NationStates

Firmly against. Even by the standards of a declaration, this one isn't worth the fraction of a fraction of a cent it would cost to store on the servers

Timiskrane wrote:The difference between what a view as a "good declaration" and this is that while neither have any mechanical effect, then can be used to present interesting arguments or novel ideas. Basically, some declarations (like SC#358, which you cite in this very proposal) have reasons to exist. Yours does not.

Anti-Fascist Action is neither an interesting argument or a novel idea. No region or nation within GP worth looking at hasn't considered and applied the argument. No military worth mentioning has ever not raided or allowed the raid of fascist regions. Cormac didn't come up with the idea that Fascism is bad, nor did they come up with the idea that Fascists should be opposed militarily and in the WA. That already existed. It already happened, and it would continue to happen anyway. But the declaration was used to establish that stance, loud and clear, because it was deemed an important enough affair within GP politics. I'd say griefing is also an important enough affair within GP politics, and establishing a stance on it is important. ESPECIALLY since we can see there's disagreement - just look at jo's reply on this thread. There's disagreeing ideas on how to approach it, and the WA, as the institution designed to make global approaches to it, gives us the opportunity to make a global approach to it. I think you're giving Cormac way too much credit here. Their proposal was nothing new and certainly nothing unexpected.

I can boil down your entire proposal to the TL;DR of: "Raid bad, pls don't".

Then you haven't read even the title, because it's only greifing, not raiding in general, that this resolution covers. In fact that's one of the reasons jo argued against it. In fact, there's an entire clause clarifying that the resolution makes no stance on raiding, because it's not my place to make a resolution about griefing specifically say anything about raiding in general. Also, I'm not a defender moralist. I think you saw "PFS" and "anti-griefing resolution" and immediately jumped to the conclusion that (a) I am a defender ideologue and (b) this is a defender plot. There are defender associations in my politics and in the history of this proposal, but the mindset of this proposal comes from the original and dominant ideology in my mind - unalignment. I come from TEP. TEP is not and never has been (Unibot's gonna come in with a technicality if he sees this but that's not actually reflective of the overall sentiment of the region) a defender region. It certainly never will be. It raids. It defends. But it doesn't grief. This is the position from which I make this proposal. I'm not anti-raider. I'm not neo-moralist. And I'm certainly not naive enough to think that I can say "Don't do X" and it will stop the raider faction from doing really anything. This is about empowering opposition to raider practices that even indies and unaligned regions disagree with, largely. But it's also about how the WA's perspective has been and always will be defender because the WA are the "good guys" that condemn the raider "bad guys". There's no OOC argument here anymore than there is a defender politician feeding me every word I'm saying. Just for clarification.

Going back to SC#358, you will notice how it has a lead section that presents arguments as to why it is necessary before actually getting into provisions. Even if it's terrible neo-moralist arguments, I'd at least give us some meat to dig into here.

Finally an argument I can work with. I can probably do something of a preamble along these lines. What would you think would be something to include? Like a brief explanation of how griefing came to be and its growing threat against well-to-do regions of the world? Maybe an acknowledgement of the inherent ideology behind certain stances on the subject, but a commitment to making a global stance that considers all perspectives.

As an additional note, I will notice it encourages injuctions, liberations, and commendations of defenders, but crucially does not encourage the condemnation of raiders. Why not?

Because I need the defender vote and no matter how much I personally feel like raiders deserve condemnations, there are some powerful people that believe they don't. I refuse to state, in this proposal or out of it, that Raiders shouldn't be condemned, because I don't believe it, but I'm not going to put it in that they deserve it, because that'll lose me the vote.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Destructive raiding practices are condemned with the full diplomatic weight of the Security Council.

An SC condemnation is something specific, awarded to a nominated nation or region. This may be doing more than a Declaration can do and so may be illegal.

Apart from that no support.

Edit: if this is an illegality I’m sure you can find something equally sanctimonious to fit in with the holier-than-thou content of the rest of the draft.

How's denounced? Sanctimonious enough, you think?

Although the reason I felt like it wouldn't be a problem is (a) Destructive raiding practices, as defined, are things that happen, not regions/nations and (b) it was ruled that SC prop condemnations are illegal and that similar concepts should be executed through declarations, so that's sort of why I went with that vibe. That said, you're probably right that it's better to avoid potential illegalities.

British Arzelentaxmacone wrote:Many users and collective regions thoroughly enjoy the practice of raiding, so sanctioning that would definitely restrict some fundamental freedoms of NS. Also, by telling people to not raid, it is human nature to want to raid more.

Not telling people to not raid. Read the proposal.

Mlakhavia wrote:"The full diplomatic weight of the Security Council" is not as intimidating a phrase as the author would have us believe.

I can do "Destructive raiding practices are denounced by big scary lava monsters who eat everyone who opposes them" if you would rather I go for intimidating over precise and clear.

Mlakhavia wrote:"The full diplomatic weight of the Security Council" is not as intimidating a phrase as the author would have us believe.

I like to think the SC sends TWP a strongly worded letter every time one of our members gets condemned.

Oh, and uh, opposed.

Aivintis wrote:I can do "Destructive raiding practices are denounced by big scary lava monsters who eat everyone who opposes them" if you would rather I go for intimidating over precise and clear.

This, while honestly an improvement, misses the point of what I was saying with relation to your draft.

The Security Council does not have any innate diplomatic weight. The Security Council is merely an instrument to exercise diplomatic weight; the Security Council furthermore is not capable of exercising this diplomatic weight by itself. It can Injunct and Liberate that Yesss(ad nauseam) region, but without the due diligence exercised by defending parties it was still refounded.

You cannot throw around weight which does not exist.

Regardless, the rest of the proposal remains an unnecessary platitude. Against.

Color me shocked to see raider tears on what is otherwise a good proposal. It's all a bunch of blah blah blah with these people.

Emagination wrote:Color me shocked to see raider tears on what is otherwise a good proposal. It's all a bunch of blah blah blah with these people.

noted raiders refuge isle, bhang bhang duc, varanius, and wymondham

Mlakhavia wrote:

Emagination wrote:Color me shocked to see raider tears on what is otherwise a good proposal. It's all a bunch of blah blah blah with these people.

noted raiders refuge isle, bhang bhang duc, varanius, and wymondham

Are you joking??? I dream of being taught from them!!!

Aivintis wrote:Unibot's gonna come in with a technicality if he sees this but that's not actually reflective of the overall sentiment of the region

Yes and no, I think you’re right that the East Pacific broadly has been raider-sympathetic and/or neutral for most of its time in NS — its founding leader was Loop, a proto-raider. So your point for all substantive purposes is correct, in my view.

But I would take issue with someone if they said TEP wasn’t really defender in 2014 — it acted as a defender region primarily that year when players like Todd McCloud and A Mean Old Man had dropped off in activity — and there was a close kinship between the EPSA and the LRA (Lazarus). It was a real phenomenon just a short-lived one all things considered.

As for the actual resolution, I think it needs to be significantly slimmed down, personally — the operative clauses can be tighter and some, like Article II.1 are simply unnecessary context.

I also think Article II and III should be swapped, as you should go from the definitions to the substance of the resolution then end on the caveats, rather than burying the lede.

I yawned while reading this. Against. This will do literally nothing but just take up data storage in the servers. That's all.

Aivintis wrote:it's only greifing, not raiding in general, that this resolution covers. In fact that's one of the reasons jo argued against it. In fact, there's an entire clause clarifying that the resolution makes no stance on raiding, because it's not my place to make a resolution about griefing specifically say anything about raiding in general [...] This is about empowering opposition to raider practices that even indies and unaligned regions disagree with, largely.

Was backreading and actually saw this, and felt generally attacked as the leader of an independent military that doesn't really care about all the insipid hand-wringing around 'griefing'. I know for a fact that this isn't just limited to the PRAF as far as major independent militaries go, and I don't feel like we should entertain this absurd idea that 'griefing' - as defined by this resolution, which seems to be "anything other than a tag" - is a universal wrong.

What defender extremists (or 'neo-moralists') consider 'griefing' is what principled independents can call 'making a point'. Certainly, I can't really say I love it when random communities are straight up annihilated for the sake of it, but it is not in my interests (in this case, the advancement of leftism on NationStates, and the security and power of the Communist Bloc so as to advance that goal) to intervene defensively, or even care, unless it's an ally or just left-wing in general. That's what independence means -- not some blind commitment to principles of universal sovereignty and military operations to that effect. It's pursuing your own interests and ideals. Independent militaries are totally entitled to remove nations from a region, lock it down, and refound it for a whole variety of reasons. They can also close embassies under such a pretext as well.

The World Assembly will always take a "defending good, raiding bad" stance. That's how the cookie crumbles. But considering we're already *seeing* the consequences of a more nuanced playstyle in the frontiers (who's to say the battle for the International UN was anything other than morally subjective?), a blanket approach against 'griefing' is already becoming rapidly outdated. I would not pursue this draft.

Aivintis wrote:

Nordheimrr wrote:Holy Jesus that is a lot to read.
Time to read it.

Edit: certainty well-written, but this would hurt one of the most fundamental parts of Nationstates gameplay, severely.

It costs raiders nothing to not grief.

Tinhampton wrote:FUCK NO.

I don't know if the people in the back quite heard you, could you say it a little louder?

It would be quite a stretch to assume raiding and invasions are somehow griefing. Conflict is the narrative binder of all good roleplay and storytelling. This reads as simply a naieve attempt at morally grandstanding a virtual action and trying to fit it into real world morals.

Marchland wrote:

Nordheimrr wrote:Holy Jesus that is a lot to read.
Time to read it.

Edit: certainty well-written, but this would hurt one of the most fundamental parts of Nationstates gameplay, severely.

Yea cause invading regions and destroying there embassy and banning native region mates is all in the name of fun and games…

Yes? is it somehow not? Games and their objectives inherently revolve around cycles of conflict and general change as a basis. Trying to eliminate change and conflict is essentially outing yourself as naieve and somewhat conservative over something that carries little meaning outside of the meaning we all ascribe it.

If there is no conflict there is simply no reason for the WA or SC at all.

Don't harass, please

Aivintis wrote:Security Council Commendations are encouraged for regions and nations who take a strong stance against destructive raiding practices in their military, foreign, and World Assembly policy with great effectiveness on the partial basis of that stance.

Telling, that commendations are encouraged for the good little beans that oppose the horrible act of kicking over sandcastles, but you wouldn't dare include a clause implying that the people doing the actual bad deeds should be condemned.

Vleerian wrote:

Aivintis wrote:Security Council Commendations are encouraged for regions and nations who take a strong stance against destructive raiding practices in their military, foreign, and World Assembly policy with great effectiveness on the partial basis of that stance.

Telling, that commendations are encouraged for the good little beans that oppose the horrible act of kicking over sandcastles, but you wouldn't dare include a clause implying that the people doing the actual bad deeds should be condemned.

Telling that every raider who takes offense to this posts this without reading any of the thread where I give an explanation three times.

- Aiv

Lerasi wrote:

Vleerian wrote:Telling, that commendations are encouraged for the good little beans that oppose the horrible act of kicking over sandcastles, but you wouldn't dare include a clause implying that the people doing the actual bad deeds should be condemned.

Telling that every raider who takes offense to this posts this without reading any of the thread where I give an explanation three times.

- Aiv

If you acknowledge that extremist defenders are the problem, you should be fighting against their influence, not cowing to their whims. People who try and play within the status quo are those who inadvertently reinforce it.

Lerasi wrote:Telling that every raider who takes offense to this posts this without reading any of the thread where I give an explanation three times.

Oh, I read the explanations, I just find the excuse of brazenly caving to so-called "extremist defenders" unsatisfying, and worthy of repeatedly drawing attention to.

Excluding a clause calling for the condemnation of invaders is a very obvious exclusion when you explicitly call for the commendation of those who oppose invasions.

Switched II and III around.

Mlakhavia wrote:If you acknowledge that extremist defenders are the problem, you should be fighting against their influence, not cowing to their whims. People who try and play within the status quo are those who inadvertently reinforce it.

What do you expect me to do? Change the minds of the most powerful and most extreme defender regions with the snap of my fingers and the click of my heels?

Vleerian wrote:Oh, I read the explanations, I just find the excuse of brazenly caving to so-called "extremist defenders" unsatisfying, and worthy of repeatedly drawing attention to.

Excluding a clause calling for the condemnation of invaders is a very obvious exclusion when you explicitly call for the commendation of those who oppose invasions.

Rare that a BOM member thinks that it's not extreme for defenders to oppose raider condemnations. Additionally, it seems like you're trying to imply that I should remove the commendation encouragement clause, when I could have sworn raiders prided themselves on the high ground of "We don't oppose their resolutions, they shouldn't oppose ours."

Aivintis wrote:What do you expect me to do? Change the minds of the most powerful and most extreme defender regions with the snap of my fingers and the click of my heels?

The people who have this attitude of individual helplessness do not understand their collective power.

Aivintis wrote:Rare that a BOM member thinks that it's not extreme for defenders to oppose raider condemnations.

It is my personal opinion that faulting anyone for using game mechanics to their team's advantage is just a little silly.
Commends and Condemns are tools, just like libs and injuncts. Ineffectual tools too, if the continued existence and success of BoM is any indication.

Aivintis wrote:Additionally, it seems like you're trying to imply that I should remove the commendation encouragement clause, when I could have sworn raiders prided themselves on the high ground of "We don't oppose their resolutions, they shouldn't oppose ours."

Not at all. My preference would obviously be that you simply add the mirroring clause. There was no implication present, merely that the omission of a clause calling for the condemnation of individuals and regions that perpetrate "destructive raiding practices" sticks out like a sore thumb with the way your provisions are laid out.

Mlakhavia wrote:The people who have this attitude of individual helplessness do not understand their collective power.

WAIT ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?!?!!111!?11!!!?!11?!?!11

Vleerian wrote:It is my personal opinion that faulting anyone for using game mechanics to their team's advantage is just a little silly.
Commends and Condemns are tools, just like libs and injuncts. Ineffectual tools too, if the continued existence and success of BoM is any indication.

You know, bolding and specifying that it's your personal opinion doesn't change the fact that it's a rare personal opinion for a member of your organization.

Not at all. My preference would obviously be that you simply add the mirroring clause. There was no implication present, merely that the omission of a clause calling for the condemnation of individuals and regions that perpetrate "destructive raiding practices" sticks out like a sore thumb with the way your provisions are laid out.

I will do it if I see support for that across the ideological spectrum.

I apologize for temporarily kinda abandoning this, but let's say it's now last call.

Against. What purpose would a declaration that essentially says "raiding bad" serve?

Same reason any other declaration exists.

Support.

Chipoli wrote:Against. What purpose would a declaration that essentially says "raiding bad" serve?

Dunno, but if I see someone write one, I'll ask them.