledging other communities. But essentially advocating for the removal of gameplay in condemnations is silly.

At this point you must be deliberately taking what I say out of context. Obviously sometimes we snip parts of quotes, but by eliminating the previous two sentences you paint it as my intent to eliminate GP from the SC, which is self-evidently inaccurate, and you take out the distinction between sufficiency for a Condemn vs a model of what is in a Condemn.

You focus on oversimplifying a point and mocking it and not the substance of the point itself in realistic context. At no point did I say those things alone constitute a Condemn, I suspect we all agree a condemn is about a narrative supported by a set of actions.

My point is that you could have a Condemnation narrative about how someone mis-led a region or a community. You could use a variety of things as evidence. For example, you could point to the way they slowly took away or sabotaged the democratic institutions of the region and argue that killed activity in the region. You could argue they botched an international incident which further isolated their region or caused something bad to happen in their region. You could argue they placed their personal power above their capability to serve well, using unconventional or anti-democratic means to cling to power at the expense of their regional community. You could argue they deliberately promoted less capable individuals to solidify their grip on power. Moreover, a Condemn could posit a broad critique of someone's time in leadership, which happens regularly in NS when challengers run against incumbents in elections, and explain how that had global reach/effect.

[Praeceps]

You could condemn a player who's neglect caused a regional community to stagnate.

I'll draft your condemnation right away!

jk jk, luv u

[SherpDaWerp]

If raiders want to generate awards systems to incentivize people to be better raiders, I'm inclined to make them do that work instead of having a SC Condemnation serve as an identifier of the crème de la crème of raiding, a goal for raiders to aspire towards as they go about their day-to-day political game.

Look, I'd like to clarify that I'm 100% ok with condemns serving as a "capstone of raiding". It's an equally valid form of R/D (one that I personally dislike due to its negative impact on innocent randoms, but still equally valid) - if defenders can use commends as a capstone of defending then why not the other way around? C/Cs should be for "you've consistently played the {good|bad} guy at a high level for some time".

My point was to discount the notion that infiltration is somehow not the same level of skill as tagging, triggering, etc. I'm not sure what the relevance of your point is to what I am saying about the level of skill involved in infiltration.

Perhaps in the text, however the target is pretty much inseperable from that idea. I associate Rai with infiltration and, to my knowledge, so does he. As he said after RaiderCon 2018 "Don't make someone vice and send a regionwide telling people to endorse them when they've only been in your founderless region for 2 weeks. It won't end well, it's probably me." In some regards, the target transcends the draft content, just as many people voted down Souls for personal reasons.

Which of these is it? Either it's 2 weeks of minimal effort and pretending to show support for a region, or it's the same level as other raiding stuff.

I think it's important to note that I'm not looking at this in black-and-white like "infiltration bad, <other stuff> good". There's two aspects to the infiltration raiding that I take umbrage to - the "lower skill" aspect, and the "destroying communities" aspect. In regard to the first aspect - when all you have to do to complete the raid is maintain a nation and participate in a minor region's affairs, it looks and seems a lot less intrinsically difficult than setting up switchers and doing a massive tag run, or gathering 50+ other invaders and all triggering simultaneously to take the delegacy. In regard to the second aspect - destroying communities by infiltration is significantly worse than by outright invasion, because you're exploiting a community in order to destroy it, which is patently horrible. That said, the paragraph directly below this covers that aspect entirely and removes it from my complaints, but it still factored into my reasoning making my last post.

And Jakker - yes, I would say that couping is a more valid form of infiltration, because you have to be invested for a decent amount of time to get anywhere. I'll use TNP as an example cause I know more about them than other GCRs - it would take months, perhaps years of work to get to the level of influence (not the stat) and power to get on the Security Council, and from there to taking the delegacy is still more work. In other GCRs with harder endo-caps, maybe it's easier, but I feel like the system of warning and ejecting anyone who even gets close to the endocap is a pretty difficult one to pass without investing significant time and effort into becoming a member of that region's government and gaining enough trust that you can start to amass a decent amount of influence.

From my knowledge, only a single region mentioned above was permanently destroyed by Rai's infiltration work, Illuminati. Illuminati's community was already tearing itself apart before the raid - several natives were in favour of burning it, including the former founder (and, if I do recall correctly, several of the former natives driven out by the founder aided in the locking down of the region).

Ah, that blunts my argument a bit. I'll take that - if they didn't actually destroy some random person's hard work then voting for this condemn is a significantly easier pill to swallow. Still not doing it though.

I believe founderless natives aren't naive at all of invasions (quite the contrary, in fact), Illuminati most certainly wasn't. To claim infiltrating and invading the place took no skill at all is false. As for amassing numbers, you are also incorrect - Illuminati saw over 50 updaters and more than 140 endorsements deploy in total.

They aren't naive of all invasions, yes, but when a new member shows up and helps out with the community, the naivety is in trusting them fully and instantly (see the 2 weeks thing above). You can be vigilant against external threats quite easily, but my point revolves around the idea that infiltration sidesteps that process and exploits natives' trust and willingness to give new members opportunities.

And while it's also true that having additional external forces is part of the raid, the "skill" involved in deploying them is less than in an outright raid, as the region has been weakened by the infiltrator (and in the case of Illuminati, also weakened by internal squabbles). And the 140 number is a bit dodgy - that's essentially saying "well they got 90 pilers, gg congrats". Gathering pilers is just going on discord or forums or whatever and saying "hey can i get some more endorsements pls and thanks".

Furthermore, condemning for skillfully infiltrating is not without precedent: see condemn Darkesia as one example. Condemn Lone Wolves United and Condemn The Black Hawks also include references towards infiltration work. This is not a new thing.

Condemn Darkesia has one clause vaguely referencing infiltration raids. Condemn LWU has one clause vaguely referencing infiltration raids. Condemn TBH (assuming you mean #217 and not #52) has one clause that just lists some infiltration raids. This has 2 clauses explicitly mentioning and detailing infiltration raids. There's quite a difference.

[A Bloodred Moon]

They aren't naive of all invasions, yes, but when a new member shows up and helps out with the community, the naivety is in trusting them fully and instantly (see the 2 weeks thing above). You can be vigilant against external threats quite easily, but my point revolves around the idea that infiltration sidesteps that process and exploits natives' trust and willingness to give new members opportunities.

Wouldn’t know where you got the two weeks thing from - Illuminati required six months. The region, again, was not unaware of the possibility of infiltration, so I would argue that it did take an amount of skill and that the region in question wasn’t as naive, trusting or helpless as most.

This is, of course, all talking about Illuminati - the rest weren’t destroyed.

And while it's also true that having additional external forces is part of the raid, the "skill" involved in deploying them is less than in an outright raid, as the region has been weakened by the infiltrator (and in the case of Illuminati, also weakened by internal squabbles). And the 140 number is a bit dodgy - that's essentially saying "well they got 90 pilers, gg congrats". Gathering pilers is just going on discord or forums or whatever and saying "hey can i get some more endorsements pls and thanks".

Pilers are underrated they do take some level of organisation building, especially in large numbers.

It takes no less skill to deploy updaters with a sleeper - you could argue it takes more, having all your troops move and endorse the sleeper in a matter of seconds.

[Roavin]

Okay I really don't care to read through all that. But here's the way I look at things like this.

As the nation Roavin, raiders = bad, condemn them for their bad actions and enter their bad (in-game) actions into the lore of the game. Rai did many bad things, capturing and occupying innocent regions.

On the meta level (i.e. as the player, not the nation), Rai was good at being "the bad guy" in the lore, so yes, give them the badge of honor.

The resolution itself appears to be well-written, using appropriate negative language that you would expect to find in the lore of the game. I disagree that things like "point of pride by invaders today" are thinly veiled praise, because it's saying "this made other bad guys more motivated, which is bad".

So, yeah, I'm for this.