NationStates

Refer to SC#344 ("Believing that all regions which do not... undermine the sovereignty of other regions should have the autonomy to pursue their chosen foreign affairs strategies").

I seek a legality ruling on this draft Declaration, as per Sedge. (See also: THE INTERNET IS COMING)

Declaration on the Right to Self-Determination
A resolution to express a position on international affairs.

Category: Declaration

...

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

RECOGNISING that previous resolutions have asserted that regions involved in raiding - even if they do not uphold any other particularly objectionable ideologies - ought not to be allowed to raid;

BELIEVING, however, that any attempt to stop raiders from raiding simply because they raid would severely jeopardise the livelihoods of countless nations and regions (including those who insist upon defending innocent founderless regions from attack), thereby destroying modern geopolitics in hand with the guidelines-based international order; and

SEEKING to retain the balance of power between raiders, defenders and natives that most regions in most parts of the multiverse have enjoyed for most of known existence:

HEREBY:

1. DECLARES that all regions which have an executive World Assembly Delegate (WAD) - and thus the ability to be raided - and which have not historically posed a clear danger to the most vulnerable nations have the right to be defended from attack, where such defending would be in the interests of those organising the defence and the international community as a whole;
2. URGES all regions not to unduly interfere with the right of other regions to freely exercise their own internal and foreign policy, no matter how unpopular that policy may be, except where such interference is necessary to prevent clear and ongoing harm to the newest and most vulnerable nations;
3. CLARIFIES that this Declaration makes no judgments about the morality of invading regions with executive WADs, and that neither raiding nor defending as acts in themselves (isolated from any political ideology) pose any danger to vulnerable nations; and
4. SUGGESTS that world leaders not call for the abolition of ideologies such as raiding and Independentism simply because adherents of these ideologies often attack regions that pose no danger to the most vulnerable nations, for doing so would also lead to the abolition of defenderism.

Defender Tinhampton Defender Tinhampton

Honeydewistania wrote:Defender Tinhampton Defender Tinhampton

Hello, Based Department?

I would suggest a resolution framed in the positive as “The Right to Self-determination” rather than regional sovereignty, since many regions have asserted a claim right to imperialism as an extension of their sovereignty.

I imagine someone will try to pass something of this sort. It’s only natural for the WASC to consider the act of invading and whether it’s consistent with international peace and justice.

I think you should rewrite clause 1 with regards to clause 2. I wouldn't put it as a "right" per se.

I also kind of think that the format is wrong. I think the creation of the Declaration resolution should be an opportunity to change the way stale SC proposals are written, at least just for this one.

Honeydewistania wrote:Defender Tinhampton Defender Tinhampton

Unibot III wrote:I would suggest a resolution framed in the positive as “The Right to Self-determination” rather than regional sovereignty, since many regions have asserted a claim right to imperialism as an extension of their sovereignty.

I imagine someone will try to pass something of this sort. It’s only natural for the WASC to consider the act of invading and whether it’s consistent with international peace and justice.

My intention here is to craft something resembling a consensus text that all parts of the military spectrum can - or at least could - agree upon. The current argument as it stands is that raiding is OK (by induction), defending should be attempted where viable, and both need to coexist if anything vaguely resembling R/D gameplay is to exist lol.

Fauxia wrote:I think you should rewrite clause 1 with regards to clause 2. I wouldn't put it as a "right" per se.

As far as I am concerned, most defenders would not see the defence of fascist as being "in the interests of... the international community as a whole"

Fauxia wrote:I also kind of think that the format is wrong. I think the creation of the Declaration resolution should be an opportunity to change the way stale SC proposals are written, at least just for this one.

How wrong?

Tinhampton wrote:

Fauxia wrote:I think you should rewrite clause 1 with regards to clause 2. I wouldn't put it as a "right" per se.

As far as I am concerned, most defenders would not see the defence of fascist as being "in the interests of... the international community as a whole"

Okay, so I'll admit to not having read as carefully as I should've

That said, I do think as it stands, it's a bit confusing. "Regions that pose no threat to the international community" or something would be clearer.

Tinhampton wrote:

Fauxia wrote:I also kind of think that the format is wrong. I think the creation of the Declaration resolution should be an opportunity to change the way stale SC proposals are written, at least just for this one.

How wrong?

Well, perhaps not wrong, but kind of boring. Inclined to say that it should be a bit more fancy and essayish. When I think of the word "Declaration", I think of The Arnhelm Declaration the American Declaration of Independence, which has a fancy preamble and stuff before it goes onto the big list of "reasons the king of England sucks".

Not that this should imitate a real life, 250-year-old document, but I do feel like we are swinging and missing at an opportunity to stretch the bounds of the Security Council.

Draft 2: New title, old Articles a and b merged, new Article b about undue interference and Article c about the morality of raiding added.

I do not believe that raiding or defending in general, separate from any political ideology, endangers the most vulnerable nations.

It'll get my support, simply because I don't see any reason not to.

Was tempted to oppose it out of tradition of me opposing Tinhampton's proposals, though. Even if it wasn't an intentional tradition...

Tinhampton wrote:SUGGESTS that world leaders not call for the abolition of ideologies such as raiding and Independentism simply because adherents of these ideologies often invade regions not generally covered by Article b of this Declaration, for doing so would also lead to the abolition of defenderism.

This doesn't make much sense. Not all of them, but many defenders would gladly get rid of defending if it got rid of raiding. Defenderism is only really useful in order to counter raiding and to defend regional sovereignty, not an end in itself.

Tinhampton wrote:I seek a legality ruling on this draft Declaration, as per Sedge.

A bit premature - you had it redrafted within an hour of posting. This isn't a ruling, but I haven't seen anything in it that looks out of place from what I'd expected from Declarations.

New title.

I will be submitting this at maybe the first or second update after Declarations are implemented gameside unless there are any extremely serious concerns (read: mildly concerning concerns ).

Goddamn badge hunts.

Tinhampton wrote:My intention here is to craft something resembling a consensus text that all parts of the military spectrum can - or at least could - agree upon.

I have a hard time believing this given most of the arguments presented here as 'defender' are ones that nearly all defenders would disagree with. This declaration does a nice job of presenting itself a defender upfront but in practice most of these arguments are propagated by raiders.

You seem unwilling to address Astro's similar critique, so why not put some more detail to it?

Tinhampton wrote:...that any attempt to stop raiders from raiding simply because they raid would severely jeopardise the livelihoods of countless nations and regions (including those who insist upon defending innocent founderless regions from attack), thereby destroying modern geopolitics in hand with the guidelines-based international order...

...SUGGESTS that world leaders not call for the abolition of ideologies such as raiding and Independentism...for doing so would also lead to the abolition of defenderism.

Astro already hit this one wonderfully, but it's simply untrue. Even defenders who defend for fun are completely fine with an existence without raiders, as evidence by the recent glee for the past few months over the lack of raider activity.

Tinhampton wrote:...and that neither raiding nor defending as acts in themselves (isolated from any political ideology) pose any danger to vulnerable nations...

This argument is tired and again untrue.

For a recent example, The Writing Nook was a moderately sized RP community raided in Sept 2020 and liberated by defenders, but then the community forced themselves to relocate to safety in The Writing Alcove and quickly stagnated into inactivity after. Alcove is now a tag target and their community is entirely gone, all because of a raid. That does not sound like harmless to me

Less than 5 hours spent on this before declaring it ready to go? No. I'm inclined to vote against this as if it weren't drafted at all.

Last Call? This isn't even an official feature yet. How can you possibly be on last call lmfao

In a blatant attempt to be the first to get a Declaration in the queue quality has been sacrificed. Well, there's been no real attempt at producing a quality draft if I'm to be honest.

Opposed.

Kranostav wrote:Last Call? This isn't even an official feature yet. How can you possibly be on last call lmfao

I'm trying to be ready. Don't worry, this won't be submitted in the next week or so =p

Grea Kriopia wrote:You seem unwilling to address Astro's similar critique

Astrobolt resided in XKI when HumanSanity was its Delegate and proposed Liberate The Embassy, which argued that raider regions should not be entitled to raid; you were also largely involved in XKI until recently, at least with your main. (I'm not arguing that the three of you are a hivemind, merely pointing out the regional connection). "To what extent is raiding and defending moral?" is a significantly less time-sensitive and more timeless matter for the Security Council than is liberating a founderless embassy collector region. Any adequate solution to it is also significantly more likely to require the support of Steve and Charlotte in Tamworth, not just of Tarquin and Isla in Camden or Geoff and Barbara in Weymouth, in order to pass the SC's muster and my apologies in advance for sounding like a New Labour campaign strategist. Any argument along the lines of "defenders rule darkspawn drool!" is unlikely to do this and will almost certainly upset almost everyone.

Grea Kriopia wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:...that any attempt to stop raiders from raiding simply because they raid would severely jeopardise the livelihoods of countless nations and regions (including those who insist upon defending innocent founderless regions from attack), thereby destroying modern geopolitics in hand with the guidelines-based international order...

...SUGGESTS that world leaders not call for the abolition of ideologies such as raiding and Independentism...for doing so would also lead to the abolition of defenderism.

Astro already hit this one wonderfully, but it's simply untrue. Even defenders who defend for fun are completely fine with an existence without raiders, as evidence by the recent glee for the past few months over the lack of raider activity.

1. Staff, of which I am not, have repeatedly explained that raids will not be banned because the game cannot distinguish between a raid and a "legitimate" delegacy transfer. How would such a ban be at all beneficial? (I will not be advocating for one in my Declaration.)
2. If raiders (and raiding Independents) did not tag the regions that many defender leaders have detagged in recent months, then who did?

Grea Kriopia wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:...and that neither raiding nor defending as acts in themselves (isolated from any political ideology) pose any danger to vulnerable nations...

This argument is tired and again untrue.

For a recent example, The Writing Nook was a moderately sized RP community raided in Sept 2020 and liberated by defenders, but then the community forced themselves to relocate to safety in The Writing Alcove and quickly stagnated into inactivity after. Alcove is now a tag target and their community is entirely gone, all because of a raid. That does not sound like harmless to me

The statement from the Declaration you have quoted in this particular segment constitutes guidelines to regions effectively warning them not to target founderless regions solely because of where they fall on the R/D spectrum. It does not constitute an absolute declaration of fact.

Why just regions that have executive delegates? Why not all regions?

Tinhampton wrote:Astrobolt resided in XKI when HumanSanity was its Delegate and proposed Liberate The Embassy, which argued that raider regions should not be entitled to raid; you were also largely involved in XKI until recently, at least with your main. (I'm not arguing that the three of you are a hivemind, merely pointing out the regional connection). "To what extent is raiding and defending moral?" is a significantly less time-sensitive and more timeless matter for the Security Council than is liberating a founderless embassy collector region. Any adequate solution to it is also significantly more likely to require the support of Steve and Charlotte in Tamworth, not just of Tarquin and Isla in Camden or Geoff and Barbara in Weymouth, in order to pass the SC's muster and my apologies in advance for sounding like a New Labour campaign strategist. Any argument along the lines of "defenders rule darkspawn drool!" is unlikely to do this and will almost certainly upset almost everyone.

At what point did Astro or I mention anything about moralism? My example was explicitly not about morality as we both demonstrated doubt that your claim held any water among defender communities. Perhaps you are so quick to dismiss them because you aren't genuinely interested in a balance when it contradicts your own views, also clearly shown in the hastiness of this draft

Tinhampton wrote:1. Staff, of which I am not, have repeatedly explained that raids will not be banned because the game cannot distinguish between a raid and a "legitimate" delegacy transfer. How would such a ban be at all beneficial? (I will not be advocating for one in my Declaration.)
2. If raiders (and raiding Independents) did not tag the regions that many defender leaders have detagged in recent months, then who did?

This feels like another assumption because I don't think anyone here mentioned a ban or even wanting one. There are many other ways for raiding to no longer be apart of the equation, but the primary issue here is the claim the defenders depend upon raiders for activity. This is again where recent activity shows this isn't true, and defenders are more than happy to continue sustaining themselves on wargames, olympic-type events, and other more internal focuses that don't require any active raiding. Also the hilarity of 2. implies defenders just love to detag, which could not be any farther from the truth

Tinhampton wrote:The statement from the Declaration you have quoted in this particular segment constitutes guidelines to regions effectively warning them not to target founderless regions solely because of where they fall on the R/D spectrum. It does not constitute an absolute declaration of fact.

If that's what you believe that statement says, then perhaps you should consider redrafting clause c to accurately reflect that. Right now I read the second half of clause c as claiming raiding has no harm on innocent nations, unless you thought I was quoting a different section

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:In a blatant attempt to be the first to get a Declaration in the queue quality has been sacrificed. Well, there's been no real attempt at producing a quality draft if I'm to be honest.

Opposed.

Security Council resolutions are like pancakes, you usually need to throw the first one out. Tin is simply volunteering to be our new Condemn Gatesville. It's noble, really.

I am not too well-versed in raiding/defending, so my commentary may not be the best, but from what I see in the proposal text nothing really sticks out to me that would make me oppose this. I might agree with people saying that you shouldn't rush this, but in the end that is up to you of course. The text as is seems sensibly written to me.

The SC already blows enough sunshine up the rears of Defenders, we don't need it to do it more. Opposed.

But nice work on the branding of the language.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:In a blatant attempt to be the first to get a Declaration in the queue quality has been sacrificed. Well, there's been no real attempt at producing a quality draft if I'm to be honest.

Opposed.

Security Council resolutions are like pancakes, you usually need to throw the first one out. Tin is simply volunteering to be our new Condemn Gatesville. It's noble, really.

That cracked me up RI.

Declarations have now been added to the game. I will, however, not be submitting this for a few days, given that Commend Imki is now at vote and since Cormac has submitted and will likely campaign for Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action (the first ever Declaration to be submitted). Comments remain welcome.