The Security Council,
Praising the ingenuity of nations in creating new infrastructure for the purposes of regional and interregional cooperation and governance, and affirming the fundamental value and importance of this property for reasons including,Aware that these properties and realms are sometimes damaged, destroyed, or otherwise rendered inaccessible due to the rogue actions of some individual nations, such as those described in Security Council Resolution #27 Condemn Unknown, and Security Council Resolution #73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders;
- Governance of regions and organisations;
- Socialisation and cultural events;
- Military operations;
- Historical archives of important regional affairs;
Holding that such damage can take many forms, including but not limited to,Remembering that damage of this nature inflicted upon the property and realms of regions in the past have often resulted in irreversible, generational and cultural losses, and the functional death of many regions and organisations;
- Gratuitous erasure of national representation, discussion and archives from property or realms;
- Rendering property or realms inaccessible by intentionally changing the structure of such places to be inaccessible;
- Indiscriminately
- Rendering property or realms undesirable to use by gratuitously filling such places with obscenity;
Acknowledging that long held standards have been in place across many regional communities, which hold that damaging or destroying property and realms are an act outside of what is accepted in global politics or warfare, such as a convention against the destruction of private regional communication channels, commonly referred to as COPS;
Advises regions and organisations to take practical security steps in order to protect themselves from nations that would seek to inflict destruction upon property and realms, and to proliferate resources that assist other regions and organisations to do the same;
Encourages regions to provide assistance beyond the norm to other communities that have experienced these actions, to help mitigate the damage these actions cause;
Advocates for the total proscription of regional and organisational membership of nations responsible for the damage of property and realms, and for diplomatic isolation of regions and organisations that knowingly harbour members who have committed these acts;
Appeals to regions to share information with each other about those nations that are known to have undertaken damaging actions against the properties and realms of regions and organisations, even when it would be politically or strategically disadvantageous to do so;
Hereby declares that the result of these suggested actions should ultimately be to drastically reduce, or eliminate outright, the practice of destruction of property and realms.
I have, historically, invested a lot of time and effort into investigating offsite property destruction, as well as identifying and tracking individuals responsible for it. It's not an issue the way it used to be, which is fortunate- I think a lot of people and regions would be caught flat-footed if it became common again, and I suspect it would be a difficult and painstaking process to re-enforce the old standards across a much larger and diverse game than what we had 10-12 years ago.
Historically, most gameplay regions have turned to the Convention on Offsite Property for standards on this matter, but the convention has usually only been helpful for setting the standard on what to do with people who attack forums. The convention itself has rarely been officially ratified by many communities that relied on it, and has often been poorly understood. It has also had the deeply unwanted side effect of encouraging a small number of people to live out their supervillain fantasies, such as Rougiers, Forgery, Soviet Sindorin, etc. There's occasionally been efforts to replace it, but nothing has ever gotten off the ground.
With the advent of declarations, I would like to take the opportunity to propose a constructive document, to help provide future guidance on the matter. It very specifically does not go as far as COPS used to do; aside from the rule 3b difficulties, that kind of treaty works best as an opt-in document. Feedback is welcome; attempts to relitigate the old standards are much less so.
