NationStates

This is Alfonzo here, decided I’d finally venture into declarations with this:

The Security Council,

Acknowledging the original purpose of a Liberation proposal; lifting and negating barriers of entry to a region with the intent of combating high-profile invasions, with tactics that may include imposing barrier to entry to ensure a region’s destruction

Noting the recent trend of liberation proposals that goes against this intent by using said method to instead of combat invasions, to use them to cause and/or further invasions and a region’s destruction

Further noting the value these proposals have and what they have been used for:
Advancing anti-fascist action in accordance with SC#358
Applying pressure to region with hope of changing it for the better (i.e. SC#263)
Punishing condemnable regions that do not meet global standards laid down by the worldwide community

Hereby recognizing and labeling these proposals as “Offensive Liberations” and declaring the following:

I. Offensive Liberations are a valid usage of the liberation proposal and should be used when needed
II. Repeals of Offensive Liberations much like the repeals of regular liberations are an equally valid tool and should also be used when needed
II. Offensive Liberations should especially be used in advancing anti-fascist action and punishing condemnable regions

Offensive Liberations have been the gold standard in anti-fascist resolution writing since La Navasse, and are sufficiently influential that Sedge saw fit to unpin the Guide to the Security Council and call for its rewrite because (among other developments) its view of Liberations to the contrary was not in step with the views of most players as of early 2020. Why do we need a Declaration on this?

Tinhampton wrote:Offensive Liberations have been the gold standard in anti-fascist resolution writing since La Navasse, and are sufficiently influential that Sedge saw fit to unpin the Guide to the Security Council and call for its rewrite because (among other developments) its view of Liberations to the contrary was not in step with the views of most players as of early 2020. Why do we need a Declaration on this?

Why do we "need" a declaration on anything? Declarations exist for people to express their opinions through the Security Council, and just because an opinion is popular doesn't mean it's not valid.

Opposed. There is nothing wrong with using a liberation to combat evil.

The Orwell Society wrote:Opposed. There is nothing wrong with using a liberation to combat evil.

...did you even read the resolution? That's not what it's saying.

Comfed wrote:

The Orwell Society wrote:Opposed. There is nothing wrong with using a liberation to combat evil.

...did you even read the resolution? That's not what it's saying.

...that was an attempt at sarcasm/mockery. I failed

The declaration might be more substantive if it:
- Outlines when an offensive liberation can be used?
- Are there reasonable limits that should be applied?
- Outlines under what conditions an offensive liberation can or should be repealed?

In all seriousness, I still can't give my support. This isn't a particularly well thought out draft, and I see little reason in supporting a declaration on offensive liberations in this this proposal's current state. Revise and fortify the writing and the argument, and I might just change my mind.

Why should we pass this?

Not a well-written nor necessary proposal.

While the writing isn’t great, that could be improved. However, the Declaration itself is unnecessary as far as I am concerned. Sorry, but no support from me.

Croblade wrote:This is Alfonzo here, decided I’d finally venture into declarations with this:

The Security Council,

Acknowledging the original purpose of a Liberation proposal; lifting and negating barriers of entry to a region with the intent of combating high-profile invasions, with tactics that may include imposing barrier to entry to ensure a region’s destruction

Noting the recent trend of liberation proposals that goes against this intent by using said method to instead of combat invasions, to use them to cause and/or further invasions and a region’s destruction

Further noting the value these proposals have and what they have been used for:
Advancing anti-fascist action in accordance with SC#358
Applying pressure to region with hope of changing it for the better (i.e. SC#263)
Punishing condemnable regions that do not meet global standards laid down by the worldwide community

Hereby recognizing and labeling these proposals as “Offensive Liberations” and declaring the following:

I. Offensive Liberations are a valid usage of the liberation proposal and should be used when needed
II. Repeals of Offensive Liberations much like the repeals of regular liberations are an equally valid tool and should also be used when needed
II. Offensive Liberations should especially be used in advancing anti-fascist action and punishing condemnable regions

My region plans to pursue these matters once it grows larger. Support.

OOC: I concur that this is not well-written and that the SC does not need to state its opinion on ‘offensive liberations’.