NATION

PASSWORD

[FIRST DRAFT] Against Destructive Raiding Practices II

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

[FIRST DRAFT] Against Destructive Raiding Practices II

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:29 pm

It wouldn't let me fit Electric Boogaloo in the title, unfortunately.

So, I said that I was revisiting this thing and rewriting it completely, based on some of the valid criticism presented by major against regions such as The North Pacific and Europeia, and I would try to incorporate more reasonable exceptions. This includes bringing back a deleted clause. On top of all that, I wrote it (arguably) much better. Apatosaurus remains my co-author.

Image

Against Destructive Raiding Practices

Declaration


The Security Council,

Defining an “act of aggression” as any hostile act taken by a region against the interets of another region or international organization with the intention of illegally seizing power, including but not inherently limited to, infiltration, vote manipulation, or invasion, but excluding conflicts in third party regions such as opposition during a liberation,

Further defining “destructive raiding practices” as any act intended to harm a region or its native community during an invasion by invading forces, through destructive actions including, but not inherently limited to:
  1. Banning or ejecting native nations,
  2. Instituting regionally imposed barriers to free entry to the region without the explicit consent of the native community,
  3. Refounding the region without the explicit consent of the native community, or
  4. Closure of native-opened embassies without the explicit consent of the native community,
Believing this declaration to be simply the formalization of a precedent established by various resolutions, such as SC #74: Condemn Lone Wolves United, SC #269: Condemn Macedon, and SC #326: Condemn Ever-Wandering Souls, which present the firm view of these practices being staunchly against the principles of this august body,

Asserting that a public, global stance must be taken against such practices in order to facilitate and express support for their opposition within the international community beyond its existing extent, and

Affirming that this declaration in and of itself is in no way an explicit or implicit endorsement or criticism of the practice of invading in general, or else any subject outside of the breadth of the explicit clauses of this declaration,

Hereby:
  1. Condemns destructive raiding practices with the full diplomatic weight of the Security Council;
  2. Entreats regional militaries that participate in invasions to not participate in any such operation employing destructive raiding practices, whether or not they are responsible for the practices themselves;
  3. Exhorts the use of Security Council Liberations to protect regions against destructive raiding practices, and further Security Council Condemnations to express further dismay at this practice; and
  4. Establishes exceptions to these proscriptions in cases where targeted regions frequently engage in destructive raiding practices in violation of this declaration, where the military or regions employing destructive raiding practices are in a declared state of war with the targeted regions following an act of aggression committed by the targeted region against them or their allies, or where targeted regions are displayed to be openly fascist or else display morally reprehensible conduct towards other national leaders, in the latter cases actively encouraging such action.
Last edited by Aivintis on Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Apatosaurus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 944
Founded: Jul 17, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Apatosaurus » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:31 pm

Was nice to help in this ^-^
This signature stands with Palestine.

End the continued practice of bombing houses, museums, refugee camps, ambulances, and churches.
WA Ambassador: Ambrose Scott; further detail on WA delegation in factbooks. Nation overview.

User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:35 pm

Oh and between the last edition and this one, I had really deep character development where I realized bolding the verbs and adjectives at the beginning of clauses was kinda cringe.

-- Aivintis

User avatar
Hulldom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1572
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Hulldom » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:45 pm

I don't think you'll find support for (iv) around these parts and if I were you, I'd drop that subclause entirely.

The only other suggestion I have at present is to switch the "Defining" and "Further defining" clauses. It'll help with the flow.
...And I feel like I'm clinging to a cloud!

User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:04 pm

Hulldom wrote:I don't think you'll find support for (iv) around these parts and if I were you, I'd drop that subclause entirely.

The only other suggestion I have at present is to switch the "Defining" and "Further defining" clauses. It'll help with the flow.

Genuinely curious, I'm not mocking anyone here: Why is burning native embassies that important?

The defining clause is first because it's the most important definition. Further defining only applies in like the last subclause. But alright, I'll switch it and if more people think it's better the other way, I'll switch it again and then stop there.
Last edited by Aivintis on Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yuts Knenxland
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Aug 08, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Yuts Knenxland » Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:37 pm

I'm not an expert on WA stuff, but some stuff strikes me as odd yeah.

Specifically iii, where refounding without native consent is a bad thing. Now looking at this alone, I don't quite understand.

Let's say I like region A's name, and the natives CTE. I refound Region A. Then the natives revive and come back. Am I engaging in destructive raiding practices?

I suppose you're thinking of it in the context of occupations, whereby we ban all the natives, password, refound and take over the region, but personally I think that while everything leading up to the refounding is destructive, the refounding itself is not so.
The refounding is the consequence, what happens after these destructive raiding concepts are put into action.

Then a tiiiny other thing, you did mention that vote manipulation is an act of aggression, how about expanding on that by give some thought to quorum raiding?
Two, Four, Six, Eight, You've been staying up too late!

You can just call me LL, or well, Y.K works too


Other nations: Lucklife

User avatar
Minskiev
Minister
 
Posts: 2423
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Minskiev » Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:00 pm

You don't need the II in the title since the original never passed.
Minskiev/Walrus. Former Delegate of the Rejected Realms, 3x Officer. 15x WA author. Join the RRA here.

User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:05 pm

Yuts Knenxland wrote:I'm not an expert on WA stuff, but some stuff strikes me as odd yeah.

Specifically iii, where refounding without native consent is a bad thing. Now looking at this alone, I don't quite understand.

Let's say I like region A's name, and the natives CTE. I refound Region A. Then the natives revive and come back. Am I engaging in destructive raiding practices?

I suppose you're thinking of it in the context of occupations, whereby we ban all the natives, password, refound and take over the region, but personally I think that while everything leading up to the refounding is destructive, the refounding itself is not so.
The refounding is the consequence, what happens after these destructive raiding concepts are put into action.

Then a tiiiny other thing, you did mention that vote manipulation is an act of aggression, how about expanding on that by give some thought to quorum raiding?

Quorum raiding is an entirely other thing that I won't touch in this proposal because it's simply a topic for another declaration. Not this one. It's only tangentially related, and since it can be reversed by approving the proposal again when the raiders leave, it's not technically in the category I'm trying to cover here.

Refounding without the natives' consent does refer to when there is actually an active community that is against the refounding. Not when there isn't. If there's no natives, there's no need for consent. The idea is to ban the sort of refounding that raiders force by banning tall the natives, passwording it, letting it CTE, and then sniping the name. This is impossible if there are already no natives and no region.

As for "why not remove it and keep the actions inherently linked to refounding as proscribed", that would be leaving a hole that will likely lead to less support overall. At a glance, it would appear as if the declaration supported refounding, which is obviously the opposite of the intention.

User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:05 pm

Minskiev wrote:You don't need the II in the title since the original never passed.

The other thread still exists, though, so I thought the differentiation would be helpful.

User avatar
Minskiev
Minister
 
Posts: 2423
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Minskiev » Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:19 pm

Aivintis wrote:
Minskiev wrote:You don't need the II in the title since the original never passed.

The other thread still exists, though, so I thought the differentiation would be helpful.

If that one was marked with abandoned, then that'd be a difference :p I just mean for the title at submission.
Minskiev/Walrus. Former Delegate of the Rejected Realms, 3x Officer. 15x WA author. Join the RRA here.

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Diplomat
 
Posts: 754
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Thousand Branches » Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:22 pm

Minskiev wrote:You don't need the II in the title since the original never passed.

Says you who literally did the same thing with paid leave act :p For actually business’ sake, I will do edits on this when I have time
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at QueenAramantha for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Failed General Assembly Resolutions Archive || The Grand (Newspaper Archive) •○•
○•○ Have an awesome day you! ○•○

User avatar
Hulldom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1572
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Hulldom » Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:03 pm

Aivintis wrote:
Hulldom wrote:I don't think you'll find support for (iv) around these parts and if I were you, I'd drop that subclause entirely.

The only other suggestion I have at present is to switch the "Defining" and "Further defining" clauses. It'll help with the flow.

Genuinely curious, I'm not mocking anyone here: Why is burning native embassies that important?

The defining clause is first because it's the most important definition. Further defining only applies in like the last subclause. But alright, I'll switch it and if more people think it's better the other way, I'll switch it again and then stop there.

I think that question can be flipped: why is it so important that it's considered griefing?
...And I feel like I'm clinging to a cloud!

User avatar
Minskiev
Minister
 
Posts: 2423
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Minskiev » Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:58 pm

Thousand Branches wrote:
Minskiev wrote:You don't need the II in the title since the original never passed.

Says you who literally did the same thing with paid leave act :p For actually business’ sake, I will do edits on this when I have time

Yeah you corrected me :p
Last edited by Minskiev on Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Minskiev/Walrus. Former Delegate of the Rejected Realms, 3x Officer. 15x WA author. Join the RRA here.

User avatar
RiderSyl
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6309
Founded: Jan 16, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby RiderSyl » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:06 pm

The exceptions section got even worse. What the fuck.

Aivintis wrote:Establishes exceptions to these proscriptions in cases where targeted regions frequently engage in destructive raiding practices in violation of this declaration, where the military or regions employing destructive raiding practices are in a declared state of war with the targeted regions following an act of aggression committed by the targeted region against them or their allies, or where targeted regions are displayed to be openly fascist or else display morally reprehensible conduct towards other national leaders, in the latter cases actively encouraging such action.


This isn't a declaration "Against Destructive Raiding Practices" with these exceptions. This is just deciding who can banject, password, refound, embassy-burn, and grief with impunity. Spoiler: It's mostly just the Imps.
Last edited by RiderSyl on Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
R.I.P. Dyakovo
Sylvia Montresor

Ashmoria
Karpathos
~ You may think I’m small, but I have a universe inside my mind. ~

User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:21 pm

Minskiev wrote:
Aivintis wrote:The other thread still exists, though, so I thought the differentiation would be helpful.

If that one was marked with abandoned, then that'd be a difference :p I just mean for the title at submission.

It was marked with defeated.

Besides, the submission title is just Against Destructive Raiding Practices.

User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:23 pm

Hulldom wrote:
Aivintis wrote:Genuinely curious, I'm not mocking anyone here: Why is burning native embassies that important?

The defining clause is first because it's the most important definition. Further defining only applies in like the last subclause. But alright, I'll switch it and if more people think it's better the other way, I'll switch it again and then stop there.

I think that question can be flipped: why is it so important that it's considered griefing?

It is a "destructive action" that is "intended to harm a region or its native community during an invasion by invading forces" not to mention difficult to reverse.

User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:25 pm

RiderSyl wrote:The exceptions section got even worse. What the fuck.

Aivintis wrote:Establishes exceptions to these proscriptions in cases where targeted regions frequently engage in destructive raiding practices in violation of this declaration, where the military or regions employing destructive raiding practices are in a declared state of war with the targeted regions following an act of aggression committed by the targeted region against them or their allies, or where targeted regions are displayed to be openly fascist or else display morally reprehensible conduct towards other national leaders, in the latter cases actively encouraging such action.


This isn't a declaration "Against Destructive Raiding Practices" with these exceptions. This is just deciding who can banject, password, refound, embassy-burn, and grief with impunity. Spoiler: It's mostly just the Imps.

My proposal was defeated because there weren't enough exceptions. This is a correction of that issue. Without it, I don't have the votes. And this is better than nothing.

Besides, people abusing this clause are likely to be caught committing other condemnable actions as well.

I am willing to consider changing it (discord discussions right now) but this is my overall belief as of now.

User avatar
Varanius
Diplomat
 
Posts: 728
Founded: Sep 18, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Varanius » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:27 pm

..you know you can respond to all of these with one post right?
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Guardian of the West Pacific
Author of SC#401
Gameplays Most Popular

Angeloid Astraea wrote:I can't think of anyone that creates controversy out of nothing better than you!
Excidium Planetis wrote:Yeah, if you could enlighten me as to why you're such an asshole, that would be great.
Koth wrote:Vara is such a dedicated hater, it's impressive
Mlakhavia wrote:Vara isn't a gameplay personality, he's a concentrated ball of spite

User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:31 pm

Varanius wrote:..you know you can respond to all of these with one post right?

It is easier to post two posts than to have to click quote, copy it, close it down, click quote again, paste the other quote, and then post.

User avatar
The Hazar Amisnery
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 395
Founded: Oct 26, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The Hazar Amisnery » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:36 pm

I hope this can be extended to the Anti-Fascism raiders since they're just as bad as TBH or Lily
Last edited by The Hazar Amisnery on Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
News:
Nationwide cyberattack devastates core government infrastructure, but we will prevail.

User avatar
Quebecshire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1914
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Quebecshire » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:38 pm

The Hazar Amisnery wrote:I hope this can be extended to the Anti-Fascism raiders since they're just as bad as TBH or Lily

It doesn’t, because they’re not.
PATRIOT OF THE LEAGUE REDEEMER OF CONCORD
Defender Moralist | Consul of the LDF | Warden-Lieutenant Emeritus | Commended
Benevolent Thomas wrote:I founded a defender organization out of my dislike of invaders, what invading represents, and my desire to see them suffer.
Pergamon wrote:I must say, you are truly what they deserve.

User avatar
Aivintis
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Nov 11, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Aivintis » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:42 pm

The Hazar Amisnery wrote:I hope this can be extended to the Anti-Fascism raiders since they're just as bad as TBH or Lily

Did...did you just say Anti-Fascism is bad?

Of all the opinions I expected to see in this thread, this was not one of them.

I assure you my declaration will go out of its way to protect anti-fascism because fascism is a terrible, terrible ideology that deserves everything that's coming to it.

User avatar
Quebecshire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1914
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Quebecshire » Sun Dec 12, 2021 10:26 pm

I have maintained the following position on anti-invader (in this case, anti-griefing specifically) proposals since day one of declarations: Having no law on the books is better than a law which allows (or has the potential to allow) the unacceptable.

This proposal is far too moderate, and gives far to much leeway of convoluted excuses of actions which are not tolerable. Against, firmly.
Last edited by Quebecshire on Sun Dec 12, 2021 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PATRIOT OF THE LEAGUE REDEEMER OF CONCORD
Defender Moralist | Consul of the LDF | Warden-Lieutenant Emeritus | Commended
Benevolent Thomas wrote:I founded a defender organization out of my dislike of invaders, what invading represents, and my desire to see them suffer.
Pergamon wrote:I must say, you are truly what they deserve.

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Diplomat
 
Posts: 754
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Thousand Branches » Sun Dec 12, 2021 10:39 pm

Quebecshire wrote:I have maintained the following position on anti-invader (in this case, anti-griefing specifically) proposals since day one of declarations: Having no law on the books is better than a law which allows (or has the potential to allow) the unacceptable.

This proposal is far too moderate, and gives far to much leeway of convoluted excuses of actions which are not tolerable. Against, firmly.

I’m genuinely curious, what portions do you think face this problem? How should they be changed? I know this is a topic you agree should be outlawed (at least I’m relatively sure), what do you think would improve it?
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at QueenAramantha for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Failed General Assembly Resolutions Archive || The Grand (Newspaper Archive) •○•
○•○ Have an awesome day you! ○•○

User avatar
Quebecshire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1914
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Quebecshire » Sun Dec 12, 2021 10:46 pm

Thousand Branches wrote:
Quebecshire wrote:I have maintained the following position on anti-invader (in this case, anti-griefing specifically) proposals since day one of declarations: Having no law on the books is better than a law which allows (or has the potential to allow) the unacceptable.

This proposal is far too moderate, and gives far to much leeway of convoluted excuses of actions which are not tolerable. Against, firmly.

I’m genuinely curious, what portions do you think face this problem? How should they be changed? I know this is a topic you agree should be outlawed (at least I’m relatively sure), what do you think would improve it?

In theory I understand the rationale behind griefing if two regions are in a "declared state of war", but is that war declared both ways? What is a valid casus belli - this proposal doesn't define it.

What is an "act of aggression"? That's loose, is it not? Can that be applied to very-unpopular recruitment practices? What about just being an ass?

This proposal is flimsy and caters too much to people who are good at justifying doing intolerable things. Griefing's acceptability should not be based on how nuanced and elaborate your written justification can be.
PATRIOT OF THE LEAGUE REDEEMER OF CONCORD
Defender Moralist | Consul of the LDF | Warden-Lieutenant Emeritus | Commended
Benevolent Thomas wrote:I founded a defender organization out of my dislike of invaders, what invading represents, and my desire to see them suffer.
Pergamon wrote:I must say, you are truly what they deserve.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: One Small Island

Advertisement

Remove ads