[DRAFT] Commend Evil Wolf

[Todd McCloud]

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

I don't see why raiders would want to be associated with this except for a Machiavellian intention (which is was my idea! STOP STEAALLING MY IDEAS!) , nor do I see why this chamber would want to associate itself with raiding because it neither contributes to the peace or goodwill between regions. I'm not saying that raiding doesn't provide the driving element to gameplay, but I am saying that it is a myth that the Security Council is meant to be a "neutral" body. This myth was first promoted by Todd McCloud and then subsisted as the gospel of AMOM in the Neutrality era. Two perspectives emerged out of this cool aid, one was that the Security Council had to balance between defender and raider sympathy in perfect equality, the other was that the Security Council should focus on subjects unrelated to the gameplay world. The latter was forgotten following the creation of the Liberation category, the former was just plain silly, and both of them assumed that the World Assembly had a duty to remain 'neutral' in the gameplay conflict which had subsisted from a big fat lie from the early veterans of the SC who ignored the institution's mission statement because they knew that if they laid their corrupt ideals down as the cornerstones of the SC it would incapacitate the Security Council from being the source of inter-regional peace and goodwill it was meant to be.

However, I don't think pretending to be the good guys and requiring political power in the Security Council has actually helped you, I think it's weakened your image. Popular raiding institutions in the past were popularized because they were the bad guys and good at it.

Corrupt ideals? Uni, whatever koolaid you are drinking, pass it over.

The Security Council was never a neutral body on that definition - it never actually could be. It was initially made to commend and condemn certain actions perpetrated in gameplay and in roleplay. But this is evident in that the fist group condemned, Macedon, had committed some heinous actions while some of those commended had done fairly good actions. Rading and/or defending had little to do with it: it was the way in which they did it that merited the commendation or condemnation. That's... still the way it's done today... I hope. Sure, defending will get better face due to what it does or intends to do, which is fine, but again, there are good and bad sides to both camps. That was the point of what I was trying to bring forward.

Bear in mind that when this body first started, no one really knew what to do with it. There was no mission statement. We were having problems with the whole GA vs. gameplayers crowd and fights. That really didn't die down until the inception of Rule IV. Even to this day, there's still debate as to what this body should do and how it should function, as demonstrated by your angry accusations above. We even have two people writing a guide as to how this should be run, which has just now been unlocked so the others may comment.

In my personal opinion, this body should require no guide. Rules should be outlined, of course, but as for one or two people explaining to the entire body what is "good" and what is "bad", that's not what should happen. That's never what this body was about. In my opinion, "guides", if they are to be introduced, should be loose and still have room for what the SC did best: allow people to pick the proposals apart, debate over them, and create a good proposal together, not just by following a rubric written by a few people.

Anyway, yeah. Like I said, this body isn't neutral and never was - instead, it focused on what the nation or region did and not what it necessarily was labeled as. That was my definition of neutrality. So I don't know where you are getting this. Unless by being non-neutral you are referring to saying all raiders are bad, all defenders are good. That is a disappointing way of thinking. As far as pigeonholing the distinction between commending and condemning to simply being based on labels, then yes, that's not the 'corrupt ideal' with which I based my C&C's on. It was what one did, not what one called themselves. If you ask me today, I still think that way.

[GooGoo Powerball]

Am I the only person that sees the irony in commend "The Evil Wolf?"

[Cinistra]

Am I the only person that sees the irony in commend "The Evil Wolf?"

The irony? It is cool to be "evil". Of course he earns a commendation.

[GooGoo Powerball]

Am I the only person that sees the irony in commend "The Evil Wolf?"

The irony? It is cool to be "evil". Of course he earns a commendation.

I love being evil too but you never say you are.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I don't think he, or any raider, deserves commending. If I were him, I would see it as a stain on my reputation as a raider. it would just be so...lame.

[Unibot]

Rules should be outlined, of course, but as for one or two people explaining to the entire body what is "good" and what is "bad", that's not what should happen. That's never what this body was about. [..] Like I said, this body isn't neutral and never was [..]

You have a funny way of showing that...

I encourage everyone who can to vote against this, as this is a clear indicator the scales have been tipped: the game now accommodates defenders, and no longer holds a neutral stance. This is indeed a dark day.

Finally. I do hope this will usher in a change in C&C's, or more or less a return to normalcy. While I do believe raiders *and* defenders can be commended and condemned alike (raiders work just as hard if not harder than defenders, especially in lieu of liberations these days), it would be wise to keep such 'battles' out of the SC.

And yeah, there is a defender bias - most of the vets will agree entirely with this. But, it's what's on the table. I don't know if we should remove all raider / defender based C&C's from the floor, but I would like to prevent such WA wars. Some defender groups could be commended for their defending, some raiding groups could be commended for their raiding. I personally believe a condemnation is in line when 1) a group or nation has pretty much destroyed a strong community, of which both sides are entirely guilty for 2) When a group *says* they're one thing, but really they are something completely different. I personally don't like facades.

So you don't like people trying to preach their ideals.. because that's your job? Do you deny that the Security Council has a mission statement (since Jun 09, 2009)? If not, do you deny that the mission statement involves messages that conflict with the nature of raiding -- and generally align with the nature of defending?

I too support actions over labels, but the actions of raiding often conflict with the mission statement of the SC. Furthermore, your rhetoric in the early threads of the WA --whether you meant it or not-- established the notion for some players like AMOM, that the SC was a set of scales that was meant to be 'balanced' between defending and raiding. This 'give and take' (e.g "We can commend 10ki now, if we also commend Evil Wolf") interpretation of sharing the SC between defenders and raiders often incapacitated the Security Council from being able to do what it set out to originally do which was disseminate inter-regional peace and goodwill.

[Todd McCloud]

Excellent, I'm being quoted from what I previously stated. Let me explain all three:

I encourage everyone who can to vote against this, as this is a clear indicator the scales have been tipped: the game now accommodates defenders, and no longer holds a neutral stance. This is indeed a dark day.

This was discussed at the time when we were discussing the legality of liberations. Belgium was liberated due to the 'password grabbing' instituted by Macedon. At the time of liberations, we were still determining when a region should be liberated and when it should not be. Feudal Japan was raided years before liberations were even in place. Again, at that time, that was what we were debating. I presented the 'against' argument. My fear was that allowing this liberation would really ruin the whole raiding / defending game, as raiders depend on defenders and vise-versa. I can't say this was a direct cause, but based on the lack of activity in that area of the game these days, I can say it hasn't helped either.

Finally. I do hope this will usher in a change in C&C's, or more or less a return to normalcy. While I do believe raiders *and* defenders can be commended and condemned alike (raiders work just as hard if not harder than defenders, especially in lieu of liberations these days), it would be wise to keep such 'battles' out of the SC.

I still believe raiders and defenders can be commended and condemned alike. This seems to go against your rhetoric of supporting actions over labels. So... I am thankful my message has not changed... within the confines of a single post, even. There are good defenders and good raiders out there. There are bad raiders and defenders out there too. Their actions supersede the labels. I would hope you could drop this anger you seem to have over the labels of what makes a player and instead can see what they do, not what they call themselves (or have been called by others).

And yeah, there is a defender bias - most of the vets will agree entirely with this. But, it's what's on the table. I don't know if we should remove all raider / defender based C&C's from the floor, but I would like to prevent such WA wars. Some defender groups could be commended for their defending, some raiding groups could be commended for their raiding. I personally believe a condemnation is in line when 1) a group or nation has pretty much destroyed a strong community, of which both sides are entirely guilty for 2) When a group *says* they're one thing, but really they are something completely different. I personally don't like facades.

I again stand by this comment. Some raiding groups can be commended for their raiding. The Skeleton Army, while it does not raid in the classic sense, has been commended, and it identifies itself as a raiding group. But I think the main crux of our disagreement is the way in which we classify commendations vs commendations. I tend to look at it on accomplishments. A region that has accomplished much can be commended. It is very hard to successfully raid in this game, for instance. And raiding can help bring together communities without leading to the destruction of them. I myself would have quit the game out of boredom had Poland not been raided back in 2005. But what if raiding orgs seek out to totally destroy communities? Okay, I can support a condemnation and would definitely support one. Furthermore, no one should ever doubt that raiders and defenders are locked together symbiotically: if one group falls, the other stumbles too. In that sense, no faction is immaculate, as they perpetuate the other. As we have started seeing, the general collapse of raider organizations this year has led to the decreasing of defender regions. Folks like Evil Wolf are apparently trying to keep this side of the game going. They are trying to keep this part of the game alive. Maybe it's not good what he does on paper. But I suppose one needs to look at what it does to the game in addition what it does to a few regions.

So yes, there are two ways of looking at a problem. I'm using Evil Wolf as an example here since this is a C&C about him. You can say he is bad because he raids regions and calls himself a raider. I can see that. But I can also argue he's good in that he's trying to keep this part of the game alive and some communities do in fact come together to try and 'kick out' his group from their region. I've seen it very many times. This is like the whole debate of whether or not the empire was bad or good. Was it bad? Yes, they banned so many people and didn't gel and connect well with the old regime. But without them, would TEP be the region it is today? Did they destroy that community, or make them stronger? Or does that credit go more toward the people who picked up the pieces after they left? But... if the empire didn't come around, would that region be what it was pre-empire: less active and generally disconnected with the NS spectrum? In short, would they be able to undergo those changes that made them into what they are today? I'm not suggesting we commend the empire (really I am not). But can you see that there are multiple viewpoints here that may be just as valid?

So you don't like people trying to preach their ideals.. because that's your job?

Never said that. I don't want that job either - all three examples above were me voicing my opinion. You'll find two of the three include such clues (I do believe, I don't know). I'm well aware my opinion may not be very popular, but that's the beauty of this game: anyone can suggest changes or ideals. You can disagree with me, and I can disagree with you. You brought my name up here, so I'm just responding. However, in the same breath, I am not trying to create a set of guidelines for this body. I'll get to the guidelines post, but that involved writing one out and then determining whether or not their opinions on the matter are valid to be changed or not. A better road would have been to create a thread where all can make suggestions, and then we all write a guide out. That's just me, though. This is not a body of two, or a body of 'betters' and 'lessers'. Sedge may be a forum mod now, but he is still a gameplayer. I am too. So are you. Any of us a long time ago could have come up with a guideline by ourselves or with another person. But we didn't, for many reasons (partly because the GA would've torn us apart, lol), but also because it just wouldn't seem right. At least as far as I was concerned, it wasn't my position to create guidelines. But I can certainly be opinionated.

Do you deny that the Security Council has a mission statement (since Jun 09, 2009)? If not, do you deny that the mission statement involves messages that conflict with the nature of raiding -- and generally align with the nature of defending?

There was a mission statement? Outside of Max's good graces and a few outlining terms, I do not think there was any set up at the time.

Furthermore, your rhetoric in the early threads of the WA --whether you meant it or not-- established the notion for some players like AMOM, that the SC was a set of scales that was meant to be 'balanced' between defending and raiding. This 'give and take' (e.g "We can commend 10ki now, if we also commend Evil Wolf") interpretation of sharing the SC between defenders and raiders often incapacitated the Security Council from being able to do what it set out to originally do which was disseminate inter-regional peace and goodwill.

My rhetoric has been outlined above. I'm not responsible for other people's beliefs or ideas. That's like giving Genghis Khan's method of rapid warfare credit for Germany's WWII Blitzkrieg tactic. The two may be somewhat related (very slightly related...), but they are in no way accredited to one another.

[Unibot]

This was discussed at the time when we were discussing the legality of liberations. Belgium was liberated due to the 'password grabbing' instituted by Macedon. At the time of liberations, we were still determining when a region should be liberated and when it should not be. Feudal Japan was raided years before liberations were even in place. Again, at that time, that was what we were debating. I presented the 'against' argument. My fear was that allowing this liberation would really ruin the whole raiding / defending game, as raiders depend on defenders and vise-versa. I can't say this was a direct cause, but based on the lack of activity in that area of the game these days, I can say it hasn't helped either.

You supported the long-time grieving of Feudal Japan, and in the name of neutrality, pleaded the Security Council to turn a blind eye to a region so that the activity of raiding would not be threatened? You believed that the legitimacy of a password raid depended on if (1) you had partaken in the raid, (2) if years had gone by since the raid took place.. regardless of if natives were still around and actively campaigning for the liberation of their region. Righto.

I still believe raiders and defenders can be commended and condemned alike. This seems to go against your rhetoric of supporting actions over labels. So... I am thankful my message has not changed... within the confines of a single post, even. There are good defenders and good raiders out there. There are bad raiders and defenders out there too. Their actions supersede the labels. I would hope you could drop this anger you seem to have over the labels of what makes a player and instead can see what they do, not what they call themselves (or have been called by others).

What is the definition of a raider? Todd? Someone who crashes into a region with the hopes of taking it over and deriving his/her legitimacy as delegate from their ability to ascend to power instead of some independent measure like perhaps, the wish of the community? They may gentlemanly behave or act truly barbarous, but the very nature of raiding seems to be to cause panic, fear and to gloat at one's own ability to plunder communities and evade authority.

I again stand by this comment. Some raiding groups can be commended for their raiding. The Skeleton Army, while it does not raid in the classic sense, has been commended, and it identifies itself as a raiding group. But I think the main crux of our disagreement is the way in which we classify commendations vs commendations. I tend to look at it on accomplishments. A region that has accomplished much can be commended. It is very hard to successfully raid in this game, for instance. And raiding can help bring together communities without leading to the destruction of them. I myself would have quit the game out of boredom had Poland not been raided back in 2005. But what if raiding orgs seek out to totally destroy communities? Okay, I can support a condemnation and would definitely support one. Furthermore, no one should ever doubt that raiders and defenders are locked together symbiotically: if one group falls, the other stumbles too. In that sense, no faction is immaculate, as they perpetuate the other. As we have started seeing, the general collapse of raider organizations this year has led to the decreasing of defender regions. Folks like Evil Wolf are apparently trying to keep this side of the game going. They are trying to keep this part of the game alive. Maybe it's not good what he does on paper. But I suppose one needs to look at what it does to the game in addition what it does to a few regions.

If commendations are merely for accomplishments and no moral line is to be drawn between accomplishments that caused social ills and those that benefited people... then how are we to distinguish between what should be commended and condemned? Macedon certainly had quite a few accomplishments. Ah but the manner they did them in was awful.

If Macedon had not done a password grab, but instead held a battle for weeks on end before passwording the region... would you commend them or still condemn them?

Never said that. I don't want that job either - all three examples above were me voicing my opinion. You'll find two of the three include such clues (I do believe, I don't know). I'm well aware my opinion may not be very popular, but that's the beauty of this game: anyone can suggest changes or ideals. You can disagree with me, and I can disagree with you. You brought my name up here, so I'm just responding. However, in the same breath, I am not trying to create a set of guidelines for this body. I'll get to the guidelines post, but that involved writing one out and then determining whether or not their opinions on the matter are valid to be changed or not. A better road would have been to create a thread where all can make suggestions, and then we all write a guide out. That's just me, though. This is not a body of two, or a body of 'betters' and 'lessers'. Sedge may be a forum mod now, but he is still a gameplayer. I am too. So are you. Any of us a long time ago could have come up with a guideline by ourselves or with another person. But we didn't, for many reasons (partly because the GA would've torn us apart, lol), but also because it just wouldn't seem right. At least as far as I was concerned, it wasn't my position to create guidelines. But I can certainly be opinionated.

There is a thread to make suggestions, and the guide was drafted on a public forum which you left.. only a year ago, in a mad fit if I remember correctly over a broken clock.

My rhetoric has been outlined above. I'm not responsible for other people's beliefs or ideas. That's like giving Genghis Khan's method of rapid warfare credit for Germany's WWII Blitzkrieg tactic. The two may be somewhat related (very slightly related...), but they are in no way accredited to one another.

And your rheotic is quite silly, it tries to make a distinction that doesn't exist between Macedon and Feudal Japan based on a self-serving biasness, you're opposing a guide to be formed because it won't support your radical ideas that suggest all big accomplishments are commendable unless done in a poor manner... even if those big accomplishments deviate from the SC's mission statement and are just awful really. The line between what is commendable and condemnable for you, seems to be what you do and don't like, which I dare say is a weak philosophy .. because we can't always consult your inclinations, nor can the reader's of the SC guide always do so.

[Sedgistan]

If the OP wants the debate about the use of the SC to be split into a separate thread, I'll do so.

There is a thread to make suggestions, and the guide was drafted on a public forum which you left.. only a year ago, in a mad fit if I remember correctly over a broken clock.

Not appropriate. Attack the argument, not the person arguing it.

[Todd McCloud]

You supported the long-time grieving of Feudal Japan, and in the name of neutrality, pleaded the Security Council to turn a blind eye to a region so that the activity of raiding would not be threatened? You believed that the legitimacy of a password raid depended on if (1) you had partaken in the raid, (2) if years had gone by since the raid took place.. regardless of if natives were still around and actively campaigning for the liberation of their region. Righto.

Again, as stated above, I was afraid it would create a slippery slope. Am I for withholding natives (so long as they are in fact natives) from their region? Nope. Am I for the removal of a pretty big part of the game, though? No. Yes it'd be impossible to see if the two have really correlated to the main reason why that side of the game is doing bad right now. But as I said, I don't think it's helped. I think it's made people lukewarm in their fight to keep regions from falling, as they know they can fall back on the WA if things get tough. And I think it's made things lukewarm on the raiding side too, as they clearly do not have the upper hand in the WA voting.

What is the definition of a raider? Todd? Someone who crashes into a region with the hopes of taking it over and deriving his/her legitimacy as delegate from their ability to ascend to power instead of some independent measure like perhaps, the wish of the community? They may gentlemanly behave or act truly barbarous, but the very nature of raiding seems to be to cause panic, fear and to gloat at one's own ability to plunder communities and evade authority.

Every raiding group has its own style. But whether they mean to or not, some can help communities in the long run, and some can harm them. I've pretty much explained my points about this, so I'll refrain from repetition.

If commendations are merely for accomplishments and no moral line is to be drawn between accomplishments that caused social ills and those that benefited people... then how are we to distinguish between what should be commended and condemned? Macedon certainly had quite a few accomplishments. Ah but the manner they did them in was awful.

If Macedon had not done a password grab, but instead held a battle for weeks on end before passwording the region... would you commend them or still condemn them?

If they *did* do that legitimately, would they deserve a C&C at all though? What would set them apart from other raiding groups that would fall under the same category? It's the same argument as to why all defender orgs aren't commended or condemned: it's the extreme cases that are often easier to C&C.

There is a thread to make suggestions, and the guide was drafted on a public forum which you left.. only a year ago, in a mad fit if I remember correctly over a broken clock.

Not denying that I threw around my temper then, under stress or not. I won't excuse that. But I didn't leave because of that. I left for my own reasons, and then left generally for good once rule IV was here to stay.

And your rheotic is quite silly, it tries to make a distinction that doesn't exist between Macedon and Feudal Japan based on a self-serving biasness, you're opposing a guide to be formed because it won't support your radical ideas that suggest all big accomplishments are commendable unless done in a poor manner... even if those big accomplishments deviate from the SC's mission statement and are just awful really. The line between what is commendable and condemnable for you, seems to be what you do and don't like, which I dare say is a weak philosophy .. because we can't always consult your inclinations, nor can the reader's of the SC guide always do so.

Honestly, I couldn't care less if this body goes with what I think. That's not my business - they're just my opinions, and as I said I am opinionated. However, I make it my business to make sure this body follows what it believes to be right, not that of 1-2 people. This is why I think a better road would've been to have someone lead the discussion and present some thinking points for people to dabble over, *then* provide a draft. If you want the body to follow some guidelines, why wouldn't you post it here first instead of posting it on a public forum very few people visit these days? That's what disappoints me here. If you know more people post here (much more these days), why didn't you bring the discussion here first? What stopped you from showing this body what you were thinking, or be involved in the initial drafting process?

[Unibot]

There is a thread to make suggestions, and the guide was drafted on a public forum which you left.. only a year ago, in a mad fit if I remember correctly over a broken clock.

Not appropriate. Attack the argument, not the person arguing it.

Fine. Todd McCloud's argument was that the forum was not available to him. It wasn't available to him because he left the community, rather abruptly .

[Unibot]

I think it's made people lukewarm in their fight to keep regions from falling, as they know they can fall back on the WA if things get tough.

Ah, thank you, Mr. Spencer but I really don't care to apply Social Darwinism to NationStates, nor do I see why the Security Council -- an institution of goodwill, may I remind you -- should advocate a "survival of the fittest" mentality?

Every raiding group has its own style. But whether they mean to or not, some can help communities in the long run, and some can harm them. I've pretty much explained my points about this, so I'll refrain from repetition.

If I were to bring out a study today that showed a negative correlation between all raiding and regional activity -- and this hypothetically 'proved' that raiding was endangering the game. Would raiders drop their side of the game because their duty to the game's activity was proven false, or would they continue to raid because of an inclination to causing mischief?

If they *did* do that legitimately, would they deserve a C&C at all though? What would set them apart from other raiding groups that would fall under the same category? It's the same argument as to why all defender orgs aren't commended or condemned: it's the extreme cases that are often easier to C&C.

Let's say Macedon held the region for three months, it was a spectacular battle. But at the end of it, Macedon won, they put up a password -- and a group of natives was left to find a new region. Would you commend or condemn them?

However, I make it my business to make sure this body follows what it believes to be right, not that of 1-2 people.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere... your problem is the guide isn't appealing to populism, assuming that "this body".. is "the people"... and not a bunch of indivudals who should all feel the same way as you do about not forcing their opinions down others' throats. The only definite description of what "this body" believes to be right, is in the mission statement of the Security Council which you often seem extremely capable at ignoring.

If you know more people post here (much more these days), why didn't you bring the discussion here first? What stopped you from showing this body what you were thinking, or be involved in the initial drafting process?

It's a player written guide, Todd. Much like other articles on various other forums. My suspicion is that you wanted a public-project because populism plays to your strength, if you argue loud enough, your opinion gets heard over someone who you know thinks maybe the Security Council is more than just an amoral dickwaving contest.. which the SC's founding motto seems to suggest.

[Todd McCloud]

Ah, thank you, Mr. Spencer but I really don't care to apply Social Darwinism to NationStates, nor do I see why the Security Council -- an institution of goodwill, may I remind you -- should advocate a "survival of the fittest" mentality?

Which goes back to my posts about opinions. For some reason, my opinions are offending you. I'm not offended by yours though. Just debating.

If I were to bring out a study today that showed a negative correlation between all raiding and regional activity -- and this hypothetically 'proved' that raiding was endangering the game. Would raiders drop their side of the game because their duty to the game's activity was proven false, or would they continue to raid because of an inclination to causing mischief?

No, and that's why I said 'whether they mean to or not'.

Let's say Macedon held the region for three months, it was a spectacular battle. But at the end of it, Macedon won, they put up a password -- and a group of natives was left to find a new region. Would you commend or condemn them?

I personally wouldn't do anything. I haven't written a C&C in over a year now. Depending on what it is, how it is written, and what case it tries to support, I may vote for or against if one reaches the floor.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere... your problem is the guide isn't appealing to populism, assuming that "this body".. is "the people"... and not a bunch of indivudals who should all feel the same way as you do about not forcing their opinions down others' throats. The only definite description of what "this body" believes to be right, is in the mission statement of the Security Council which you often seem extremely capable at ignoring.

Again, what is this mission statement created on June 9th that you are referring to?

It's a player written guide, Todd. Much like other articles on various other forums. My suspicion is that you wanted a public-project because populism plays to your strength, if you argue loud enough, your opinion gets heard over someone who you know thinks maybe the Security Council is more than just an amoral dickwaving contest.. which the SC's founding motto seems to suggest.

Then call it a player written guide like the others have. As I said before, I don't honestly care if this body (or people if you will) goes with or against me. I'd rather this body come up with their own guide rather than one tell-all guide. No one in this body should feel compelled to write that guide, or even a draft of that guide, by themselves or with the help of one other person. All I'm suggesting is in the future, bring it here, raise a few points, and see where people go with it first before trying to place one's own ideals into the area with the hopes that people just simply agree to it and move on. I don't think that would be in any mission statement.

I think history has shown that while the squeaky wheel does get the grease, the loudest duck is often shot. So the 'shouting the loudest' theory doesn't often work. But still, drafting a guide in a public forum (which could technically be called private, as there is a large thread there determining who should be invited) where no one goes to it is just confusing to me. Why do it over there and not over here?

Regardless, I think we're going to go in circles with this. It's clear you and I don't see eye to eye with our philosophies. That's fine. I'm not here to convince you one way or another, just here to voice my opinion. I believe you should do the same.

[Unibot]

Again, what is this mission statement created on June 9th that you are referring to?

The Security Council : A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.


Or, alternatively, Security Council : Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary

[Todd McCloud]

Again, what is this mission statement created on June 9th that you are referring to?

The Security Council : A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.


Or, alternatively, Security Council : Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary

This was created after the inception of the liberation proposal, hence the clause "via force if necessary"

[Metania]

That statement is nonbinding anyway. Nothing stops proposals from doing the exact opposite, if it's within the actual rules.

[Unibot]

That statement is nonbinding anyway. Nothing stops proposals from doing the exact opposite, if it's within the actual rules.

No, it's a mission statement -- a duty that we ought to adhere to, not one we must.. or otherwise it becomes an obligation.

Again, what is this mission statement created on June 9th that you are referring to?

The Security Council : A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.


Or, alternatively, Security Council : Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary

That mission statement is as old as the Security Council.. C&Cs predate the SC, remember.

[Rougiers]

If the OP wants the debate about the use of the SC to be split into a separate thread, I'll do so.

There is a thread to make suggestions, and the guide was drafted on a public forum which you left.. only a year ago, in a mad fit if I remember correctly over a broken clock.

Not appropriate. Attack the argument, not the person arguing it.

That won't be necessary at the moment, but I'll let you know if this changes.

[Rougiers]

I don't think he, or any raider, deserves commending. If I were him, I would see it as a stain on my reputation as a raider. it would just be so...lame.

This goes back to my argument about raiding not being inherently evil. If one doesn't believe what they're doing is wrong, why would it be a bad thing to be commended for being capable? Or, perhaps, we're thinking of this as being capable and doing it in a way that does not damage the legitimacy or the integrity of the regions captured. That, at least, is my personal opinion of it - it's more an art than a science, and not so much bullying as it is a joke, of sorts. And like art, everyone views region crashing a little differently. I don't intend to change the opinion of the SC as a whole about it, because that'd be a very tedious and wasteful endeavor. Nor am I saying that all raiders practice the art in a way that's not damaging to the regions affected, because that'd be a lie.

Let's look at your argument, and the other side of the coin for a second. Condemning a raider [or their region] for doing what they do means one thing, really, and that's to say they have a very substantial impact on the game - probably not in a good way. I was responsible for getting Unknown its condemnation a few months ago, and that wasn't because the region was raiding effectively [as it wasn't]. The reason behind that badge was because the region, through the actions of one of its agents, had an impact on the NS world that was substantial and negative. While in theory a condemnation for a raider sounds good, it's not likely to happen unless the region or raider deserves it, and at that point all the press is bad press.

Evil Wolf, on the other hand, is a prime example of a guy who raids but keeps the integrity of the game in mind. It's been said before in this thread, but he helped out the liberation of TNP a while back, and keeps defenders as friends - something most raiders don't do, and something that I among others have given him crap about in the past. He realizes, perhaps, that raiders and defenders are just opposing teams in a competitive sport and not mortal enemies. Is that not a much better example to set than someone who delegitimizes regions and abuses natives?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

First of all, I'm not talking about Evil Wolf, liberator of TNP. That's not relevant to the discussion. If you want to commend him for that, go right ahead, because what happened in TNP does not particularly concern me, and has nothing to do with raiderdom. I'm talking about Evil Wolf the raider.

To make one thing perfectly clear, I in no way support condemning raiders, just for doing what we do. For one thing, you're right in your assesment that raiding is not inherently evil. You're right in saying "He realizes, perhaps, that raiders and defenders are just opposing teams in a competitive sport and not mortal enemies. Is that not a much better example to set than someone who delegitimizes regions and abuses natives?" I too have kept defenders as friends. Second, raiding is a necessary aspect of this game, and without it, NS would probably die. So I agree with everything you said 100%.

However, this doesn't translate into a commendation. The WASC states that it intends to spreads peace and goodwill throughout the world. Raiders, no matter how honorably they may act, do the exact opposite of spreading peace. Period. Yes, he may be helping to keep an aspect of the game alive, and deserves maybe an unofficial commendation for it. But raiding only works if there are people who stand against it. People like defenders, and the Security Council. NS is a cycle, which we must continue. If you really support him, "denounce" him.

Well...maybe not you, Rougiers, but you get the idea

Oh and Todd, I doubt very much that any real raider goes into a region with the idea of really helping them. It maybe an unintended consequence, and certainly not all raiders intend to outright destroy them, but the point reamains valid. Just a thought.

[Todd McCloud]

Oh and Todd, I doubt very much that any real raider goes into a region with the idea of really helping them. It maybe an unintended consequence, and certainly not all raiders intend to outright destroy them, but the point reamains valid. Just a thought.

You have just restated my point, lol. This is what I was getting at. It may be an unintended consequence, but it is a consequence, regardless.

[Rougiers]

MT, I didn't realize who you were, hence why I structured my argument like I did. Forgive me - I assumed everyone in this thread other than Todd is a defender. XD.

[Unibot]

Oh and Todd, I doubt very much that any real raider goes into a region with the idea of really helping them. It maybe an unintended consequence, and certainly not all raiders intend to outright destroy them, but the point reamains valid. Just a thought.

You have just restated my point, lol. This is what I was getting at. It may be an unintended consequence, but it is a consequence, regardless.

Maybe that's our problem, I'm looking at it from a deontological approach and you're look at it from a confounded utilitarian approach (because even J.S Mill makes a distinction between intention and motive.. intention being quite important to Utilitarianism in fact)¹.

Intention: The conduct of the raider with the purpose to grief their victimized region to an extent which they have percieved in their mind -- intention may be direct or oblique. (eg. Raider X intends to destroy Region Y, Raider B intends to remove all the natives from Region A, Raider C intends to change the WFE of Region H, Raider M intends to objectify Region P and keep it as a trophy)

Motive: This is the reason for forming the intention of grieving a victimized region to the intended state. (eg. perhaps a civil conflict, regional rivalry or the person is just madly seditious or malicious)

Nevertheless, the intention of raiding is rarely to sustain peace and goodwill between regions (and coincidently the motive is often not a mere love and companionship for one's fellow man, either).

1.

An opponent whose intellectual and moral fairness it is a pleasure to acknowledge the Rev J Llewellyn Davies has objected to this passage saying surely the lightness or wrongness of saving a man from drowning does depend very much upon the motive with which it is done -- suppose that a tyrant when his enemy jumped into the sea to escape from him saved him from drowning simply in order that he might inflict upon him more exquisite tortures would it tend to clearness to speak of that rescue as a morally right action?

Or suppose again according to one of the stock illustrations of ethical inquiries that a man betrayed a trust received from a friend because the discharge of it would fatally injure that friend himself or some one belonging to him -- would utilitarianism compel one to call the betrayal a crime as much as if it had been done from the meanest motive? I submit that he who saves another from drowning in order to kill him by torture afterwards does not differ only in motive from him who does the same thing from duty or benevolence the act itself is different.

The rescue of the man is in the case supposed only the necessary first step of an act far more atrocious than leaving him to drown. Would have been had Mr Davies said the rightness or wrongness of saving a man from drowning does depend very much not upon the motive but upon the intention no utilitarian would have differed from him. Mr Davies by an oversight too common not to be quite venial has in this case confounded the very different ideas of Motive and Intention. There is no point which utilitarian thinkers and Bentham pre-eminently have taken more pains to illustrate than this: the morality of the action depends entirely upon the intention that is upon what the agent wills to do. But the motive that is the feeling which makes him will so to do if it makes no difference in the act makes none in the morality though it makes a great difference in our moral estimation of the agent especially if it indicates a good or a bad habitual disposition a bent of character from which useful or from which hurtful actions are likely to arise.

[Todd McCloud]

That's nice. But it doesn't change what it causes, even if unintentional. Should someone be commended for doing something unintentional? Nope. But an argument can be made that something that is bad on paper isn't bad in totality. This is kind of an ideological debate, but again, doesn't change what effects it may cause. In short, just because it doesn't intend to do something, it doesn't detract from the effect.

[Unibot]

That's nice. But it doesn't change what it causes, even if unintentional. Should someone be commended for doing something unintentional? Nope. But an argument can be made that something that is bad on paper isn't bad in totality. This is kind of an ideological debate, but again, doesn't change what effects it may cause. In short, just because it doesn't intend to do something, it doesn't detract from the effect.

Ah, so if a player sets out to destroy a region and in effect he ends up saving the region -- that player should be commended for saving the region? Even though they intended to destroy the region? Seems to me that's a spit in the face for every player who gets commended for saving regions they intended to save, by bunching them together with the would-be-destroyers-incidentally-turned-saviors category. I'd much prefer it if we said that an instance where a region is saved accidental, is not bad, but it is not necessarily commendable either and perhaps even condemnable if the intention of the player was much worse than the actual consequence (we do punish people for attempted murder, you know).