[DRAFT] Repeal: "Liberate Democratia"

[Islandwalk]

Liberate Democratia is pretty bad. I'm not partial to keeping this on the books any longer given how blatantly plagiarized it is from Liberate Belgium (sorry Goober but you not minding doesn't make it okay), a fact that was criticized at the time as well.

Of course there's always the looming question of "do you have native consent"? Well, which natives? I telegrammed every nation in the region 12 days ago and have received no sign of life, and only one of the nations even does (albeit sporadic) issues answering. I don't think there are any natives anymore.

In any case, thanks to my coauthors for helping with this and also to Tim-Opolis for his advice.

10/09/2026 Update: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=587801&p=43916608#p43916608

Recognizing SC#11 “Liberate Democratia” as this body’s fourth ever liberation of a region with the stated intent of rescuing it from invasion,

Finding that the region has long been rendered entirely inactive, without much hope for a revival of its old community,

Concluding that without a native community to protect, the liberation’s original purpose of protecting those natives has been rendered obsolete,

Noting that despite currently being present, regional governor Fire Eaters has frequently ceased to exist, leaving the region defenceless against invasion,

Asserting that despite this potential vulnerability, thousands of other regions lack an executive governor to ensure regional security without being at significant risk of occupation, and Democratia itself has not seen even trivial forms of raiding in years,

Disappointed that this resolution fails to differentiate itself whatsoever from the nearly identical SC#4 “Liberate Belgium,”

Hereby repeals Security Council Resolution 11 “Liberate Democratia.”

Co-authors: New Illyricum, Inevitable Poverty

Recognizing SC#11 “Liberate Democratia” as this body’s fourth ever liberation of a region with the stated intent of rescuing it from invasion,

Seeing that the region’s governor has ceased to exist since its refounding over five years after the resolution’s passage, making it vulnerable once more,

Finding that the region has long been rendered entirely inactive, without much hope for a revival of its old community,

Concluding that without a native community to protect, the liberation’s original purpose of protecting those natives has been rendered obsolete,

Asserting that despite its vulnerability, thousands of other regions lack an executive governor to ensure regional security without being at significant risk of occupation, and Democratia itself has not seen even trivial forms of raiding in years,

Disappointed that this resolution fails to differentiate itself whatsoever from the nearly identical SC#4 “Liberate Belgium,”

Hereby repeals Security Council Resolution 11 “Liberate Democratia.”

[Mammoth Cave]

Hey why not.

Support.

[Northern Slatavia]

I believe Bears Armed, the founder and former governor of Democratia did not want the liberation repealed.

[Islandwalk]

Bears armed doesn't seem interested enough to even keep his puppets alive so I'm counting on him to reach out if he has gripes

[Fachumonn]

Bears Armed has repeatedly been against this iirc, and so have the other natives in the past I think.

If the consensus is that that doesn't matter, then let it be so. But I hardly think the burden should be on the natives to reach out if they have already made their opinions clear. I also wouldn't blame him for not keeping his puppets alive. I'm pretty sure he has publicly stated he has health issues.

I think this makes sense but I would be careful because I'm pretty the overwhelming native sentiment has been against this effort in the past.

[The Democratic Disney States]

I tentatively support. Would like to know 100% if natives are supportive of this.

[The Ambis]

If this issue of consent is resolved, I have no issue supporting. Until then, sorry Voop, it's a no from me.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Good evening. Tonight on 'It's the Mind', we examine the phenomenon of deja vu. That strange feeling we sometimes get that we've lived through something before, that what is happening now has already happened. Tonight on 'It's the Mind' we examine the phenomenon of deja vu, that strange feeling we sometimes get that we've ...

Repealing this Liberation is getting a bit Monty Python. Nothing against your draft Voop it’s very good, but we seem to get in the same loop every time it comes up. Do we have native consent? Are the current residents natives? What does BA think?

I am rapidly approaching the point of thinking it’s best to rip the band aid off once and for all.

[Astrobolt]

Against, this seems to be repeal for the sake of repeal when previous consensus on the matter was that there was no native consent.

Unless that has changed, I can't support this.

[Islandwalk]

Explain this to me like I'm five: what makes Bears Armed a native when they haven't, by even the loosest definition, touched the region in a year and a half? I value the input of natives like any other reasonable person, and I respect BA, but to me it seems beyond absurd to insist on the input of a player who happened to refound snipe a liberated region and based on the information I can find hasn't given it much attention beyond invoking "peacezone theory" in the last decade. If I put a puppet in a hundred dead regions and RMB post once a season and answer some issues am I now a native in all of them? Is August still a native of his regions? My answer would be no, so again, what's the case being made?

[Northern Slatavia]

Explain this to me like I'm five: what makes Bears Armed a native when they haven't, by even the loosest definition, touched the region in a year and a half? I value the input of natives like any other reasonable person, and I respect BA, but to me it seems beyond absurd to insist on the input of a player who happened to refound snipe a liberated region and based on the information I can find hasn't given it much attention beyond invoking "peacezone theory" in the last decade. If I put a puppet in a hundred dead regions and RMB post once a season and answer some issues am I now a native in all of them? Is August still a native of his regions? My answer would be no, so again, what's the case being made?

Bears Armed is the founder and former governor, and their wishes should be respected. There is a difference between that and a mindless puppet. Against unless BA gives consent.

[Dengist China]

Bears Armed is the founder and former governor, and their wishes should be respected. There is a difference between that and a mindless puppet. Against unless BA gives consent.

I am also against unless BA gives consent.

[New Illyricum]

Bears Armed's consent at this point is immaterial. They are not, and have not been for some time an active member of the region in question.

Frankly it's impossible that a resolution of such terrible quality will stay on the books into the future, so if we don't repeal it, someone else will. It's a plagiarized resolution whose only defender is someone who hasn't even bothered to show up in this thread.

Any comments on our repeal itself on its own merits, or are we going to keep lingering on immaterial issues?

[Fachumonn]

I don't know why someone needs to be an active member of a region to have an opinion that is worth something in relation to that region. I'm also confident it was not just Bears Armed who was opposed.

I want to support the proposal because in theory it's an amazing idea but these are legitimate concerns and they can't just be answered by stating "their opinions don't matter anymore."

[Caniant]

I would not normally chime in here, but given that I was directly asked by the author, I offer my two cents:

I am against this repeal. Democratia is not in a place where it could defend itself from outside threats, nor is there any sort of a plan in place to secure it. Absent those two factors I would prefer the liberation stay in place, and should those conditions ever be fulfilled I would prefer that almost anyone other than the current author be the one to repeal it, given the hostility they have displayed to the region and to feedback in this thread.

Should anyone "more native" than me step in with a different opinion, I will accede entirely to their wishes.

Regards.

[Islandwalk]

I would not normally chime in here, but given that I was directly asked by the author, I offer my two cents:

I am against this repeal. Democratia is not in a place where it could defend itself from outside threats, nor is there any sort of a plan in place to secure it. Absent those two factors I would prefer the liberation stay in place, and should those conditions ever be fulfilled I would prefer that almost anyone other than the current author be the one to repeal it, given the hostility they have displayed to the region and to feedback in this thread.

Should anyone "more native" than me step in with a different opinion, I will accede entirely to their wishes.

Regards.

I appreciate that you found time to reply. My co-authors and I have now dropped this proposal

[Fire Eaters]

I would not normally chime in here, but given that I was directly asked by the author, I offer my two cents:

I am against this repeal. Democratia is not in a place where it could defend itself from outside threats, nor is there any sort of a plan in place to secure it. Absent those two factors I would prefer the liberation stay in place, and should those conditions ever be fulfilled I would prefer that almost anyone other than the current author be the one to repeal it, given the hostility they have displayed to the region and to feedback in this thread.

Should anyone "more native" than me step in with a different opinion, I will accede entirely to their wishes.

Regards.

I appreciate that you found time to reply. My co-authors and I have now dropped this proposal

Thank you for dropping the proposal.
Yes, I'm back.

BTW, I didn't "snipe hunt a liberated region". It was seized by raiders while my puppet there was rather inactive, but they had been infiltrated by an idealistic player who decided that an effective way to oppose raiding would be joining the raiding organisation, talking them into giving that player responsibility for their new re-Founder, and then handing over that Founder to the player of a native nation... which they did.

[Islandwalk]

After a period of reflection, my co-authors and I have decided to revive this effort. We have concluded that no argument presented has been convincing enough to dissuade us from pursuing the repeal. The nation of Caniant which opposed the repeal has no history whatsoever in the region besides residing there for a few hundred days. No RMB history until after this was posted and no forum history before their single complaint. They have been reached out to for comment on their history in the region but have not replied after at least 3 logins since. Their reasons are also plainly incorrect. Even if Fire Eaters were to cease to exist soon, it would not change a thing for the region's security. Democratia is not a typical invasion target because it has no value to raiders and I think it's uncontroversial among anyone with a modicum of R/D knowledge to say there is insignificant risk beyond being a target for tagging, which would remain the case if the liberation weren't repealed. While BA's correction on the history of the region is appreciated, it does not change anything about the merits of our reasoning in terms of the region's lack of activity or the lack of utility in this liberation, and it certainly does nothing to change the fact that this liberation is plagiarized dogshit we should strike from the books.

[Mammoth Cave]

To turn the consent issue on its head, is the SC expected to draft and pass a liberation for any region at threat when the natives desire it? This hasn’t been an issue in the past, as it does anyways. But if not, why does refusing to pass a liberation hold a privileged position over repealing one?

I’m not sure that this actually reflects my opinion. It’s just an idea that I had that I felt was worth sharing.

What I do wholeheartedly believe is that this era ought to define its relationship with the writing standards of previous ones. Several years ago, with a few exceptions, like Lenly’s R&R of Condemn Macedon, ancient C&Cs were treated at least to my understanding as impolite to repeal, and outright destructive if they could not be replaced because the nominees had CTEd. Nowadays, what’s the zeitgeist? I see these liberation repeals cropping up today when they didn’t before, and immediately think, “Well sure, I support, by why are we doing this?”. In Voopmont’s case, the answer’s readily available: “It’s plagiarized. Why would we not do this?”. But that’s a special case. We don’t have a general answer, it seems.

[Northern Slatavia]

Still against.

[Dengist China]

Fire Eaters has been refounded by the way. Not sure how this will impact the draft.

[Islandwalk]

To turn the consent issue on its head, is the SC expected to draft and pass a liberation for any region at threat when the natives desire it? This hasn’t been an issue in the past, as it does anyways. But if not, why does refusing to pass a liberation hold a privileged position over repealing one?

I’m not sure that this actually reflects my opinion. It’s just an idea that I had that I felt was worth sharing.

What I do wholeheartedly believe is that this era ought to define its relationship with the writing standards of previous ones. Several years ago, with a few exceptions, like Lenly’s R&R of Condemn Macedon, ancient C&Cs were treated at least to my understanding as impolite to repeal, and outright destructive if they could not be replaced because the nominees had CTEd. Nowadays, what’s the zeitgeist? I see these liberation repeals cropping up today when they didn’t before, and immediately think, “Well sure, I support, by why are we doing this?”. In Voopmont’s case, the answer’s readily available: “It’s plagiarized. Why would we not do this?”. But that’s a special case. We don’t have a general answer, it seems.

I believe Cessarea covered this in the Utopia liberation repeal thread, but there is value in repealing mechanically impactful resolutions (injunctions and liberations) if they no longer serve a purpose just as a thing of basic housekeeping. That differs from C&Cs, which exist for the badge and place great value in the text itself, and should not be regularly cleaned up. Dated writing isn't an excuse for repealing one, although there are valid cases like for a repeal and replace or if the resolution plainly just does not hold up. SC#20 really doesn't hold up for example, but I'd be opposed to any repeal of SC#17 because the nominee truly is deserving and the player is unreachable for a replacement.

Fire Eaters has been refounded by the way. Not sure how this will impact the draft.

Not at all. Read my statement.

[Dengist China]

Not at all. Read my statement.

I did. It makes the draft to me more supportable but raiders have shown they're willing to go pretty low. I still oppose this given there's no native consent.

[Adriatic Democratic Empire]

My stance is a little iffy. But I do have one questions

Caniant’s post suggest you asked him for an opinion on the draft which he posted. So you asked for his opinion and now you’re gonna ignore it?

Edit: considering fire eater’s last login was when he posted his Forum post there’s no threat to him CTEing unless he’s careless. For

[Lenlyvit]

I don't think that you can equate the target resolution to SC#17 or SC#20, regardless of the idea of basic housekeeping. If I remember correctly, the last time this came up it was explained that the liberation resolution had become partially central to the functionality of Democratia's culture. Without BA signing off on it I believe you have a high hill to climb to get this to pass.

Also, you may want to rephrase your resolution when it comes to Fire Eaters as BA has revived the puppet. As for the Liberate Belgium similarities, they're unfortunate but not enough to warrant a repeal of a resolution that's been on the books for *checks* 17 years.