[DEFEATED] Against Quorum Raiding

[Cormactopia Prime]

Waking up to brand new badge hunting accusations, gotta love it. Instead of saying my proposal's rushed and poorly written, how about you actually provide some real feedback?

With respect, it's not our job to write your proposal, especially with that attitude. Nonetheless, here are a few things:

Believing that quorum raiding undermines the democratic will of the collective member nations of the World Assembly and subjects them to momentary military domination,

This is an inaccurate claim to make, as the democratic will of the World Assembly is expressed during voting. Approvals aren't an expression of the WA's democratic will at all, they're simply approvals received from a small fraction of Delegates to achieve quorum to get it to vote. This is misleading, at best.

Asserting that using force is not a legitimate means of expressing an opinion,

The literal mission of the Security Council is "spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary." The Security Council has in fact looked favorably upon the use of force in the past, most notably through the offensive use of Liberation resolutions. The Security Council has also at times included approving references to the use of force in Commendations. Why wouldn't there be situations in which it could look favorably upon the use of force through quorum raiding?

If you want to make the case the Security Council should categorically oppose quorum raiding, you're going to have to do better than a pacifist argument. The Security Council is not now, nor has it ever been a pacifist institution. This argument isn't going to cut it, probably even for some regions that oppose quorum raiding.

Noting that there are diplomatic means of preventing a proposal from going to vote,

Perhaps you should elaborate upon them, or make an argument for why they're preferable to quorum raiding.

Hereby;

1. Declares its opposition to quorum raiding,
2. Urges militaries to immediately cease quorum raiding operations and,
3. Strongly suggests that those in opposition to a proposal find diplomatic means of expressing these opinions.

These are very basic clauses. That could be fine, if you're into having the part that comes after the operative clause be shorter, but if so you need to flesh out the preamble to the operative clause more than you have thus far. The meat of the proposal doesn't have to come after the operative clause, but there does have to be meat to the proposal somewhere. If there's a sound argument to be made in categorical opposition to quorum raiding, you aren't making it yet. You're making very simplistic, sweeping arguments that don't have any basis in either previous Security Council resolutions or prevailing interregional opinion on the use of force.

[Jedinsto]

Thank you for your actual feedback, I will implement what I like and address what I don’t when I get a chance. Also, the entire point of this forum is to provide feedback on proposals, I can write the proposal, but you need to understand how frustrating it is when two people come waltzing into your drafting thread talking about how shitty the proposal is and accusing me of badge hunting without explaining the claims at all. You’ve done that now so I appreciate that.

[Varanius]

I can write the proposal, but you need to understand how frustrating it is when two people come waltzing into your drafting thread talking about how shitty the proposal is and accusing me of badge hunting without explaining the claims at all.

Quite simply, it’s not their job to do so. No one is obligated to help what they view to be a shitty, badge-hunting proposal. They may want to criticize the draft, but it’s certainly not their job to restructure it for you. And yes, surprise surprise, some people will disagree with you. Welcome to the SC, I guess.

[Jedinsto]

Of course, nobody is obligated to help me. I know support on this is kinda shaky and I knew that’s what was gonna happen. All I ask is that if somebody starts bitching about the quality of my proposal that they explain why they are bitching about my proposal. It’s really frustrating to see when I’m making an honest effort to improve this proposal.

[Kranostav]

Of course, nobody is obligated to help me. I know support on this is kinda shaky and I knew that’s what was gonna happen. All I ask is that if somebody starts bitching about the quality of my proposal that they explain why they are bitching about my proposal. It’s really frustrating to see when I’m making an honest effort to improve this proposal.

You chose one of the most controversial topics in GP and RnD lately and dedicated 3 sentences to it after stripping the one clause that may have allowed it the ability to pass.

Defining quorum raiding as unseating delegates approving a World Assembly proposal in order to prevent the proposal from reaching quorum and going to vote,

This is fine, in theory you could get more technical but it probably works

Believing that quorum raiding undermines the democratic will of the collective member nations of the World Assembly and subjects them to momentary military domination,

What exactly do you mean by "Momentary Military Domination", and do you believe that nations which have ignored all diplomatic routes are still entitled to their "democratic will" when it goes in support of fascist efforts?

Asserting that using force is not a legitimate means of expressing an opinion,

I guess we have to shut down RnD then

Noting that there are diplomatic means of preventing a proposal from going to vote,

Yes, and those typically are tried. Everything from telegrams to finding and talking to their regional leadership if feasible, is there any comment on what happens if diplomatic means fail? Do we just throw up and say "Damn, we will get the fash next time"

Declares its opposition to quorum raiding,

This is hilariously bland, you are a GA author, Im sure you can spice it up a bit

Urges militaries to immediately cease quorum raiding operations and,

And what if they dont? Should SC do anything about it?

Strongly suggests that those in opposition to a proposal find diplomatic means of expressing these opinions.

So what happens when we exhaust all "diplomatic means" and they still are siding with the fascists? You realize that diplomatic means are not a cover-all for these situations and only *sometimes* work.

Theres some content for ya bucko. As for my earlier comments, I really do not understand why the SC wants to start rushing out these proposals when we still don't even have confirmation that this category will exist. Drafting was never completed on things like this quickly, and to rush out the founding proposals of a brand new category type is doing a terrible disservice to the WA.

[Jedinsto]

Believing that quorum raiding undermines the democratic will of the collective member nations of the World Assembly and subjects them to momentary military domination,

What exactly do you mean by "Momentary Military Domination", and do you believe that nations which have ignored all diplomatic routes are still entitled to their "democratic will" when it goes in support of fascist efforts?

Momentary military domination means losing your delegacy for 12 hours. Perhaps "occupation" would work better than "domination?"

Asserting that using force is not a legitimate means of expressing an opinion,

I guess we have to shut down RnD then

People raid and defend to express an opinion? To me it seems like they do it to shit on fascists, to advertise their regions, for shits and giggles, and in the case of defenders they do it to put the rightful leaders back in charge.

Noting that there are diplomatic means of preventing a proposal from going to vote,

Yes, and those typically are tried. Everything from telegrams to finding and talking to their regional leadership if feasible, is there any comment on what happens if diplomatic means fail? Do we just throw up and say "Damn, we will get the fash next time"

Going to vote =/= passing. Stomping a proposal at vote is almost as good as stopping it from going to vote in the first place. Quorum raiding isn't the answer.

Declares its opposition to quorum raiding,

This is hilariously bland, you are a GA author, Im sure you can spice it up a bit

Fair enough, I've been told more passion is needed in the whole proposal but mainly the operatives.

Urges militaries to immediately cease quorum raiding operations and,

And what if they dont? Should SC do anything about it?

They should, but there's nothing I can do about that in a declaration. Perhaps I could say something like "condemns" or "shuns" the regions that refuse.

Strongly suggests that those in opposition to a proposal find diplomatic means of expressing these opinions.

So what happens when we exhaust all "diplomatic means" and they still are siding with the fascists? You realize that diplomatic means are not a cover-all for these situations and only *sometimes* work.

When we exhaust all diplomatic means the proposal goes to vote and we see where it goes from there. Sometimes the democratic will is not what you like but force is not the answer.

Theres some content for ya bucko. As for my earlier comments, I really do not understand why the SC wants to start rushing out these proposals when we still don't even have confirmation that this category will exist. Drafting was never completed on things like this quickly, and to rush out the founding proposals of a brand new category type is doing a terrible disservice to the WA.

Never said anything about when I was going to submit this. Not once. Sedge basically said for sure that this is happening, and it's going live in a matter of days. However, thank you for your feedback.

[Varanius]

Going to vote =/= passing.

At this rate, I’m not even sure this proposal will do either.

[Jedinsto]

Going to vote =/= passing.

At this rate, I’m not even sure this proposal will do either.

Neither am I. The chances of it getting quorum raided are not all that low. If it doesn't get q raided or counter'd then it will go to vote.

Anyways, redraft complete.

[Great Algerstonia]

I fully support this proposal.

[The Python]

What exactly do you mean by "Momentary Military Domination", and do you believe that nations which have ignored all diplomatic routes are still entitled to their "democratic will" when it goes in support of fascist efforts?

Momentary military domination means losing your delegacy for 12 hours. Perhaps "occupation" would work better than "domination?"

I feel like "occupation" and "domination" both imply the region is being controlled by raiders when in reality when one quorum raids often the person who becomes delegate/is endorsed by raiders is whoever has the second most endoes in the region. Possibly try to rework that?

[Jedinsto]

Done.

[Kranostav]

snip

Just going point by point because quoting quotes gets fuckey.

1. Its neither an occupation or a domination, hell, the raiding faction rarely ever takes control and usually just bumps the #2 WA into del seat.

2. In theory, raiding or defending is expressing your ideology in real time, but regardless either way is a semantics argument so unless you want to jump down that rabbit hole we can drop it.

3. You would be shocked at the shit that passes in the WA no matter how garbage the content. The lemming vote is very strong and can put very bad proposals into positions where they can pass. Forcing us to have to put forth repeals and dedicate additional, unnecessary time to deal with fascists because we "took the high road in letting it go to vote".

4. Noted

5. I would argue that it would be proper to add some sort of "sanctions or shuns" with an urges or similar language. Avoid Condemns as it might come off the wrong way given the context of C&Cs

6. When dealing with fascists, force can be avoided but for only so long. We cannot take it off the table as we know they wouldn't take it off the table when fighting us. If Diplomatic options fail, we need to act.

7. Looking like it'll be closer to a few weeks given Sedge's latest update in the tech thread.

[Jedinsto]

1. I changed that language a few hours before you posted, so I believe that issue is resolved.

3. I'd say any situation where quorum raiding would be carried out because of the proposal being written by a fascist or being pro-fash itself, if those counter-campaigns fail, the proposal would still get stomped. I haven't been around for all that long though, so I could be wrong about this. At the end of the day this debate would probably come down to whether quorum raiding is ever justified or not, and we'll never really get anywhere going that route.

5. Will be changed.

6. I disagree.

7. I'm in no rush.

[Kranostav]

1. I changed that language a few hours before you posted, so I believe that issue is resolved.

3. I'd say any situation where quorum raiding would be carried out because of the proposal being written by a fascist or being pro-fash itself, if those counter-campaigns fail, the proposal would still get stomped. I haven't been around for all that long though, so I could be wrong about this. At the end of the day this debate would probably come down to whether quorum raiding is ever justified or not, and we'll never really get anywhere going that route.

5. Will be changed.

6. I disagree.

7. I'm in no rush.

It is not that uncommon that objectively bad proposals get passed in the GA because they have flowery titles or are written in such a way where the flaws or major issues arent completely obvious to the casual voter. This is colloquially referring to as the "lemming vote" or uneducated voters who dont use proper logic to cast their votes. It can be very strong if you are forced to fight it. Of course we dont need to quorum raid every bad proposal that is submitted, but when they are from fascists who are doing it to advertise their existence, it causes concern that they even might make queue.

[Kylia Quilor]

Because of the way the game works these days, with a dearth of meaningful targets of all sorts, quorum raiding remains one of the few ways to use military force to exert your will on the world stage. As such, I see absolutely no reason to organize against it.

[Jedinsto]

Since just about nobody outside of the GA regulars support this, I'm considering scrapping it just to avoid wasting time/effort/money.

[Qvait]

Since just about nobody outside of the GA regulars support this, I'm considering scrapping it just to avoid wasting time/effort/money.

I disagree, you will find that there are a lot of people beyond GA people who support a resolution against quorum raiding. You just need to get past the raiders who will make a ruckus about it.

[The Python]

Since just about nobody outside of the GA regulars support this, I'm considering scrapping it just to avoid wasting time/effort/money.

Nah, I fully support this. You'll just have to get through raiders and imperialists.

[Comfed]

Since just about nobody outside of the GA regulars support this, I'm considering scrapping it just to avoid wasting time/effort/money.

I disagree, you will find that there are a lot of people beyond GA people who support a resolution against quorum raiding. You just need to get past the raiders who will make a ruckus about it.

Since just about nobody outside of the GA regulars support this, I'm considering scrapping it just to avoid wasting time/effort/money.

Nah, I fully support this. You'll just have to get through raiders and imperialists.

Yes, it is only raiders who oppose this and no people who think quorum raiding is harmless who aren't raiders and SC regulars who think the resolution is poorly written or people who think that we should at least be able to quorum raid proposals from fascists, nope, those people are all raiders and imperialists.

[Wallenburg]

I don't even know whether quorum raiding is popular among raiders as a whole. A good number of them acknowledge it as destructive and oppose it for some of the same reasons they oppose region destruction. The opposition comes almost solely from those who get their kicks out of making the game worse for everyone else.

[Varanius]

I don't even know whether quorum raiding is popular among raiders as a whole. A good number of them acknowledge it as destructive and oppose it for some of the same reasons they oppose region destruction. The opposition comes almost solely from those who get their kicks out of making the game worse for everyone else.

I mean sure, if being a raider means “literally everyone who’s done a single tag” then yes, there’s some disagreement. But uhh, as someone in an unaligned region I had (apparently incorrectly) assumed you were aware there was a difference between Independent/unaligned regions and raiders.

[Wallenburg]

I don't even know whether quorum raiding is popular among raiders as a whole. A good number of them acknowledge it as destructive and oppose it for some of the same reasons they oppose region destruction. The opposition comes almost solely from those who get their kicks out of making the game worse for everyone else.

I mean sure, if being a raider means “literally everyone who’s done a single tag” then yes, there’s some disagreement. But uhh, as someone in an unaligned region I had (apparently incorrectly) assumed you were aware there was a difference between Independent/unaligned regions and raiders.

I was under the impression that not all raider orgs practice region destruction.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Quorum raiding isn't destructive and anyone saying otherwise is engaging in ridiculous moralisms that not even they believe in.

Frankly some of the rhetoric in this topic has been over the top - and the list of regions opposing this declaration will include more than just 'raiders and imperialists'.

[Great Algerstonia]

I don't even know whether quorum raiding is popular among raiders as a whole. A good number of them acknowledge it as destructive and oppose it for some of the same reasons they oppose region destruction. The opposition comes almost solely from those who get their kicks out of making the game worse for everyone else.

This ^^ I strongly encourage you to keep your draft going, Jedinsto. I still strongly oppose quorum raiding and will be voting for your proposal should it come to vote.

[Lord Dominator]

I mean sure, if being a raider means “literally everyone who’s done a single tag” then yes, there’s some disagreement. But uhh, as someone in an unaligned region I had (apparently incorrectly) assumed you were aware there was a difference between Independent/unaligned regions and raiders.

I was under the impression that not all raider orgs practice region destruction.

It's entirely possible for a raider org to not do so, but all of the currently existing & vaguely active ones (TBH, LWU, and Osiris) are willing to do so.