[PASSED] Injunct Yessssss

[Sedgistan]

Simple and to the point, paired with Liberate Yessssss. Feel free to post questions, etc.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1690260908

The Security Council,

Reiterating that the region Yessssss has been subject to a brutal occupation by raiders for some time now, suffering under the threat of permanent annexation,

Acknowledging that, due to the region’s situation as a newer and smaller region, it is vulnerable to various forms of destruction, one avenue of which requires a Liberation proposal, which has been set forth to these august halls prior to this proposal,

Understanding that even with the passage of a potential Liberation, the region is still at risk of annexation by way of a Governor change, which would require an Injunction to effectively prevent,

Noting that Yessssss was founded on the eve of the creation of Frontiers, being founded as a Frontier itself, which puts it at a significantly greater risk of repossession by outside forces due to the shorter timescale required to permanently occupy the region, underscoring the necessity of a quick and efficient response from this council to protect it,

Affirming that the native Government of Yessssss has consented to this proposal, and hoping to see an end to the demeaning and cruel occupation forced upon them by outside forces,

Hereby Injuncts Yessssss.

[Saddami Iraq]

Yes. The userites shall fall, as the tools of the userites will be used to destroy the userites.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Why pair them both together like this?

[Quebecshire]

Why pair them both together like this?

The region is newer and could feasibly be destroyed by either method, so both proposals are prudent. This is unlike a situation like, say, Canada, where a Liberation was unnecessary but an Injunction was, as it would not have feasibly been destroyed by conventional (or pre-F/S?) means like a simple lock and refound.

[Refiria]

Again, mention the fucking org.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Again, mention the fucking org.

Buy some advertising space.

[Improper Classifications]

Again, mention the fucking org.

Buy some advertising space.

[url=nationstates.net/region=yesssss]They already did[/url], and didn’t even have to pay for it.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Why pair them both together like this?

The region is newer and could feasibly be destroyed by either method, so both proposals are prudent. This is unlike a situation like, say, Canada, where a Liberation was unnecessary but an Injunction was, as it would not have feasibly been destroyed by conventional (or pre-F/S?) means like a simple lock and refound.

Oh, okay! Thanks for answering! I'm still trying to wrap my head around how things work now with Frontiers...

EDIT: Oh, and support, as usual, since I see these as badges of honor. Noting here too that I'd like to see Ijaka mentioned, but I know that's not going to happen.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Buy some advertising space.

[url=nationstates.net/region=yesssss]They already did[/url], and didn’t even have to pay for it.

Then why bitch about not getting a mention - raider egos suddenly got fragile?

Anyway, to the proposal itself: to the usual Quebec standards, i.e. very good. Nice description of the reasons behind the draft, see no reason not to support it.

[Valtarre]

Then why bitch about not getting a mention - raider egos suddenly got fragile?

Surely, a Security Council connoisseur such as yourself must enjoy a proposal with character? I find myself comparing a good proposal to a fine wine -- the subtle aromas and flavors that hit each part of the olfactory senses are quite like the nuances of an operation that lead to the author deciding to craft a proposal. Without mention of the stars of the show, these proposals fail to capture the imagination of the reader, and every Liberation and Injunction ends up reading the same. Everyone's always in immediate danger from some faceless entity...how dull. Might as well drink box wine.

Besides, does the international community not deserve to know who they should fear? And indeed -- who has come to their rescue, in the case of repeals for resolutions that have served their purpose? This world is not so boring, let us not write legislation that convinces us otherwise, I say.

[Concrete Slab]

Then why bitch about not getting a mention - raider egos suddenly got fragile?

Surely, a Security Council connoisseur such as yourself must enjoy a proposal with character? I find myself comparing a good proposal to a fine wine -- the subtle aromas and flavors that hit each part of the olfactory senses are quite like the nuances of an operation that lead to the author deciding to craft a proposal. Without mention of the stars of the show, these proposals fail to capture the imagination of the reader, and every Liberation and Injunction ends up reading the same. Everyone's always in immediate danger from some faceless entity...how dull. Might as well drink box wine.

Besides, does the international community not deserve to know who they should fear? And indeed -- who has come to their rescue, in the case of repeals for resolutions that have served their purpose? This world is not so boring, let us not write legislation that convinces us otherwise, I say.

Mfw when the proposal written in two hours by defenders trying to wipe raider influence from a region doesn't give me goosebumps from its prose or mention the raiders:

[Keth Nat]

Out of curiosity, did the native support this? Were they even asked?

[Volstrostia]

Surely, a Security Council connoisseur such as yourself must enjoy a proposal with character? I find myself comparing a good proposal to a fine wine -- the subtle aromas and flavors that hit each part of the olfactory senses are quite like the nuances of an operation that lead to the author deciding to craft a proposal. Without mention of the stars of the show, these proposals fail to capture the imagination of the reader, and every Liberation and Injunction ends up reading the same. Everyone's always in immediate danger from some faceless entity...how dull. Might as well drink box wine.

Besides, does the international community not deserve to know who they should fear? And indeed -- who has come to their rescue, in the case of repeals for resolutions that have served their purpose? This world is not so boring, let us not write legislation that convinces us otherwise, I say.

Mfw when the proposal written in two hours by defenders trying to wipe raider influence from a region doesn't give me goosebumps from its prose or mention the raiders:

At this point, this is not a "oops! it was a rush job, sowwy!" but rather a deliberate effort - no, a pattern of deliberate efforts - to omit the raiders involved. It would be the easiest thing in the world to drop a mention in somewhere, but that seems too tall an order for defenders who seek to downplay and ultimately completely shut down acknowledgement of the accomplishments of raiders. There is no reason for such a sustained pattern of refusal to acknowledge one's foes, except for an OOC desire to prevent them from experiencing the slightest gratification for their participation in what is, let us not forget, a part of gameplay - and a part of gameplay that defenderdom exists at the leisure of, no less. After all, without raiders, defenders could not exist, as my forum signature attests to. You would think that the very cause for a groups existence would be given their due, given credit for their deeds that are apparently so important they require the entire Security Council to merely attempt to reverse. But no, like C/Cs, defenders seem hell-bent on denying raiders access to an entire portion of the game. They have forgotten that every story needs a villain.

[Honeydewistania]

Mfw when the proposal written in two hours by defenders trying to wipe raider influence from a region doesn't give me goosebumps from its prose or mention the raiders:

At this point, this is not a "oops! it was a rush job, sowwy!" but rather a deliberate effort - no, a pattern of deliberate efforts - to omit the raiders involved. It would be the easiest thing in the world to drop a mention in somewhere, but that seems too tall an order for defenders who seek to downplay and ultimately completely shut down acknowledgement of the accomplishments of raiders. There is no reason for such a sustained pattern of refusal to acknowledge one's foes, except for an OOC desire to prevent them from experiencing the slightest gratification for their participation in what is, let us not forget, a part of gameplay - and a part of gameplay that defenderdom exists at the leisure of, no less. After all, without raiders, defenders could not exist, as my forum signature attests to. You would think that the very cause for a groups existence would be given their due, given credit for their deeds that are apparently so important they require the entire Security Council to merely attempt to reverse. But no, like C/Cs, defenders seem hell-bent on denying raiders access to an entire portion of the game. They have forgotten that every story needs a villain.

Sounds like the defenders are merely fulfilling their narrative role as opponents to the raider 'villains' by denying them the attention and gratification for their deeds that they so crave.

[Volstrostia]

At this point, this is not a "oops! it was a rush job, sowwy!" but rather a deliberate effort - no, a pattern of deliberate efforts - to omit the raiders involved. It would be the easiest thing in the world to drop a mention in somewhere, but that seems too tall an order for defenders who seek to downplay and ultimately completely shut down acknowledgement of the accomplishments of raiders. There is no reason for such a sustained pattern of refusal to acknowledge one's foes, except for an OOC desire to prevent them from experiencing the slightest gratification for their participation in what is, let us not forget, a part of gameplay - and a part of gameplay that defenderdom exists at the leisure of, no less. After all, without raiders, defenders could not exist, as my forum signature attests to. You would think that the very cause for a groups existence would be given their due, given credit for their deeds that are apparently so important they require the entire Security Council to merely attempt to reverse. But no, like C/Cs, defenders seem hell-bent on denying raiders access to an entire portion of the game. They have forgotten that every story needs a villain.

Sounds like the defenders are merely fulfilling their narrative role as opponents to the raider 'villains' by denying them the attention and gratification for their deeds that they so crave.

There's a very clear difference between IC opposition and OOC desire to make a game not fun for someone. One is healthy. One is not.

[Zamillia]

The founder doesn’t want it injuncted!

[Miravana]

As others have pointed out, it is clear the native founder doesn't want this injuncted, but before I jump to the conclusion that defenders assumed native consent, I want to hear from them who they asked to ok this injunction? I'm all for injunctions if the natives request one, any good raider is aware of the time restraints on an absolute victory, but at this point given the written protest against it, I would like to see written consent before I put my support behind this proposal.

[Concrete Slab]

Mfw when the proposal written in two hours by defenders trying to wipe raider influence from a region doesn't give me goosebumps from its prose or mention the raiders:

At this point, this is not a "oops! it was a rush job, sowwy!" but rather a deliberate effort - no, a pattern of deliberate efforts - to omit the raiders involved. It would be the easiest thing in the world to drop a mention in somewhere, but that seems too tall an order for defenders who seek to downplay and ultimately completely shut down acknowledgement of the accomplishments of raiders. There is no reason for such a sustained pattern of refusal to acknowledge one's foes, except for an OOC desire to prevent them from experiencing the slightest gratification for their participation in what is, let us not forget, a part of gameplay - and a part of gameplay that defenderdom exists at the leisure of, no less. After all, without raiders, defenders could not exist, as my forum signature attests to. You would think that the very cause for a groups existence would be given their due, given credit for their deeds that are apparently so important they require the entire Security Council to merely attempt to reverse. But no, like C/Cs, defenders seem hell-bent on denying raiders access to an entire portion of the game. They have forgotten that every story needs a villain.

I mean, gratification and happiness should come from within. I always assumed raiders got their gratification from raiding the region. Y'all have plenty of recognition from the people who care from gameplay reports to using the region itself as an advertisement and trophy. And I mean, since when have Security Council proposals been Out Of Character? From an In Character sense (at least for me), it makes perfect sense why defenders don't mention the raider force responsible. Giving a shoutout only makes other groups more excited to potentially get their names in the SC as well, leading to more raids.
And also, my ultimate goal as a defender is that my services will someday not be required. I defend to protect regions. If regions don't need to be protected anymore, I'll gladly put down the mantle.

[Angeloid Astraea]

The founder doesn’t want it injuncted!

Defenders agree, winning is more fun than whatever the natives want for their region. =P

And also, my ultimate goal as a defender is that my services will someday not be required.

Lame. If your ultimate goal is that raiding doesn't exist in the game anymore, then of course you'll support the idea of keeping raiders out of the game's permanent record! You don't want us to exist here.

[Valtarre]

Sounds like the defenders are merely fulfilling their narrative role as opponents to the raider 'villains' by denying them the attention and gratification for their deeds that they so crave.

Ah, I must be forgetting about the great breadth of narrative works where the valiant heroes never once put a name to the forces who threaten them or the people they protect. How dreadfully boring it must be for any outside observers of our little game. Though, I suppose it might wrap back around into being fun if you fully committed and refused to ever name a raider in any context. My shadowy assassins could lean into that, at least.

Mfw when the proposal written in two hours by defenders trying to wipe raider influence from a region doesn't give me goosebumps from its prose or mention the raiders:

And let me guess, you like your chicken boiled with no spices as well?

[Concrete Slab]

Sounds like the defenders are merely fulfilling their narrative role as opponents to the raider 'villains' by denying them the attention and gratification for their deeds that they so crave.

Ah, I must be forgetting about the great breadth of narrative works where the valiant heroes never once put a name to the forces who threaten them or the people they protect. How dreadfully boring it must be for any outside observers of our little game. Though, I suppose it might wrap back around into being fun if you fully committed and refused to ever name a raider in any context. My shadowy assassins could lean into that, at least.

Mfw when the proposal written in two hours by defenders trying to wipe raider influence from a region doesn't give me goosebumps from its prose or mention the raiders:

And let me guess, you like your chicken boiled with no spices as well?

I'll have you know I quite enjoy Publix's hot and spicy wings!!!

[Volstrostia]

At this point, this is not a "oops! it was a rush job, sowwy!" but rather a deliberate effort - no, a pattern of deliberate efforts - to omit the raiders involved. It would be the easiest thing in the world to drop a mention in somewhere, but that seems too tall an order for defenders who seek to downplay and ultimately completely shut down acknowledgement of the accomplishments of raiders. There is no reason for such a sustained pattern of refusal to acknowledge one's foes, except for an OOC desire to prevent them from experiencing the slightest gratification for their participation in what is, let us not forget, a part of gameplay - and a part of gameplay that defenderdom exists at the leisure of, no less. After all, without raiders, defenders could not exist, as my forum signature attests to. You would think that the very cause for a groups existence would be given their due, given credit for their deeds that are apparently so important they require the entire Security Council to merely attempt to reverse. But no, like C/Cs, defenders seem hell-bent on denying raiders access to an entire portion of the game. They have forgotten that every story needs a villain.

I mean, gratification and happiness should come from within. I always assumed raiders got their gratification from raiding the region. Y'all have plenty of recognition from the people who care from gameplay reports to using the region itself as an advertisement and trophy. And I mean, since when have Security Council proposals been Out Of Character? From an In Character sense (at least for me), it makes perfect sense why defenders don't mention the raider force responsible. Giving a shoutout only makes other groups more excited to potentially get their names in the SC as well.
And also, my ultimate goal as a defender is that my services will someday not be required. I defend to protect regions. If regions don't need to be protected anymore, I'll gladly put down the mantle.

Does that protection extend to regions that actively refuse it?
Regardless, my point here is simple - whether the text and body of proposal itself is IC or OOC is irrelevant. I fail to see a valid reason to omit the orgs involved beyond pettiness and a genuine desire to deprive raiders of as much recognition for their efforts as possible. Regardless of whether gratification "comes from within" is similarly irrelevant - the point I'm making is not "waaaah raiders saaaad" but rather an observation that is increasingly obvious - defenders want to stifle as much of that gratification as they physically can, not for in-character reasons (which I would completely understand and encourage), but rather out of OOC spite.
(I will also note that this conversation is wandering away from the topic of this particular Injunction, so I won't be continuing this line of discussion any further. I think the points I've made stand as-is.)

[Eternal Algerstonia]

Strange, a region with 112 endorsements gets an Injunction backed by the Megaregions and other movers and shakers in the Neo-Moralist Cabal, but when the little guy with 7 endorsements decides to get an Injunction, the Ageist Accords moves against it with all its might? Something very, very fishy is afoot. I demand a negotiation with defenders on the Injunction of Algerheaven and their surrender in the Algerheaven-Aegis War of Conquest and Liberation, or I will completely demolish this proposal in a countercampaign telegram. The elites have 12 hours until the next stage in our confrontation begins.

[Concrete Slab]

I mean, gratification and happiness should come from within. I always assumed raiders got their gratification from raiding the region. Y'all have plenty of recognition from the people who care from gameplay reports to using the region itself as an advertisement and trophy. And I mean, since when have Security Council proposals been Out Of Character? From an In Character sense (at least for me), it makes perfect sense why defenders don't mention the raider force responsible. Giving a shoutout only makes other groups more excited to potentially get their names in the SC as well.
And also, my ultimate goal as a defender is that my services will someday not be required. I defend to protect regions. If regions don't need to be protected anymore, I'll gladly put down the mantle.

Does that protection extend to regions that actively refuse it?
Regardless, my point here is simple - whether the proposal itself is IC or OOC is irrelevant. I fail to see a valid reason to omit the orgs involved beyond pettiness and a genuine desire to deprive raiders of as much recognition for their efforts as possible. Regardless of whether gratification "comes from within" is irrelevant - the point I'm making is that it is increasingly obvious that defenders want to stifle as much of that gratification as they physically can - not for in-character reasons, but out of OOC spite.

And I see that the reason is if defenders glorify raiders in the Security Council, other raiders will want their turn in the spotlight as well. Why do we care so much that the tools specifically given to defenders to combat raiders are being used to combat raiders to their fullest extent?

[The North Polish Union]

Affirming that the native Government of Yessssss has consented to this proposal, and hoping to see an end to the demeaning and cruel occupation forced upon them by outside forces,