Redundant: Liberate Pakistan

[Charlotte Ryberg]

So honoured ambassadors, are we ready to pursue the first run of the Pakistan draft?

[Veilyonia]

I would definitely endorse this proposal if you were to submit it now. The cause is worthy, there are no discrepancies with WA law, and it has come to fruitition through this editing.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We are ready to proceed, honoured ambassadors: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_pro ... h=pakistan

[Martyrdoom]

We are ready to proceed, honoured ambassadors: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_pro ... h=pakistan

Just a quick aside: I see some seven days ago you password-protected your own region. Maybe a "liberation" proposal is in order?!

[Daynor]

We are ready to proceed, honoured ambassadors: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_pro ... h=pakistan

Just a quick aside: I see some seven days ago you password-protected your own region. Maybe a "liberation" proposal is in order?!

Is that possible with a region with a founder? It shouldn't be...

Won't this just lead Pakistan to be refounded by the raiders to stop this from happening??

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Just a quick aside: I see some seven days ago you password-protected your own region. Maybe a "liberation" proposal is in order?!

Password-protection status depends on the current safety situation and the risk of invasion by enemies like Macedon. At the moment it's not looking too safe until Macedon is quelled.

(OOC: Some native founders like Charlotte uses password protection from time to time to defend their fellow residents from enemies. This is not an uncommon method and is perfectly okay.)

Won't this just lead Pakistan to be refounded by the raiders to stop this from happening??

I can advise to keep an eye for the 5-6AM BST updates: if the nation of Desaret is not in the region in this time frame then seize the moment and refound the region as the Pakistan for Pakistanis. I can also explain that the removal of passwords in major regions open up competition.

I can also hint out some secret plans to get regions like the Czech Republic have the correct founders. Details will be made in due course.

[Martyrdoom]

Just a quick aside: I see some seven days ago you password-protected your own region. Maybe a "liberation" proposal is in order?!

Password-protection status depends on the current safety situation and the risk of invasion by enemies like Macedon. At the moment it's not looking too safe until Macedon is quelled.

Won't this just lead Pakistan to be refounded by the raiders to stop this from happening??

I can advise to keep an eye for the 5-6AM BST updates: if the nation of Desaret is not in the region in this time frame then seize the moment and refound the region as the Pakistan for Pakistanis. I can also explain that the removal of passwords in major regions open up competition.

Well Macedon could easily (and legitimately) say: "Password-protection status depends on the current safety situation and the risk of invasion by enemies like ex-Belgium natives, defenders, WA-sympathisers, etc. At the moment it's not looking too safe until they are quelled."

So the aim of these proposals is too help "quell" Macedon rather than simply unlock passwords? Moreover, you are the region's founder and there are plenty of nations in there. I'm just pointing out that it does not reflect well on the proposal when the proposer is doing something, well, hyprocritical, or ironic.

The use of the term "Correct founders" is all I needed to hear. Along with "Pakistan for Pakistanis". The proposal here (and elsewhere I suspect) may be more neutral than the proposer. Maybe "Liberation" proposals should come from nations within the region. From the outside of them, there is room for empire-building by the back door.

Actually, not a bad idea.

[Unibot]

Maybe "Liberation" proposals should come from nations within the region.

That would be more neutral? Just have someone in the heat of the conflict write the proposal?

As it is, I think its silly to pretend that the WASC isn't taking a side on this issue, and/or shouldn't.
The whole point of the commend/condemns was to allow the WA to express its feelings towards a nation or region.
What's the point of expressing our disdain against Macedon in a condemnation , and then have to pretend to be neutral in other proposals. Neutrality is impossible, and pointless to obtain.

[New Galcia]

The Security Council condemned Macedon for invading regions and locking them down. The delegate from Unibot is right when he states that we have no claim of neutrality in this affair. This body's dislike of the region of Macedon is well documented. However, the WA as a institution must be seen to be above the rough and tumble of regional politics as far is possible and only get involved when there is no other recourse but to do so, and then only in a limited and indirect way. This is why were talking about passwords and leaving it up to the political actors involved to settle it rather then this body. This proposal is well written and when it comes to the assembly floor for a vote we will be FOR.

I still will argue though that in most cases we should wait for a grievance to be brought to us from a region or nation rather then acting on our own, either through this forum or other communications with delegates. I will concede that in regards to the Macedon Question that this has already been met.

[Martyrdoom]

Maybe "Liberation" proposals should come from nations within the region.

That would be more neutral? Just have someone in the heat of the conflict write the proposal?

As it is, I think its silly to pretend that the WASC isn't taking a side on this issue, and/or shouldn't.
The whole point of the commend/condemns was to allow the WA to express its feelings towards a nation or region.
What's the point of expressing our disdain against Macedon in a condemnation , and then have to pretend to be neutral in other proposals. Neutrality is impossible, and pointless to obtain.

Indeed seemingly it is. And that's what I don't like about it. Look at the discrepancy between the approvals for the liberation of "Belgium" (which 'Macedon' have locked down = 108) and the approvals for the liberation of the "Empire of Power" (which '10,000 Islands' have locked down for 5 years = 14).

Maybe neutrality is impossible but lets at least keep a semblence of it. I'm not saying which region is more important but I can see a lobby allowing a region locked down for five years to be kept that way because it suits "defenders" and their sympathisers (in this specific case 10k Islands are just as bad as Macedon) while Belgium takes centre stage.

Look I don't mind passwords coming off. But theres a black and white, good vs evil thing creeping in here. Hunt the bad guys down, rubber stamp it, while regions like "Empire of Power" slip by or are purposely neglected for politics. This completely undermines the intent of liberation.

The WA will become the vehicle or banner for the most powerful factions.

[Goobergunchia]

A "Liberation" resolution has no applicability to a region that has already been refounded and been password-protected by the Founder. Empire of Power is such a region. Regardless of the underlying politics, we would oppose a "Liberate Empire of Power" due to its futility.

[float=right][/float][Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Resident, the Rejected Realms

[Community Property]

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.

Does this mean that:

"ENCOURAGES enraged citizens armed with torches, pitchforks, tar, and feathers to take advantage of the opportunity to visit upon the offenders the fate they so richly deserve."

Really constitutes a proposal that a "WA Army" be created? Or is it simply a legitimate request for individual nations to "do the Right Thing"?

[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.

Does this mean that:

"ENCOURAGES enraged citizens armed with torches, pitchforks, tar, and feathers to take advantage of the opportunity to visit upon the offenders the fate they so richly deserve."

Really constitutes a proposal that a "WA Army" be created? Or is it simply a legitimate request for individual nations to "do the Right Thing"?

Well if it was worded that way there wouldn't be a problem.

[Community Property]

Well if it was worded that way there wouldn't be a problem.

Henceforth, we'll call this the "Obligatory 'Kill the Monster' Clause".

[Ardchoille]

Does this mean that:

"ENCOURAGES enraged citizens armed with torches, pitchforks, tar, and feathers to take advantage of the opportunity to visit upon the offenders the fate they so richly deserve."

Really constitutes a proposal that a "WA Army" be created? Or is it simply a legitimate request for individual nations to "do the Right Thing"?

What it would constitute is an attempt to go beyond the bounds of the category. Remove the password (or any other 'Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region'), no more, no less. The WA can't have an army or a police force; in this category, it can't start a witch-hunt, either.

That doesn't mean that the undignified Ambassador Jackson, or even the dignified Lord Evif in his lurid green raincoat, can't jump up on the nearest desk and urge one and all to take up arms; it just means he can't do it in a proposal.

This is intrinsically a different type of category.

Unlike most of the GA resolutions, it's not "an attempt to introduce new legislation in member nations". This makes no difference to any nation's laws; it removes a Gameplay ability from a Gameplay functionary. To add an RPd clause (such as your "enraged citizens ... pitchforks, tar and feathers") to a Gameplay resolution would be, to say the least, odd.

To add a Gameplay clause -- "and urges all WA member nations to enter the region and endorse a Delegate other than the current Delegate of Pakistan" or, possibly "and replace the current Delegate with the Delegate in position before the invasion" -- would be extending the scope of the proposal beyond its category.

The category is very specific, unlike, say, Social Justice. There, you're supposed to "reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare". So an "encouraging" clause could, in theory, help increase basic welfare, even though it's not the actual topic of the proposal. But Liberation does one thing only.

It's more like a Repeal than anything else. Just as a Repeal can only Repeal as defined, so a Liberation can only Liberate as defined.

[Martyrdoom]

A "Liberation" resolution has no applicability to a region that has already been refounded and been password-protected by the Founder. Empire of Power is such a region. Regardless of the underlying politics, we would oppose a "Liberate Empire of Power" due to its futility.

[float=right][/float][Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Resident, the Rejected Realms

Why doesn't it have applicability? The proposal for the liberation of the "Empire of Power" has'nt been removed by the mods, so it must be legal (or not illegal) to call for the "liberation" of a region that is passworded and which also has a founder.

Thus, every region instituting a password, whether it has a founder or not, whether it has one nation like "Pakistan" and the "Empire of Power "or a multitude of nations like "Belgium", is open to a "liberation" proposal and having it's password abolished. In this sense, having the ability to install a password from the beginning can be seen as futile from a certain perspective.

Moreover, there's nothing futile about re-allowing free and unstricted access to the "Empire of Power" because in essence this is what supports the case with "Pakistan". No more, no less.

It's good to see a moderator is taking note here.

As I've pointed out from the beginning with the ramifications of a WA-army coming into play here through encouragement and incitement: we'll have the complete opposite of a "liberation" and we'll end up with an imposition.

[Bears Armed]

The proposal for the liberation of the "Empire of Power" has'nt been removed by the mods, so it must be legal (or not illegal) to call for the "liberation" of a region that is passworded and which also has a founder.

They don't always bother to remove 'illegal' proposals if those are nowhere near reaching quorum.

[Ardchoille]

A password imposed by a Founder doesn't come under the ambit of this sort of proposal, regardless of how lacking in virtue the foundation was. It says, "delegate-imposed powers", not "all powers". (Applies even if the Founder is also the Delegate. It's assumed the password is imposed by the higher power.)

While it would be nice to think that mods are aware every day of every proposal in the queue, regrettably, we aren't. So the argument that "it must be legal because the mods haven't deleted it" doesn't hold water, since mods are prone to suffering from flu, nipping off for someone's wedding/christening/funeral, being too wrapped up in an RP to think of anything else, chasing recurrent spammers, and even just -- heresy -- forgetting about NS for a day or two.

Please, please, if you see an almost-certainly-illegal proposal that hasn't been deleted, even if it's made quorum, drop a Moderation or Getting Help request. We can delete it up to the minute before it makes At Vote. Once it gets there, only a Repeal can rid us of it, and Repeals aren't easy to get through.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Regrettably this resolution has become moot, as Pakistan itself has naturally fallen to the right hands. The defenders did find a route to freedom without needing a Liberation proposal.