NationStates

Lord Flint Tinder of the Empire of Phyr stands at the podium in a drafting room to address the assembled ambassadors.

"To put it simply gentlemen, LET'S GET READY TO RUUUMBLEEEE!"

Lord Flint throws a handful of copies the draft into the air so they scatter around the room. He seems oddly eager, as if about to see some impressive spectacle.

The World Assembly Security Council,

Recognizing our body has an important role in the conflict between raiders (or invaders), defenders, independents, and natives,

Noting the World Assembly Security Council has the power to impact invasions through liberations, and has most often used this power to protect native populations from hostile invaders attempting to become the region’s founder, but has in a few circumstances the World Assembly Security Council has taken the opposite stance and made it easier for a region to be invaded,

Recalling that some nations have asserted the act of invading or raiding is immoral or wrong despite the history of this body’s endorsement of such actions, and further recalling that this has led to the vilification of nations and regions that engage in even harmless invasions,

Understanding either because nations come together within their community to overcome the temporary setback, or because nations are exposed to the possibility of raiding or defending, often raids lead to a higher level of engagement and a more productive international or interregional community,

Seeking to clarify the status of raiding and defending in the eyes of this great body, and reaffirm the time honored tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions,

Proclaims that all alignments (defender, raider, independent, imperialist, neutral, pacifist, etc) are valid and not necessarily moral or immoral, but that the facts and circumstances of each diplomatic incident between sovereign regions must be analyzed to determine if a conflict is harmful or beneficial to any region or the world as a whole,

Declares that this body does not prefer defending to raiding or to any other alignment but rather takes a neutral stance between factions, and takes action when specific facts or circumstances merit interference or recognition,

Denounces the vilification of all invader, raider, imperialist, or independent regions or nations simply because of an identification rather than a thoughtful analysis regarding the specific invasions or raids the nation participated in or lead and how those events impacted the world.

OOC: I think because they are tags, it is ok to refer to each of these alignments as such since they appear on region pages. I would like to use the term 'refounding' in the noting line, but not sure if it is R4 kosher. What I have works but is needlessly wordy if 'refounding' can happen. I couldn't find any ruling via search, anyone know?

Based.

Edit: I haven’t read the whole thing yet but support in premise.

Yes, please. This needs to be the 1st or 2nd Declaration on the list of passed ones, or at least in the top 10.

Picairn wrote:Yes, please. This needs to be the 1st or 2nd Declaration on the list of passed ones, or at least in the top 10.

It is my hope for this to be quickly submitted when the proposal type goes live.

Early feedback appreciated.

This contravenes years of Security Council precedent, and as evidence compares innocent natives to fascist regions (just about the only group offensive liberations are used against). Not sure whether that's ignorance or bad faith, but neither is appropriate.

Fauxia wrote:This contravenes years of Security Council precedent, and as evidence compares innocent natives to fascist regions (just about the only group offensive liberations are used against). Not sure whether that's ignorance or bad faith, but neither is appropriate.

Looking through the resolutions, Liberate Greece was passed because the WA did not support the founder of that region. Unclear if the intent then was to open the door to possible invasion when the founder ceased to exist. It was certainly a possible outcome though.

But the fact remains, fascists or otherwise sometimes the WA thinks aggressive tactics are OK sometimes, clearly. We should clarify this formally and recognize that raiding/invading is not any less preferable to defending.

Phyr wrote: would like to use the term 'refounding' in the noting line, but not sure if it is R4 kosher.

'Refounding' is legal to use, so you're clear on that front.

Phyr wrote:

Fauxia wrote:This contravenes years of Security Council precedent, and as evidence compares innocent natives to fascist regions (just about the only group offensive liberations are used against). Not sure whether that's ignorance or bad faith, but neither is appropriate.

Looking through the resolutions, Liberate Greece was passed because the WA did not support the founder of that region. Unclear if the intent then was to open the door to possible invasion when the founder ceased to exist. It was certainly a possible outcome though.

It's very clear if you actually read the proposal that that was not the intent, and that rather the intent was to free the region from the foreign powers of the Persian Empire, and that the WA did not support Yauna because Yauna acted in the interests of the... oh wait, raiders.

Regardless of the obviously ridiculous rhetorical strategy of bringing up a single liberation.

Phyr wrote:But the fact remains, fascists or otherwise sometimes the WA thinks aggressive tactics are OK sometimes, clearly. We should clarify this formally and recognize that raiding/invading is not any less preferable to defending.

What?

There is a very very very easy way to codify what the WA has supported for years: 1) Innocent regions deserve protection, 2) Forces that raid innocent regions act against the interests of the WA, 3) Fascist regions, which are not innocent by nature of being fascist, do not deserve defense, thus, 4) Forces that raid fascists (or other OOC bad regions) act in the interests of the WA.

There's an entire history of liberating regions to protect them from raiding, and you cherry pick the one circumstance where even defenders will raid and use that as "proof" that the WA doesn't prefer one side to the other. What utter bilge. Defending fascism is not part of the defender ideology, neither is raiding fascists unique to the raider ideology (and I'd point out, in the past, raider ideology has gotten in the way of anti-fascist raids. As I understand it, The Black Hawks until recently maintained a policy of refusing to take part in operations that defenders played a role in, including some notable anti-fascist raids.)

The Ambassador from Fauxia’s passionate opposition to neutrality of the WA is noted. I suppose we will see you on the voting floor.

I can't take this seriously unless it cites the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions".

This is a raider sympathetic proposal masquerading as a neutral one.

Phyr wrote:Noting the World Assembly Security Council has the power through Liberations to impact invasions, and has most often used this power to protect native populations from hostile invaders attempting to become the region’s founder,

Knowing that in a few circumstances the World Assembly Security Council has taken the opposite stance and made it easier for a region to be invaded,

As Fauxia has mentioned, pretty much the only time the SC has supported raiding has been when regions are fascist, OOC problematic, or raid innocent regions. By and large, the SC is against raiding, and supports regional sovereignty.

Phyr wrote:Understanding either because nations come together within their community to overcome the temporary setback, or because nations are exposed to the possibility of raiding or defending, often raids lead to a higher level of engagement and a more productive international or interregional community

This is ridiculous, raiding doesn't lead to more engagement, it leads to regional stagnation and death. Obviously, when raiders ban natives and turn regions into trophies, it drives people away from the game. Stating otherwise is just wrong.

Noting the World Assembly Security Council has the power through Liberations to impact invasions

Wouldn't "Noting the Security Council has the power to impact invasions through Liberations"?

Recalling some nations have asserted the act of invading or raiding is immoral or wrong

A bit of a nitpick, but I think adding "that" between "Recalling" and "some nations" would make the sentence flow a bit better.

further recalling this has led

Idem. "further recalling that this has led".

Other than that, there's nothing in the proposal draft that would make me oppose this

Daarwyrth wrote:Wouldn't "Noting the Security Council has the power to impact invasions through Liberations"?
A bit of a nitpick, but I think adding "that" between "Recalling" and "some nations" would make the sentence flow a bit better.
Idem. "further recalling that this has led".

Other than that, there's nothing in the proposal draft that would make me oppose this

Switched the order of those words in Noting line, sounds the same to me either way tbh but ok.
also added those thats

Sedgistan wrote:I can't take this seriously unless it cites the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions".

I did a forum search and saw this has been in a lot of proposals, and maybe the old ruleset? Good suggestion, always fun to tie in old themes.

Can you confirm what was said here? Somehow I feel weird about it because while founding happens in game, refounding is not on any game pages and makes no sense outside of the game meta so it feels like something that would be illegal.

Astrobolt wrote:As Fauxia has mentioned, pretty much the only time the SC has supported raiding has been when regions are fascist, OOC problematic, or raid innocent regions. By and large, the SC is against raiding, and supports regional sovereignty.

FWIW, while I stand by the statement that because WA Liberations can and have been used offensively, this body is not in a position to prefer offense or defense but rather should have a firm neutral stance, I have compressed these lines into one to give less emphasis to the comparison.

Thanks everyone for assisting the noble goal of neutrality!

"Refound" appears to have been used multiple times in resolutions already; it's not an issue.

Recognizing our body has an important role in the conflict between raiders (or invaders), defenders, independents, and natives which is almost as old as the body itself,

It's older than the SC. Raiding basically dates back to the granting of executive power to WADs.

Kylia Quilor wrote:

Recognizing our body has an important role in the conflict between raiders (or invaders), defenders, independents, and natives which is almost as old as the body itself,

It's older than the SC. Raiding basically dates back to the granting of executive power to WADs.

The SC’s role in raiding and defending is almost as old as the SC, as in Liberations were added very early after SC itself. Will reword or maybe just remove since it doesn’t matter so much.

Sedgistan wrote:I can't take this seriously unless it cites the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions".

This was my thought too, hehehe.

Suffice to say, I think the SC should stand for peace, justice, & goodwill — sometimes that means picking a side in crises. Neutrality isn’t always effective in advancing these causes.

This Declaration as written definitely feels raider sympathetic rather than neutral, but TESDAI will lean on the side of support rather than opposition. The “raider bad” rhetoric is quite old at this point, and as pointed out, moral raiding by and large exists and has a history of support in the WA.

Even by the standards of declarations, this will mean very little. But I would love to see the SC fomally say raiding and defending are equally moral, even if it's just because of a lemming vote, so, sure, let's make it happen

TESDAI wrote:This Declaration as written definitely feels raider sympathetic rather than neutral, but TESDAI will lean on the side of support rather than opposition. The “raider bad” rhetoric is quite old at this point, and as pointed out, moral raiding by and large exists and has a history of support in the WA.

Glad to have your support. I personally think I tried to walk the middle by omitting a line regarding defenderism’s history of subverting regional sovereignty.

While I am not necessarily opposed to this OOC (I'm not a huge fan of raiding OOC, but I can understand why the SC would want to be neutral to something like that from a player-perspective), I think it makes far less sense IC - raiders have always been the "bad guys"! Whether or not you think it's actually harmful is irrelevant here, because it fits perfectly in the Security Council's role as a world authority to be anti-raiding; that's why defenders have traditionally been commended, and raiders have traditionally been condemned. I think it's far more interesting if the Security Council continues to play into these stereotypes.

Of course, that's coming from a player who has light involvement, if any, in the R/D game. It just seems like it would make the game far more boring if the SC was supposed to be neutral on these things.

I made the above referenced change and submitted. Let's get our neutral on boys!

Hello Delegates!

I have written a WASC Declaration proposal (new category type) which declares the World Assembly's neutrality on regional affairs. This is a time honored tradition in the WA, and should be non-controversial.

Unfortunately, outside of the WA community we have been plagued by false statements that some groups of people are playing the game immorally or such even that such people are immoral simply because of how they identify. This is outrageous. Labels and identities are not right or wrong, but specific actions can be right or wrong. This declaration says the WA (and each of us nations) should judge ACTIONS not LABELS and while the WA may say certain ACTIONS are bad or good, it remains neutral on the question of if any specific type of person is good or bad.

This is common sense, all decent people should support. Please approve my proposal and support it at vote.

With love for all,
Phyr

Inquorate. This proposal reached quorum twice in the hour before its autodeletion, at 0416 BST by The Fire Born (who unapproved at 0452 BST) and at 0431 BST by Noble Titans (who unapproved at 0442 BST). Cosnicu's approval came while the proposal still had 52 approvals, to avoid confusion.

I sent the following campaign out to all 854 WA Delegates who were not approving the Declaration at 0335 BST:

AS OF 0459 BST ON TUESDAY: Approvals: 53 out of 55 needed (Phyr, Tinhampton, Edmundian Pluto, United Lammunist Republic, Kustonia, Yafetistan, Gibraltarica, TESDAI, Republic of Blank, Gurbangulistan, Tripartite Empire, N E A C, Krezenel, Socialist Amogus, Baloo Kingdom, Pastries, Reultan, Cruciland, Qudrath, Particle, Andia Calla, Almerdonia, Cus Kazdines, Ench Table, Libonesia, The Malayan State, Owl Archipelago, Nopengie, Tostandia, San Lumen, The North Atlantic Provinces, Queen of the Ruckus, New Deathland, Krovnik, Denathor, Zombiedolphins, Communo-Slavocia, Gonzlandia, Exitio, The Islands of Europe and the Americas, Jedinsto, You Should See Me in a Crown, Bearded Dragones, Littjara, Imperial American Patriots, Camaordia, Fsdh E, Smiley Bob, SFR Philippines, Grogger Nuts, Frontier Isles, Yghrhrhr 3060, Cosnicu)