[PASSED] Repeal: Condemn Reventus Koth

[Malphe II]

Broadly, the perspective that "regions supporting this will have set a bad precedent" is false because it assumes this precedent is not already set. The Security Council has never been an apolitical institution with the ability to hand down genuine truths. It is, was, and always will be a political institution, and all actors have vested interests in using the advance their interests and as a site of interregional competition. In recent times, examples of this can be found in WALL's opposition to Commend Karputsk due to actions of the nominee against Europeia, the opposition from members of the West Pacific to Commend Andusre, opposition from the South Pacific and many of its allies to Commend Ambrella/Sopo due to the nominee's history of couping the region, quorum raiding of "Liberate The New Inquisition" by TWPAF, etc. Supporters of this resolution, including The North Pacific, are not treading new ground by fiercely advocating for their regional interests in the SC, rather they are taking advantage of the resources and diplomatic connections at their disposal to advance their regional interests.

I don't think anyone is currently trying to argue this is a misuse of the SC on grounds of game mechanics, it's always been a political tool and this is playing perfectly by the game's rules, argument seems to be more that it's unsportsmanlike and unprecedented.

Unsportsmanlike can't be measured but precedent can, so I figure the crux for me is whether this is the first instance of a badge repeal being passed exclusively to try to scrub the prestige of a player on exclusively IC political grounds *outside of repeals based on IC actions going counter to the tone of the badge? We've got Repeal Commend Sedgistan which appears to be a commendable individual getting their badge yeeted for uncommendable IC acts, and we've got any number of OOC badge removals, but neither of those feel the same as this to me? Wherein a condemnable individual has done condemnable things and nothing OOC gross, but is getting their badge yeeted exclusively on the whim of an IC foe by ostensibly uncandid reasoning. That appears to be new, unless I've missed something.

[Fachumonn]

Broadly, the perspective that "regions supporting this will have set a bad precedent" is false because it assumes this precedent is not already set. The Security Council has never been an apolitical institution with the ability to hand down genuine truths. It is, was, and always will be a political institution, and all actors have vested interests in using the advance their interests and as a site of interregional competition. In recent times, examples of this can be found in WALL's opposition to Commend Karputsk due to actions of the nominee against Europeia, the opposition from members of the West Pacific to Commend Andusre, opposition from the South Pacific and many of its allies to Commend Ambrella/Sopo due to the nominee's history of couping the region, quorum raiding of "Liberate The New Inquisition" by TWPAF, etc. Supporters of this resolution, including The North Pacific, are not treading new ground by fiercely advocating for their regional interests in the SC, rather they are taking advantage of the resources and diplomatic connections at their disposal to advance their regional interests.

I don't think anyone is currently trying to argue this is a misuse of the SC on grounds of game mechanics, it's always been a political tool and this is playing perfectly by the game's rules, argument seems to be more that it's unsportsmanlike and unprecedented.

Unsportsmanlike can't be measured but precedent can, so I figure the crux for me is whether this is the first instance of a badge repeal being passed exclusively to try to scrub the prestige of a player on exclusively IC political grounds *outside of repeals based on IC actions going counter to the tone of the badge? We've got Repeal Commend Sedgistan which appears to be a commendable individual getting their badge yeeted for uncommendable IC acts, and we've got any number of OOC badge removals, but neither of those feel the same as this to me?

That's because it's not the same. This is I feel the first time there has been such a strong effort to strip a raider of their badge like this one. It is arguing that "we need to remove this unjust fuel to raiders by removing their badges", but at the same time doesn't care what the raider did to get those badges, and is acting like no raiders deserve badges as its main motivation. This was a full opposition from me but I guess my region voted for *shrugs*.

[HumanSanity]

I don't think anyone is currently trying to argue this is a misuse of the SC on grounds of game mechanics, it's always been a political tool and this is playing perfectly by the game's rules, argument seems to be more that it's unsportsmanlike and unprecedented.

An action cannot be simultaneously perfectly within the rules as part of using the SC as a political tool and be "unsportsman like". It is perfectly fair-play to use a political tool to remove recognition from one's political enemies. Furthermore, no region supporting this resolution has any reason to extend (in-character) notions of "fair-play" to organizations which have acted with deliberate hostility towards them.

While the decision to oppose this resolution by the Brotherhood of Malice and its treatied allies and partners is an understandable and anticipated expression of their interests, the moral high-ground about preservation of history and fair-play from representatives of organizations that are dedicated to the destruction of cultural heritage and have repeatedly acted to unsettle the established norms of the interregional community is nothing short of laughable. (Although, one thinks the Brotherhood would prefer an 'against' vote from the perpetually sub-200 endorsement Delegate of Osiris over the wheel-spinning commentary of its Chief Vizier in a forum thread.)

Unsportsmanlike can't be measured but precedent can, so I figure the crux for me is whether this is the first instance of a badge repeal being passed exclusively to try to scrub the prestige of a player on exclusively IC political grounds *outside of repeals based on IC actions going counter to the tone of the badge? We've got Repeal Commend Sedgistan which appears to be a commendable individual getting their badge yeeted for uncommendable IC acts, and we've got any number of OOC badge removals, but neither of those feel the same as this to me? Wherein a condemnable individual has done condemnable things and nothing OOC gross, but is getting their badge yeeted exclusively on the whim of an IC foe by ostensibly uncandid reasoning. That appears to be new, unless I've missed something.

This argument is flawed on two levels.

First, it is wrong that this specific instance of precedent must have occurred in order to justify this action, given that we agree on the general principle of the SC's nature as a political institution. Even if the premise were true, the claim that this specific instance has not occurred in the past is ultimately without any implication for the argument.

Second, this claim is false. A clear, and recent, example is the vote to repeal Commend Halo, which many argued was done "for political reasons", on the stated and written basis of poor quality writing, and was done without intent to pass a replacement resolution. This meets all of the criteria you have specified, with the only distinction being it was a Commendation and not a Condemnation.

[RiderSyl]

An action cannot be simultaneously perfectly within the rules as part of using the SC as a political tool and be "unsportsman like".

Yes it can. It happens all the time in sports. It's why players have "unwritten rules of the game" that aren't to be crossed. If you really truly believe that what's within the rules and what's good sportsmanship are one and the same, then you're probably a PAC-12 referee.

[HumanSanity]

It's why players have "unwritten rules of the game" that aren't to be crossed.

Even if you were correct that it is possible to have non-rules that are inviolable, this is not one of them. There is precedent on many levels for political use of the SC. It is not "unsportsmanlike" to use a political avenue to politically challenge your opponents. It is unsportsmanlike to claim political maneuvers by your opponents are outside the rules of the road for engagement when there is no basis for that claim.

Opposition to the SC being used politically seems to only emerge as a bad-faith complaint when losing political battles in the SC. If this were a case being made by allies of Koth to political partners to sway their votes on this resolution, that would be one thing, however it is not being claimed in that way, likely since the Brotherhood has few political allies left willing to take their call.

[RiderSyl]

It's why players have "unwritten rules of the game" that aren't to be crossed.

Even if you were correct that it is possible to have non-rules that are inviolable, this is not one of them.

I'm not saying it's possible to have non-rules that are inviolable - that's a strawman and I know it is - I'll get to why I know it is in a moment. The non-rules are not supposed to be crossed, and that is to maintain a level of healthy exchange between the players playing the game. It is possible to be within the political rules and still be doing something unsportsmanlike, and this is case of that, absolutely.

There is precedent on many levels for political use of the SC. It is not "unsportsmanlike" to use a political avenue to politically challenge your opponents. It is unsportsmanlike to claim political maneuvers by your opponents are something other than that.

This is why I know the first part of your response was a strawman. Because here, you're picking and choosing what is and isn't unsportsmanlike, by only focusing on the political pragmatism of what your team is doing but focusing entirely on the morality of what the other team is doing. If you were looking at the morality and pragmatism of both teams in equal balance, you'd see that Malphe has a salient point they're making. Though, I think you already know Malphe is making a good point.

Opposition to the SC being used politically seems to only emerge as a bad-faith complaint when losing political battles in the SC. If this were a case being made by allies of Koth to political partners to sway their votes on this resolution, that would be one thing, however it is not being claimed in that way, likely since the Brotherhood has few political allies left willing to take their call.

People just want to play this game without resolutions like this making it more toxic to play, HS. Repealing Koth's condemn is just as unsportsmanlike as repealing NewTexas's commend.

It's just an endless cycle of pitchers getting intentionally hit.

[Refuge Isle]

That's because it's not the same. This is I feel the first time there has been such a strong effort to strip a raider of their badge like this one. It is arguing that "we need to remove this unjust fuel to raiders by removing their badges", but at the same time doesn't care what the raider did to get those badges, and is acting like no raiders deserve badges as its main motivation. This was a full opposition from me but I guess my region voted for *shrugs*.

That's not the text of the resolution; you may wish to re-read it.

People just want to play this game without resolutions like this making it more toxic to play, HS.

The last three months have been rife with antagonising conduct where BoM has targetted not just TNP, but Euro, and TEP's territories or protectorates with bombastic abandon. A number of actions were prompted by some of these places just not wanting to have a relationship with them. BoM appearing not able to handle being turned down, continued to write reports, pursue hits, misuse regional forums, and attempt to leverage their own pressure to provoke indie powers, and TNP in particular. They have not just been unreceptive to previous sanctions, but have doubled down in their conviction.

The expectation that inciting the last several months of conflict ought to go without consequences -- that using an IC platform for pushback is "unsportsmanlike" -- is very unrealistic and disingenuous to read. That it adds to "toxicity" is desperately in need of a reality check, as I have commented on previously. There's nothing that requires raiders to follow the world's arbitrary standards of conduct, as their faction is generally founded on the idea following their own equally arbitrary standards. If they want recognition from this chamber, however, that is up how their conduct is seen by the political winds of the time.

The Security Council is a political vehicle and while raiding only has the one trick, there are relatively limitless ways to respond. BoM sought out a conflict with indies where there was none previously, and has aggressively pursued antagonising the North, as if somehow expecting them to break. Perhaps the instigators' mindset originated from playing safe FA strategies for so long that a full realisation of the fallout from their decisions was impossible to visualise. Ultimately it is not surprising that an affected party would be interested in using additional means to sanction undesirable actions. Certainly, I suspect that the North would have been much less interested in pursuing this repeal if the BoM's actions had been different.

[HumanSanity]

OOC: I am disengaging at the point where deliberately calibrated, strategic, interpersonally cordial, in-character political maneuvers are referred to as toxic.

[RiderSyl]

Spare the theatrical pearl-clutching, you two. I made my point and time will, unfortunately, prove that I was right. I don't need to drive the knife deeper - any defenders that genuinely want a fun experience in metagameplay reading this are going to feel like I'm calling them out too, so I should stop here.

Do whatever you want - It's not going to be affecting me anymore, as I no longer intend to participate, for my sake and the sake of others.

EDIT: typo

EDIT 2: should listen to myself about that knife bit

[WayNeacTia]

That's because it's not the same. This is I feel the first time there has been such a strong effort to strip a raider of their badge like this one. It is arguing that "we need to remove this unjust fuel to raiders by removing their badges", but at the same time doesn't care what the raider did to get those badges, and is acting like no raiders deserve badges as its main motivation. This was a full opposition from me but I guess my region voted for *shrugs*.

That's not the text of the resolution; you may wish to re-read it.

The text of the resolution, and the actual intention of the repeal serve two different goals.....

[Twertis]

Raiders don't even try to have political control in the SC.

[Your High Student]

This is badly written. I will be voting against

[Astrobolt]

This is badly written. I will be voting against

Would you mind explaining how this is badly written?

[The North Polish Union]

I like TNP, I've always applauded a lot of what they do, I don't like that they're doing this though. I think it's short sighted, and I think any region that values it's history and the individuals who help build them realize that right now we could say maybe we shouldn't pettily destroy NS history, or more aptly in this case re-write and strike though and shove it in some barely reviewed page.

This action does not "pettily destroy NS history". It alters the documented perception of NS history and the political signals that it sends, and sends a political signal about the consequences of proceeding with a foreign policy that is so broadly antagonistic to established regions in the international sphere.

If any actor "destroys NS history", it is The Brotherhood of Malice via its acts of region destruction which fully erase the history of long-time communities from the site.

A nonsensical rebuttal. One cannot make the argument that Koth's and BoM's actions "fully erase the history of long-time communities from the site", an offense for which an immense number of players have been condemned, and simultaneously support the repeal of his condemnation because he targeted regions one would prefer not to see targeted while engaging in that activity.

I stated during the drafting phase that this proposal and the motivations behind it were "embarrassing". That remains the case, and the torturously-winding attempts at justification by the proposal's supporters do not change that.

[Fachumonn]

That's not the text of the resolution; you may wish to re-read it.

The text of the resolution, and the actual intention of the repeal serve two different goals.....

This this this.

[WayNeacTia]

I stated during the drafting phase that this proposal and the motivations behind it were "embarrassing". That remains the case, and the torturously-winding attempts at justification by the proposal's supporters do not change that.

Since when has a politician ever just told the truth, without trying to spin it in their own favor?

[Refuge Isle]

The text of the resolution, and the actual intention of the repeal serve two different goals.....

This this this.

Sure, but that's not what you said and that's not the explanation I gave.

[WayNeacTia]

This this this.

Sure, but that's not what you said and that's not the explanation I gave.

Anytime you would like to quit with the hot air, that would be great. Global warming is already bad enough without the methane this steaming pile is contributing……

[Quebecshire]

Great to see this passing at vote, happy to have been a part of pulling for approvals.

It's an overall good proposal and a sensible political move. No amount of mudslinging will change that, nor change the fact that it's entirely consistent with the long-standing reality of the Security Council being a political body.

[TheMothman]

Broadly, the perspective that "regions supporting this will have set a bad precedent" is false because it assumes this precedent is not already set.

I very specifically said continue, I understand it is a precedent, I want very specifically used language suggesting that as I stated "[u]to more firmly establish the precedent" and " to further establish" both statements which hold the precedent as already established. I'm saying it's short cited to continue it, just become we have allowed something in the past does not mean we should continue it. I think it is detrimental to the community to do so.

The Security Council has never been an apolitical institution with the ability to hand down genuine truths. It is, was, and always will be a political institution, and all actors have vested interests in using the advance their interests and as a site of interregional competition. In recent times, examples of this can be found in WALL's opposition to Commend Karputsk due to actions of the nominee against Europeia, the opposition from members of the West Pacific to Commend Andusre, opposition from the South Pacific and many of its allies to Commend Ambrella/Sopo due to the nominee's history of couping the region, quorum raiding of "Liberate The New Inquisition" by TWPAF, etc. Supporters of this resolution, including The North Pacific, are not treading new ground by fiercely advocating for their regional interests in the SC, rather they are taking advantage of the resources and diplomatic connections at their disposal to advance their regional interests.

I agree it is political, but every instance you just listed were not seeking to undo,but to stop from occurring, that is different. There is a difference between not allowing a statue and smashing the statue in public park, and that is the difference of this legislation from the ones you listed.

You are correct that the Frontier/Stronghold update will shake up power dynamics in GP, however the Brotherhood of Malice, led by Koth, has made it abundantly clear the approach they intend to take going into F/S. Repeated acts of aggression by the Brotherhood against treatied allies of The North Pacific, often for the primary purpose of taking shots at an enemy they have constructed for the purpose of internal propaganda, makes clear the state of overall relations.

I agree! Koth and his allies, are going to do that, that's what raiders do, and do you want to defenders do they stop them if they're good enough and the defenders will have internal propaganda. Rise up to that challenges, and recognize Koth hasn't come after anyone's Commend, this escalation is on the side of TNP. They may have been responsible for the rest but going after the SC resolutions, isn't an escalation on their part, It on TNP's and one that because they took it here other might fall victim too as it seeks to "emphasis, strengthen and support an existing precedent that shouldn't be"

Isolating these events is not a "oh look the world is changing" moment, as you seem to imply. Common to all of these things is a unifying trend: the aggressive actions of The Brotherhood of Malice and many of its raider partners have gradually unsettled the regions they once enjoyed strong cooperation with. These actions have ripple and spillover effects that are wreaking havoc on even some of the oldest interregional treaties.

BoM had 0 to do with the LKE defections. I was there in chat when they showed up out of the blue asking for a place to exist, I know you lot have logs of that day.

TCB's also made their decision, on their own, I promise you while I think Koth is a smart cookie, they're only shadowy overlord in their lore. Does everyone on your side have such a skewed perception of them? Maybe open a dialogue for change. Look I left because I disagreed, with them on certain takes, and I disagree with this.

I don't think BoM Controlled vote for TNP going defender, nor do I think they're the ones who made a mistake when chasing.

I think that even if you all win this, it also a win for Koth, because the the only thing Koth and Ven and crew control right now is y'all, because you all have allowed yourselves to become and act in a reactionary fashion.

This action does not "pettily destroy NS history". It alters the documented perception of NS history and the political signals that it sends, and sends a political signal about the consequences of proceeding with a foreign policy that is so broadly antagonistic to established regions in the international sphere.

I pointed out immediately what it was more aptly like, but this is no different than smashing a person's trophy from five years ago because you lost a match to them today. Sure they still got the pieces but you can't put it on display. While Destroy NS history might be a little hyperbolic, "pettily" isn't.

If any actor "destroys NS history", it is The Brotherhood of Malice via its acts of region destruction which fully erase the history of long-time communities from the site.

And our solution is to go low? Cause this isn't going high, it's acting in kind. Raiders at least admit what they do, and don't try to hide it by calling a resolution badly written. I think we can do a little better.

EDIT:

OOC: I am disengaging at the point where deliberately calibrated, strategic, interpersonally cordial, in-character political maneuvers are referred to as toxic.

Did not see this totally cool to dip out, sometimes breaks and stepping away is needed. :3

[WayNeacTia]

Great to see this passing at vote, happy to have been a part of pulling for approvals.

It's an overall good proposal and a sensible political move. No amount of mudslinging will change that, nor change the fact that it's entirely consistent with the long-standing reality of the Security Council being a political body.

A turd is still a turd, no matter how much hot air you blow on it trying to polish it……

[Quebecshire]

I agree! Koth and his allies, are going to do that, that's what raiders do, and do you want to defenders do they stop them if they're good enough and the defenders will have internal propaganda. Rise up to that challenges, and recognize Koth hasn't come after anyone's Commend, this escalation is on the side of TNP. They may have been responsible for the rest but going after the SC resolutions, isn't an escalation on their part, It on TNP's and one that because they took it here other might fall victim too as it seeks to "emphasis, strengthen and support an existing precedent that shouldn't be"

The existence of raiderdom is an unacceptable escalation.

Everything else is a proportional, if not lenient response.

...nor do I think they're the ones who made a mistake when chasing.

POV: Tell me you've never defended without telling me you've never defended.

[TheMothman]

The existence of raiderdom is an unacceptable escalation.

Everything else is a proportional, if not lenient response.

Raiderdom is an unacceptable escalation. But BoM are the extreme ones, y'all.

Did you ever think you rhetoric is part of the problem Queb? That maybe if you want to actually solve the issue, you claim to so deeply oppose, that you could get more done with your mouth closed. I mean the rest TGW seems to be doing well and doesn't need everyone to acknowledge them. Next time, try a little introspection, it might do you some good.

POV: Tell me you've never defended without telling me you've never defended.

I did one it was a pile, So you're right I don't have experiecne, but I pretty sure BoM bumps WAD's on purpose, defender do it accidentally and blame Raiders when following them right? That seems like a fuck up one side and not the other to me. But hey what do I know

[Reventus Koth]

I ignored HumanSanity's agendaposting, and I think everyone would do well to ignore Quebecshire's as well. Two of the three heads on the defender PR dragon, to paraphrase the Power20, that can't help themselves on threads like these.

It's funny having this thread be filled to the brim with arguments about how condemnable I am while refusing to recognize me as such, though.

[Quebecshire]

The existence of raiderdom is an unacceptable escalation.

Everything else is a proportional, if not lenient response.

Raiderdom is an unacceptable escalation. But BoM are the extreme ones, y'all.

Did you ever think you rhetoric is part of the problem Queb? That maybe if you want to actually solve the issue, you claim to so deeply oppose, that you could get more done with your mouth closed. I mean the rest TGW seems to be doing well and doesn't need everyone to acknowledge them. Next time, try a little introspection, it might do you some good.

OOC, just to clarify: Snide remark aside, you'd be hard pressed to find the part of my comment that was out-of-character (it wasn't). My issue was never been with raiderdom having their own hardline in-character stances. It's been with a culture of accusing defenders of being out-of-character bad, claims that raiders are being blacklisted, or whatever the fuck the wheel of ridiculousness has landed on this week. But go on. Continue with the false equivalencies if you want.