Redundant: Liberate Pakistan

[Ardchoille]

Maybe even a mention about the defender forces that are going to be needed to retain Pakistan would be useful? Again though, merely a recommendation clause and not anything concrete.

*reaches for Modly Chainsaw of Spectacular and Gory Doom*

ANYTHING that looks, sounds, smells, feels or tastes like a reference to a WA-sponsored army, or a WA police force, or a WA volunteer force, or a WA Coalition of the Willing, or anything that in any way resembles any of the above, is going to get the proposal (if submitted), the proposer (if not fast enough on his feet), the proposer's buddies, allies and yea-sayers, and any innocent bystanders who just happen to be standing too close, DEALT WITH by the aforementioned MCoSaGD.

Also, pursued into the after-life, if any.

Do I make myself sufficiently clear?

[Todd McCloud]

To me, it looked like an honest mistake. I think Unibot knows the WA should not, cannot, will not have an army, but perhaps he was referring to other bodies which have sufficient forces outside the WA.

[Ardchoille]

The Sweepers of the Proposal Queue have little forgiveness left, even for honest mistakes. *eldritch cackle*

In any case, anything outside the ambit of the proposal category should not be in the proposal.

[Unibot]

Do I make myself sufficiently clear?

Though that suggestion was more encouraging nations to volunteer for military efforts as they saw fit, much like Suppress International Piracy, though that was a 'URGES & AUTHORIZES' clause.

And I don't see how the occupation and political liberation of Pakistan is exactly off topic of a liberation proposal, A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region.

But since I've got that off my chest :

*looks to the ground*
Yes Ma'am.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

And I don't see how the occupation and political liberation of Pakistan is exactly off topic of a liberation proposal, A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region.

Well one could argue that forcibly removing a regional password and then encouraging liberators to retake the region is a military action and thus a violation of the "no WA army" rule.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Uh, no please, no armies or such, honoured ambassadors. Ms. Harper struck out the last clause clearly because it would not be in the interests of the WA's mainly pacifist views as well as the functionality of the resolution.

[Unibot]

Well one could argue that forcibly removing a regional password and then encouraging liberators to retake the region is a military action and thus a violation of the "no WA army" rule.

Sure, I suppose.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

REALIZING that the action of the World Assembly Security Council is the only option left to let legitimate and native nations of Pakistan to regain control of the region;

has been modified for neutrality to:

REALIZING that the intervention of the World Assembly Security Council is the only option remaining to allow native nations of Pakistan to reclaim their region;

[Martyrdoom]

I don't mean to purposely niggle at this but the essentail ingredients for "liberations" as I understand it is: 1/ the removal of passwords, and 2/ keeping passwords off.

"To allow native nations of Pakistan to reclaim their region" must be beyond the scope: it is inherently biased and operative. With the password off, Pakistan is and should be open to anyone, not just necessarily the former natives of Pakistan, who in anycase don't really have an inalienable right to ownership of the region. As far as I know, we're not looking to go back in time and re-create things as they were before invasion but to allow the region the chance to come back into the arena of gameplay through this procedure.

Still sounds like a WA-army to me using preferred nations.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I don't mean to purposely niggle at this but the essentail ingredients for "liberations" as I understand it is: 1/ the removal of passwords, and 2/ keeping passwords off.

"To allow native nations of Pakistan to reclaim their region" must be beyond the scope: it is inherently biased and operative. With the password off, Pakistan is and should be open to anyone, not just necessarily the former natives of Pakistan, who in anycase don't really have an inalienable right to ownership of the region. As far as I know, we're not looking to go back in time and re-create things as they were before invasion but to allow the region the chance to come back into the arena of gameplay through this procedure.

Still sounds like a WA-army to me using preferred nations.

Fixed to mention "rightful nations" instead of "native".

[Martyrdoom]

I'm sorry but that does not "fix" anything for the reasons I've stated above. "Rightful nations"; "reclaim"; "their" are the culprits - this still denotes a bias, a cause and an agenda. I've seen people state things like "we're still going to need defenders to conduct the actual liberation once the password is lifted" - these might nominally be defenders but they are technically invaders if they aim to take the delegacy and thus "control" the region. The language use here corresponds to what a former resident of Pakistan or a "defender" would use - either way someone who has a vested interest in "reclaiming" the region. What I'm saying is these are unnecessary and indeed disturbing terms.

What about something more equitable?

"REALIZING that the intervention of the World Assembly Security Council is the only option remaining to allow nations free and unstricted access to the region of Pakistan once again"

(Or something along those lines at any rate, I hope you see where I'm coming from!)

[Ardchoilleans]

I second the representative of Martyrdoom on this; indeed, I'd prefer an even more bare-bones proposal. The SC is above the storm of battle. It's a chamber in the world parliament: the referee, not one of the opposing teams. Whatever it does to one nation or region, it could at some time in the future do to any one of ours.

Keeping that in mind, we must consider what we could, however unwillingly, tolerate from the SC if its powers were turned on ourselves, or our neighbours or allies. For my part, I'd like to hedge the Council's actions about with firm, known limits, and the wording of the category does limit them.

That being so, I'd urge that SC actions be done as neutrally as possible. For example,

ACCEPTING that the intervention of the Security Council is required in the case of Pakistan,

HEREBY ...

"ACCEPTING" because we would prefer not to do this, since we know it is beyond the scope of the regular powers of the WA; but we feel that such a serious situation has developed that we are obliged to.

The reason I'd use the phrase "in the case of Pakistan" is to emphasise that the SC has looked at the evidence presented and, in this particular case, permits the use of its over-riding power. This form of proposal should never be an automatic "oh, it's those bad guys ... rubber-stamp it". We have to judge actions not by the reputation of those who perform them, but by the gravity of the actions themselves.

-- Walter Arbuthnot, Engineer Primus in the Hermeneutical Order of the Shattered Fourth Rampart, Ardchoillean SC spokesman.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Fair case there, honoured ambassadors: modified to read:

ACCEPTING that the intervention of the Security Council is needed in the case of Pakistan;

The final outcome of this proposal is likely to determine how future Liberations should be written. Neutrality may be a factor.

[The Sedge]

Maybe even a mention about the defender forces that are going to be needed to retain Pakistan would be useful? Again though, merely a recommendation clause and not anything concrete.

*reaches for Modly Chainsaw of Spectacular and Gory Doom*

ANYTHING that looks, sounds, smells, feels or tastes like a reference to a WA-sponsored army, or a WA police force, or a WA volunteer force, or a WA Coalition of the Willing, or anything that in any way resembles any of the above, is going to get the proposal (if submitted), the proposer (if not fast enough on his feet), the proposer's buddies, allies and yea-sayers, and any innocent bystanders who just happen to be standing too close, DEALT WITH by the aforementioned MCoSaGD.

Also, pursued into the after-life, if any.

Do I make myself sufficiently clear?

Even though the forum description for the Security Council is 'A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.'? If Security Council resolutions can't mention the use of force, since it'll resemble the WA sponsoring an army, perhaps this description should be changed.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Even though the forum description for the Security Council is 'A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.'? If Security Council resolutions can't mention the use of force, since it'll resemble the WA sponsoring an army, perhaps this description should be changed.

This whole thing has been implemented in a haphazard manner so it's not surprising that there are contradictions galore. With each passing day it's becoming harder and harder to make sense of this mess so my advice is: don't worry about it. Grab a cool drink, kick back and enjoy the implosion. It promises to be entertaining at the very least.

[The Sedge]

I'm not critical of the introduction of the Security Council/C&Cs/Liberation resolutions, I just thought that the forum description was misleading. Anyhow, I apologise for taking this off topic.

[Ardchoille]

Even though the forum description for the Security Council is 'A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.'? If Security Council resolutions can't mention the use of force, since it'll resemble the WA sponsoring an army, perhaps this description should be changed.

The "force", in this case, is the forcible removal of the password.

Don't sweat the minor OT. A certain amount of it's to be expected while we all get used to the new premises. The essential thing is to stick to the category descriptions.

[New Rockport]

Just a note:

In order or importance, I'll suggest placing Pakistan's liberation on hold and put Chicago on first.

Chicago has been under siege since last year, with natives kicked out one by one. 'StCharles West Apts' was ejected yesterday.

Pakistan is already emptied and was a dead region even before it was invaded. Chicago on the other hand, had a community of about a dozen nations.

Pakistan is just a name placeholder. Even if its liberated now, its doubtful if there are any "natives" who will return.

I concur with my esteemed colleague from Anime Daisuki that the situation in Chicago, where the ejection of natives is ongoing, is more urgent than Pakistan. Additionally, if this council places a higher priority on Chicago than on Pakistan, perhaps the ambassador from Dysian will quit whining about the "crusade against Macedon."

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly, Republic of New Rockport
Delegate to the World Assembly, Region of Albion

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Joint priority may be given to Chicago shortly but this thread is about Pakistan, honoured ambassador. Is there anything else to suggest modifications to the version at the opening post?

[New Rockport]

Joint priority may be given to Chicago shortly but this thread is about Pakistan, honoured ambassador. Is there anything else to suggest modifications to the version at the opening post?

No, the current draft looks good. I apologize if I was out of order.

[Unibot]

No, the current draft looks good. I apologize if I was out of order.

The plan, or least, it was the plan. Was to construct a template from this discussion which would make it easier and quicker to liberate other Macedonian controlled regions such as Chicago, all in good time, ambassador.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

other Macedonian controlled regions such as Chicago

Chicago is controlled by DEN Army.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

other Macedonian controlled regions such as Chicago

Chicago is controlled by DEN Army.

It should be possible to adapt the template to cover the DEN army.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

other Macedonian controlled regions such as Chicago

Chicago is controlled by DEN Army.

It should be possible to adapt the template to cover the DEN army.

I wonder if it could be adapted to cover the Yeldan Puppet Army? They're pretty mean. Liberate The Pleiades anyone? Anyone?

[Unibot]

Chicago is controlled by DEN Army.

I thought it was, I suppose I second-guessed myself after listening to the previous ambassador. Oops.