[DEFEATED] Against Quorum Raiding

[Hookah Castle]

…the only thing close to groupthink here is a general belief that fascists are bad and we should squish their stuff.

You’re certainly welcome to view quorum raiding as as being vaguely fascist - but since it doesn’t bear any of the particular hallmarks (whether political, economic, or social), your comparison is baseless.

This. It's just the union dismissing their representative.

Each union of states has it's autonomy and own reasons for electing or impeaching their group's representative. I find this proposal to be undemocratic at the very least. Which isn't MY thing, but is probably a lot of people's thing, and all in all we want to encourage others to organize for influence.

[Jutsa]

Quorum raiding is politics, just as counter-campaigning is. Just as the actual vote is. It is no more unfair or undemocratic than winning the approval of the Feeder delegates to organise a joint stomp.

Personally, I'd definitely prefer the World Assembly give more rights to the common voter than the delegate, hence why I don't find any issue in delegates rubber-stamping resolutions to get to vote sooner which basically helps to curtail that issue altogether. Regardless, delegates are still voted on by members, so it's at least indirectly democratic at vote.

Meanwhile, even if you use the argument that the world assembly is political and not democratic, I raise that quorum raiding isn't even political - it's military intervention. I'll admit there's not always a difference, but that's not an excuse to let military forces get away with dictating their views through force.

No? I've seen plenty of them hit quorum, even when the bar was higher.

And I'm sure there are plenty more that don't hit quorum.
Regardless, delegates wish to make resolutions get to vote so they can be democratically voted on. Whether or not they're truly crappy should be for the majority to decide.

Why is counter-campaigning that much more valid, if I may ask? Why is it wrong to use one tool but right to use another? Neither is democratic - you are telegramming a small pool of delegates in comparison to the overall number of World Assembly nations.

Counter-campaigning still gives delegates the right to chose; quorum raiding does not. It's not that big a leap.

[Kryfardo]

Personally, I'd definitely prefer the World Assembly give more rights to the common voter than the delegate, hence why I don't find any issue in delegates rubber-stamping resolutions to get to vote sooner which basically helps to curtail that issue altogether.

And if there's 15 of the largest delegates lined up at the start to stomp into the ground or win the vote from the start?

Regardless, delegates are still voted on by members, so it's at least indirectly democratic at vote.

Barely, since several regions demand endorsements for their delegates even if they disagree with the vote.

Meanwhile, even if you use the argument that the world assembly is political and not democratic, I raise that quorum raiding isn't even political - it's military intervention. I'll admit there's not always a difference, but that's not an excuse to let military forces get away with dictating their views through force.

Most militaries engaged in quorum raiding are by definition political tools, so the difference is minimal if we pretend it exists at all. Besides, it furthers a political goal.

Through force, eh? So if I vote a dozen natives into power I'm dictating my views through force, but if I line up a dozen large delegates to stomp something into the ground I'm being democratic and playing fair?

And I'm sure there are plenty more that don't hit quorum.

True. In such cases military force was not required, so the argument is hardly a relevant one.

Whether or not they're truly crappy should be for the majority to decide.

And it seems that the majority agrees that this is a crappy resolution.

[Jutsa]

And if there's 15 of the largest delegates lined up at the start to stomp into the ground or win the vote from the start?

Don't misunderstand. I very much do not like this, myself. That's not a reason to make things less democratic.

Barely, since several regions demand endorsements for their delegates even if they disagree with the vote.

You don't have to be involved with those regions, then.

Most militaries engaged in quorum raiding are by definition political tools, so the difference is minimal if we pretend it exists at all. Besides, it furthers a political goal.

Alright, you got me. They're technically involved with politics despite not having any political office within their own region, so my argument that they're not political is wrong.
Granted, most delegates are not really anything more than people endorsed by one other person, but honestly at that point they're practically individuals
which is honestly preferable to approval by elected governments anyway.

Through force, eh? So if I vote a dozen natives into power I'm dictating my views through force, but if I line up a dozen large delegates to stomp something into the ground I'm being democratic and playing fair?

Comparatively, yes. Because you have nothing to do with those natives' regions, and it is not their, but your decision being put forward, but unlike delegates (which have one approval),
you're both undemocratic and far more influential in the pre-voting stage. Not to mention your argument against the delegates is not a good argument in favor of quorum raiding.
Just because we are forced to have one debatably bad thing doesn't mean we must tolerate another (which we're forced to have regardless of whether this resolution passes).

True. In such cases military force was not required, so the argument is hardly a relevant one.

Military force on a proposal awaiting queue is never required.

And it seems that the majority agrees that this is a crappy resolution.

Apparently so. I can't understand why, but that is ultimately their decision to decide. That doesn't mean I'm not going to campaign for it any more than you're not going to counter against it.

[Kryfardo]

Don't misunderstand. I very much do not like this, myself. That's not a reason to make things less democratic.

You're not making anything less democratic if you don't accept or agree with this proposal.

You don't have to be involved with those regions, then.

That is all assuming I care for democratic regions more than I do for autocratic ones. I do not. I am simply pointing out that the WA is hardly a democracy and that using political tools to further your goals in the WA is perfectly valid.

Alright, you got me. They're technically involved with politics despite not having any political office within their own region,

Do you... not acknowledge that interregional politics is a thing?

Comparatively, yes. Because you have nothing to do with those natives' regions, and it is not their, but your decision being put forward, but unlike delegates (which have one approval),
you're both undemocratic and far more influential in the pre-voting stage. Not to mention your argument against the delegates is not a good argument in favor of quorum raiding.

Delegates have one approval, but hundreds of votes.

Just because we are forced to have one debatably bad thing doesn't mean we must tolerate another (which we're forced to have regardless of whether this resolution passes).

But both are valid uses of the World Assembly's mechanics. Neither might be what you want, but both are built into the system. To say it goes against the WA's core principles is false.

Military force on a proposal awaiting queue is never required.

Depends on your goal. Do you want it to stop from reaching the voting floor? Then it may be.

[Jutsa]

You're not making anything less democratic if you don't accept or agree with this proposal.

To be fair, yeah, the proposal's as useless as other declarations.

I am simply pointing out that the WA is hardly a democracy and that using political tools to further your goals in the WA is perfectly valid.

Valid, maybe, but that doesn't make it right. And sure, the WA is not exactly a democracy. That is not an excuse to tolerate removing what voting rights there are.

Do you... not acknowledge that interregional politics is a thing?

There's a difference between being politically involved in a government and being an invasion group that abuses the system. Okay, sure, invading somewhere and putting a native in power is very much politics based in irl theory. It's puppet politics (imo illegitimate politics), but it's still politics, sure. Doesn't mean I can't have a beef with it.

Delegates have one approval, but hundreds of votes.

I'm aware of this. But those hundreds of votes are less impactful than a dozen delegate approvals. And whereas it'd take many delegates to secure the fate of a resolution at vote, it only takes one salty band of militants to secure its never getting there.

But both are valid uses of the World Assembly's mechanics. Neither might be what you want, but both are built into the system. To say it goes against the WA's core principles is false.

Suggesting that quorum raiding was intentional is kind of a heavy assumption on its own. That as an aside, as I said, just because something is "valid" doesn't mean it should be done.

Depends on your goal. Do you want it to stop from reaching the voting floor? Then it may be.

And you alone should not be the deciding factor for that. Seriously, if a resolution will get stamped out anyway, there's no need to quorum raid; if it's likely to pass, that's what counter-campaigning and repeals are for. If you can't write up an adequate repeal, then it's probably a resolution that should not be raided out of quorum in the first place.

[Kryfardo]

To be fair, yeah, the proposal's as useless as other declarations.

There we agree at least.

Valid, maybe, but that doesn't make it right. And sure, the WA is not exactly a democracy. That is not an excuse to tolerate removing what voting rights there are.

I don’t see how it’s removing voting rights to argue that one political tool is no more right or wrong than another.

There's a difference between being politically involved in a government and being an invasion group that abuses the system. Okay, sure, invading somewhere and putting a native in power is very much politics based in irl theory. It's puppet politics (imo illegitimate politics), but it's still politics, sure. Doesn't mean I can't have a beef with it.

Your argument was that military intervention did not count as a political tool. Your moral(?) objections to it are another matter entirely.

I'm aware of this. But those hundreds of votes are less impactful than a dozen delegate approvals.

A dozen delegate approvals are easily obtained. Hundreds of votes? Less so. In fact, I can even create a dozen delegate approvals out of thin air with a dozen people with free WAs.

And whereas it'd take many delegates to secure the fate of a resolution at vote, it only takes one salty band of militants to secure its never getting there.

Both require organisation, both are political tools, both may be used to further one’s goals in the World Assembly.

Suggesting that quorum raiding was intentional is kind of a heavy assumption on its own. That as an aside, as I said, just because something is "valid" doesn't mean it should be done.

I didn’t say “intentional”, I said it was a fair use of mechanics. Why specifically should it be declared wrong to utilise the tools a region has at its disposal to further their political agenda?

And you alone should not be the deciding factor for that.

As it happens, about 2500 individual nations agree with me.

Seriously, if a resolution will get stamped out anyway, there's no need to quorum raid;

Unless you don’t want to give it the publicity, or you don’t want to take chances.

if it's likely to pass, that's what counter-campaigning and repeals are for.

Indeed, there are multiple tools available to you, quorum raiding included.

If you can't write up an adequate repeal, then it's probably a resolution that should not be raided out of quorum in the first place.

So is all quorum raiding bad, or should I first see if I can think of an adequate repeal before quorum raiding? I fail to understand the argument here. Don’t you think people might have legitimate objections and quorum raid because of those?

[Jutsa]

I don’t see how it’s removing voting rights to argue that one political tool is no more right or wrong than another.

Both require organisation, both are political tools, both may be used to further one’s goals in the World Assembly.

The difference is one doesn't undermine literally everything else. You wouldn't use a weapon of mass destruction in conventional warfare, would you?

Your argument was that military intervention did not count as a political tool. Your moral(?) objections to it are another matter entirely.

Alright, fair enough. I concede I've lost this argument.

A dozen delegate approvals are easily obtained. Hundreds of votes? Less so. In fact, I can even create a dozen delegate approvals out of thin air with a dozen people with free WAs.

Fair argument, actually. One in which I think is also a bit iffy, but I suppose you're right; it is technically a counter attack to make sure a resolution gets to vote,
albeit one that technically caps out a lot easier than the other. Time to make a draft standing against this.

Let me ask you another question: What happens if an organization decided to quorum raid every proposal, to a degree that none would make it to vote in the first place? Do you think there would be enough public cooperation to counterattack such an event, unlikely as it would be to happen? Would it be justified as a legitimate political tactic at that point?

Why specifically should it be declared wrong to utilise the tools a region has at its disposal to further their political agenda?

The difference is this is utilizing the tools of many different regions one doesn't belong in to further one's personal agenda.

As it happens, about 2500 individual nations agree with me.

I didn't mean "you" specifically, but regardless, you are correct. Most people do seem to agree with you. I still don't think they're right, but I suppose that's their choice.

Unless you don’t want to give it the publicity, or you don’t want to take chances.

Which I think should be required, but alas, here we are.

So is all quorum raiding bad, or should I first see if I can think of an adequate repeal before quorum raiding? I fail to understand the argument here. Don’t you think people might have legitimate objections and quorum raid because of those?

1) Yes and 2) No, you should think of an adequate repeal period. I genuinely do not see any justification for quorum raiding, regardless of the intentions,
but I suppose compromises had to be made in the resolution proposal at vote in order to account for potential enforcement of existing declarations.
Then again, that's just my adamant opinion, one I'm very afraid seems to be a minority at this point.

[Team Lennox]

Guys we have to support this. We need a WA system with democracy and GCR's, and major raiding regions aren't allowing us to have free speech! Quick someone get out their credit/debit card and encourage people to vote FOR this proposal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

European residents have expressed their dislike for telegram spam of this sort and have empowered the government writ large to take action to disincentivise its use. We also have stood against the proposition that World Assembly proposals should be passed (or materially influenced) by expenditure of real world money. Telegram responses to and official disapproval of these kinds of campaigns on proposals serve the equitable purpose of ensuring a level financial field.

An initial campaign telegram was dispatched supporting the proposal and in response, under the provisions of section 2(a)(ii) of the Telegrams (World Assembly) Act 2016 (also sub nom World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam), the Government consented to distribution of a counter-telegram by the World Assembly Legislative League; my own position had been that such a telegram was an appropriate response under those provisions and at that time, no further action was necessary. That has changed.

In response to this second telegram recently dispatched, I therefore cast my vote against this resolution in exercise of powers granted by section 2(a)(i) of that Act.

[Jutsa]

Tbf I didn't even know there was a first telegram so woops.

[Txalisas]

Though quorum raiding seems like a good way to keep other assembly members in check, there is the possibility of abuse. It's a yes from me

[Sylh Alanor]

Tbf I didn't even know there was a first telegram so woops.

Probably reading literally any of this thread before sending a telegram that influenced even more people to vote against would have been the right call. The telegrams have been complained about since the start, and they were sent to tag:wa, so you should have gotten it anyway.

[Jutsa]

Naeh, I had WA campaign telegrams ignored.

Seriously, if they bother people, they can just be turned off; I don't know why this is such an issue.

[Great Algerstonia]

Naeh, I had WA campaign telegrams ignored.

Seriously, if they bother people, they can just be turned off; I don't know why this is such an issue.

Two WA campaign telegrams are fine. A third is not.

[Jutsa]

There was a third?

Very woops. Guess my passion for this really did dumb-blind me.

That said I sincerely hope people other than IA are not voting against this proposal just because they got annoyed by some telegrams.
It's OK if IA does it. Otherwise it's just petty.

[Great Algerstonia]

There was a third?

Very woops. Guess my passion for this really did dumb-blind me.

That said I sincerely hope people other than IA are not voting against this proposal just because they got annoyed by some telegrams.
It's OK if IA does it. Otherwise it's just petty.

You were the third.

[Sylh Alanor]

There was a third?

Very woops. Guess my passion for this really did dumb-blind me.

That said I sincerely hope people other than IA are not voting against this proposal just because they got annoyed by some telegrams.
It's OK if IA does it. Otherwise it's just petty.

W... what did you think I meant by "the telegrams were complained about in the thread" in the post you responded to? I was saying the previous telegrams were very loudly complained about- a lot- in this thread before you sent yours.

[Arpasia]

Was Quorum raiding been misused in some occasions?

I mean, there are many who raid to fight fascism, and many more just for the thrill of it. But do they know that their tactics could have ramifications?

/bump

[Kryfardo]

The difference is one doesn't undermine literally everything else. You wouldn't use a weapon of mass destruction in conventional warfare, would you?

I find that RL comparisons rarely translate well into the game.

Alright, fair enough. I concede I've lost this argument.

Yay, victory!

Let me ask you another question: What happens if an organization decided to quorum raid every proposal, to a degree that none would make it to vote in the first place? Do you think there would be enough public cooperation to counterattack such an event, unlikely as it would be to happen? Would it be justified as a legitimate political tactic at that point?

I’d congratulate whatever organisation would pull that one off. It’d be a truly impressive feat.

To answer your question, though, yes, it’d still be a legitimate tactic. It’d be somewhat hypocritical to say “it’s no longer legitimate because you’re too good at it” from my point if view. The chance that that’d happen is very low, however, and it would be entirely fair that opposing parties would use their own tools to counter it.

The difference is this is utilizing the tools of many different regions one doesn't belong in to further one's personal agenda.

Raiding is a long established part of the game, if that is your concern.

Which I think should be required, but alas, here we are.

Taking chances or giving publicity? I wouldn’t blame anyone to use the tools at their disposal in a political institution.

I genuinely do not see any justification for quorum raiding, regardless of the intentions,
but I suppose compromises had to be made in the resolution proposal at vote in order to account for potential enforcement of existing declarations.

The justification is simple: doing whatever you can to advance your political agenda is legitimate in a PolSim, the use of military force included.

[Greater Delomia]

Whats So Bad About It Anyway?

[Omphalos]

For anyone who didn't receive them, here are the three telegrams (so far) sent about this issue:

Hello, Omphalos!

The Partnership for Sovereignty, a coalition of like-minded regions concerned for the self-determination and security of all regions, would like you to vote FOR the declaration entitled "Against Quorum Raiding" when it reaches the floor of the Security Council for a vote.

Today, many regions, and maybe even your own, continue to face threats by those who disregard the rights and freedoms of voting World Assembly members, specifically in how regional delegates cast their approvals on World Assembly resolutions.

These forces engage in a practice variously called "quorum raiding" or "approval raiding", but it is all the same. Through this practice, they invade innocent regions and topple delegates to remove an approval on proposed World Assembly resolutions they do not support. Instead of using the democratic process of the floor vote, they would rather use the threat of force to get their way.

Some proponents of this practice argue that quorum raiding is necessary to prevent hateful ideologists from scoring wins in the World Assembly with trojan horse proposals. That much is true, and the proposed declaration carves out an exception on that basis whilst advocating for the sovereignty of innocent regions.

The proposed declaration, "Against Quorum Raiding", would send a strong message that the World Assembly stands opposed to this unfair and anti-democratic practice, but it needs you to vote FOR.

Can the Partnership for Sovereignty count on you to vote FOR? If so, again, please make sure to head on over to "Against Quorum Raiding" and vote FOR.

An extended version of our recommendation is available below:

Partnership For Sovereignty Recommendation: Vote FOR “Against Quorum Raiding”
by The Republic of Partnership for Sovereignty


Against Quorum Raiding
Voting Recommendation: FOR

Reasoning: The Security Council proposal “Against Quorum Raiding” seeks to denounce the practice of “quorum raiding”. The act of quorum raiding occurs when raiders overthrow regional delegates through the use of force, in order to remove approvals from World Assembly proposals and prevent them from going to vote.

It must be noted that quorum raiding, though often seen as an action against World Assembly proposals, is an attack on regions themselves. All regions (except those which epouse hate, or launch unjustified attacks against other regions) have the right to self-determination, to function without any outside group imposing their will on the region. When a delegate approves a proposal, they are expressing their region’s political wishes. When quorum raiding occurs and a delegate’s approval is removed, a region’s political voice is silenced — an action which undermines regional sovereignty, and the ability for the residents of the region to play the game according to their own terms. Moreover, quorum raiding threatens the health and vibrancy of the World Assembly. As the proposal lays out, continued instances of quorum raiding may discourage regional delegates from approving any proposals in the future, in order to avoid an invasion. This makes it harder for WA proposals to make it to vote, and consequently may hinder the efforts of aspiring authors. Due to the risks posed to both regional communities and the WA by the practice of quorum raiding, the Partnership for Sovereignty fully supports the proposal's efforts to criticize it.

The proposal rightfully raises awareness about “non-combative means of preventing a proposal from going to vote”, such as counter campaigns or reaching out to regional delegates. These methods of persuasion encourage constructive dialogue, a boon to the health of the WA, while safeguarding regional sovereignty by allowing regional delegates to make the ultimate decision on what to approve.

The Partnership for Sovereignty recognizes that there may be certain cases where it may be appropriate for quorum raiding to occur - such as a last ditch effort to prevent a hateful proposal from going to vote. Luckily, the at-vote proposal does not denounce quorum raiding if done to prevent propaganda for a “hateful ideology” from going to vote, as long as the only regions affected also adhere to the hateful ideology in question. By limiting targets to only the regions which espouse hatred, the proposal enables action to rid the game of hate, while still protecting regions which do not subscribe to harmful views.

The Partnership for Sovereignty believes that a denunciation of quorum raiding will promote the right to self-determination, and will encourage constructive dialogue in the World Assembly.

For these reasons, the Partnership for Sovereignty recommends a vote FOR the SC proposal: “Against Quorum Raiding”.

Read dispatch
Thank you for your time, and feel free to telegram back if you have any queries or concerns!

The Partnership for Sovereignty, composed of
- 10000 Islands
- The South Pacific
- The Rejected Realms
- The Union of Democratic States
- The Free Nations Region
- Spiritus
- Philippines
- The League

A joint statement on the Security Council declaration, “Against Quorum Raiding” from the World Assembly Legislative League:

Hello, Omphalos

This statement is a response to the Partnership for Sovereignty’s mass telegram to all WA members, by the World Assembly Legislative League. Our policy is not normally to issue mass telegrams except in exceptional circumstances, or to respond to a mass telegram that has already been sent, as we do not support filling telegram inboxes with unsolicited WA campaign material.

On the resolution itself; while we recognize that quorum raiding can have negative impacts, especially on the World Assembly authors and the community writ large, we nevertheless consider it to be a necessary tool against hateful groups and ideologies which seek to use the Security Council to further their agendas. We therefore take a firm stance against the Security Council declaration currently at-vote, “Against Quorum Raiding”.

Our primary collective objection to the proposal emerges from article 2 of the declaration. This article “urges militaries to immediately cease quorum raiding operations” except where the proposal serves as a tool for a “particularly hateful ideology”. It then goes on to state that an operation can only take place if “the only regions targeted by the operation are supporters of such an ideology”. This limits the whole exception to worthlessness, as most such proposals make it into quorum by being approved by regional delegates who do not belong to regions of an explicitly “hateful ideology”.

When it comes to proposals that further vile and hateful ideologies or regions which espouse such ideologies, the majority of the approvals do not come from like-minded delegates. Rather, they come from delegates of regions which do not espouse such ideologies. Restricting the targeting of Delegates to only those of a hateful ideology would render virtually all quorum raiding attempts futile. If the Security Council were to adopt this restriction, we would no doubt see an increase in inappropriate rhetoric reaching the chambers of the World Assembly voting floor.

Furthermore, article 3 of the resolution calls for “extensive forethought” before using even this impotent clause. That is representative of the lack of pragmatism considered by the author of the resolution: time is often of the essence in preventing proposals reaching the floor and only decisive military action counts in this regard.

As per the above reasoning, the World Assembly Legislative League has voted to oppose this declaration, and we encourage other nations and regions to follow suit.

This joint statement is brought to you from the World Assembly Legislative League, as endorsed by a majority of signatories

Dear members of the World Assembly,

It has come to the attention of the Grand Council of Jutsa that the Declaration "Against Quorum Raiding" is set to be voted against passing, and wishes for your government to reconsider changing their vote to "FOR".

While declarations have no legal weight, they are established guidelines that signify an important stance of the world at large. Quorum raiding is particularly dangerous for several reasons that hopefully this telegram effectively outlines, although there are undoubtedly other issues as well. It should be noted that it is in the Council's opinion that no proposals should be destroyed through force, although it recognizes the resolution-in-question's need for compromise in an effort to enforce other existing declarations. With that out of the way, the issues:

Firstly, quorum raiding is undemocratic. An argument could be made that the World Assembly is not "meant" to be truly democratic, given how much power delegates wield. However, while delegates of large regions may hold excessive power in collectively deciding the fate of a resolution once it has reached vote, they only hold one resolution approval each, and are usually voted into power through democratic means. On the other hand, all it takes is one group of unknown, unwanted quorum raiders to completely overturn a resolution before it even gets to vote, by erasing the approvals of potentially dozens of delegates, particularly those of small, less bureaucratic regions - before it even gets to vote. The world community at large should not tolerate the active handing over of what voting rights we have, especially for nothing in exchange.

Secondly, quorum raiding is not "setting a higher bar" by removing "rubber stamp" approvals. Delegates who approve of proposals, even if they are of "shotty quality", are usually in favor of letting the community at large decide what constitutes "good" and "bad" by sending it directly to vote, and it already takes successful campaigning and draft quality to make those things happen. We can not allow individuals with their own agenda to have entire say over whether a proposal constitutes as "good" or "bad", regardless of their intentions. Furthermore, delegates should not have to keep re-approving of legislation once they've already made up their minds.

Thirdly, many may ask "what makes this different from other tactics such as campaigning? They are both political tactics used to further an agenda." This is true. However, there is a difference. A campaign, such as this one, is nothing more than an advertisement; a poster showing one's viewpoints to the community at large. Voters may ignore, argue against, or change their vote as they please, regardless of the campaign. Similarly, a repeal is a piece of legislation that will be voted on, should it get that far. Quorum raiding, on the other hand, throws all of that out the window. It does not give you a choice: it throws it out the window. Regardless of whether you or they disapprove of a proposal, that's only a reason to either vote against, campaign against, or write a repeal for it; that is not a reason to take away everyone else's decision.

Fourthly, just because it's a feature (an oversight?) of the World Assembly does not mean it should be right to execute without criticization; it'd be like saying nations should not be condemned for raiding, among other things. Why should an otherwise orderly and indirectly democratic system be thrown into anarchy and chaos, where the power of a few outpower everyone else? What happens if a large enough military were to pursue the total shutdown of the legislature by blocking every resolution that comes to vote? Should we not legislate against these issues, even if said legislation has have no direct legal bearing? Or should we ignore it, and wait for a formidable foe to abuse the system and only legislate when it's too late?

We hope that this is enough to convince you to change your vote. But in the end, the choice is ultimately yours. As it should be.
- The Grand Council of Jutsa.

[Jutsa]

Oh I see. There was a superior telegram. Followed by a counter telegram.

Ngl I'm surprised multi-campaigning doesn't happen more often. Ah well, indeed rhat was my bad for not looking more into it (I admit I was genuinely concerned and was worried about time) and I do apologize.

Re: Kryfardo: Mmm. I genuinely don't like your argument that halting the WA would be legitimate. But seeing as you are totally fine witb this I suppose there's not really anything more to add.

That said, as a former raider, I still think there are lines that simply should not be crossed. Hopefully things mainly stay that way... although I find it somewhat funny that a raider would not want a formal declaration to violate for more condemning material.

Re: Omphalos: Many thanks <:)

[Cruzes Unidas de Frioborsarmarto]

Well, I suppose this is for helping and improving the game.
Therefore I give this deal my approval.

Hope we can keep using this game for making friends and having fun.

[WayNeacTia]

All of this over some telegram spam huh? You do possess the ability to block them you know? Also who is getting so many telegrams, that they can't take the 10 seconds out of their lives to read one? Seriously, there is far bigger shit to get worked up about. Do we really need to fight the cosmetic fights?