Now that Belgium has been liberated...

[Vinoslavia]

Now that Belgium region has been liberated by several defender organizations, the griefers ejected, and a new password put in place...

I have to wonder if the current resolution passes, will it lift the new password, thereby making it open season for new raider/griefer groups to re-invade?

Should those of us who were going to vete "yes" now change our vote to "no" so this does not happen?

Or, can we get the resolution declared nul and void, and removed from the vote?

No, You should slap yourself in the face for voting yes in the first place and now stick to your initial choice and continue to vote yes, In order to punish the pathetic residents of Belgium who devised this rubbish in the first place.

or we could declare war on you for insulting His Majesties government.

So scared.

[Vinoslavia]

If the region is the property of natives (which I seriously doubt in the first place), then it is also the property of Dysian and co who have been there a decent while and are natives aswell.

We see how you conclude this, but we would also like to point out that the title of native is not only bestowed because of time served; this is important, in that, Dysian and co entered the region, albeit for a long time, with arguably the aim to ultimately take over the delegacy.

We therefore conclude they were more sleepers then natives and therefore the region is not of their property.

Isn't it the goal of any nation to rise up the ranks in their region? I think alot of lines are being crossed here. The endorsements are meant to work almost in a democratic sense are they not?, So Where's Right and Wrong?.

[New Rockport]

Isn't it the goal of any nation to rise up the ranks in their region?

Not necessarily. My nation's goal is to secure the liberty and prosperity of its residents.

[Cocodian]

If the region is the property of natives (which I seriously doubt in the first place), then it is also the property of Dysian and co who have been there a decent while and are natives aswell.

We see how you conclude this, but we would also like to point out that the title of native is not only bestowed because of time served; this is important, in that, Dysian and co entered the region, albeit for a long time, with arguably the aim to ultimately take over the delegacy.

We therefore conclude they were more sleepers then natives and therefore the region is not of their property.

Isn't it the goal of any nation to rise up the ranks in their region? I think alot of lines are being crossed here. The endorsements are meant to work almost in a democratic sense are they not?, So Where's Right and Wrong?.

But moving a large amount of raiders in to endorse one "non-native" nation is not a democratic process. For example if I were to invade a country with 60 million soldiers then hold a democratic vote for the whole country, including my invading soldiers; a government would be elected through popular vote.

This is not a democratic/ free and fair, government though.

[Urgench]

But moving a large amount of raiders in to endorse one "non-native" nation is not a democratic process. For example if I were to invade a country with 60 million soldiers then hold a democratic vote for the whole country, including my invading soldiers; a government would be elected through popular vote.

This is not a democratic/ free and fair, government though.

Unless your the army coerces a vote from the rest of the population then yes of course that's a form democracy, a somewhat deformed and certainly unfair form but nonetheless. The WA operates currently on marshaled majorities of Defenders or other regional alliances or large player groups, because we only require simple majorities the example you've just outlined could be an analogue of the way the WA votes are held, would you say the WA wasn't a democracy

[Cocodian]

But moving a large amount of raiders in to endorse one "non-native" nation is not a democratic process. For example if I were to invade a country with 60 million soldiers then hold a democratic vote for the whole country, including my invading soldiers; a government would be elected through popular vote.

This is not a democratic/ free and fair, government though.

Unless your the army coerces a vote from the rest of the population then yes of course that's a form democracy, a somewhat deformed and certainly unfair form but nonetheless. The WA operates currently on marshaled majorities of Defenders or other regional alliances or large player groups, because we only require simple majorities the example you've just outlined could be an analogue of the way the WA votes are held, would you say the WA wasn't a democracy

I see you point, but it is quite a skew from my initial one. Firstly the defender alliances cannot force its members to vote on certain resolutions and I am willing to wager that they do not actually hold that much influence over votes on resolutions (speaking from my experience).

Also my point was the influx of raider votes (or this case endorsements) who elect a delegate make the democratic process null and void. This is because the raiding organisation has total influence on the votes i.e. all raider members vote one person as the delegate. Also because the raiders are non-natives they should not be allowed to vote in the delegate elections.

[Urgench]

I see you point, but it is quite a skew from my initial one. Firstly the defender alliances cannot force its members to vote on certain resolutions and I am willing to wager that they do not actually hold that much influence over votes on resolutions (speaking from my experience).

Also my point was the influx of raider votes (or this case endorsements) who elect a delegate make the democratic process null and void. This is because the raiding organisation has total influence on the votes i.e. all raider members vote one person as the delegate. Also because the raiders are non-natives they should not be allowed to vote in the delegate elections.

Oh so immigrants shouldn't have the vote, I see.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

So this would be a prime example of "be careful what you wish for"?




Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

[Louis Van Boxel Woolf]

Now Belgium has been liberated we need to undo the passwords on all other Macedon/Mercer occupied regions, no wait, they've left most of the ones they captured, look! Finland, Pakistan etc. What are they up to?

[Omega Uliza]

No... the term native was coined because it is considered different to simply being a nation which is residing in a region. A nation which is in a region in order to take part in a hostile takeover from forces originating outside the region cannot be considered a native. Belgium belongs to the natives of the region, which do not include Dysian and those who endorsed him. While the actions taken since the liberation (ejecting of nations and password protection) have been similar to those taken by the invaders, they are different, since they are done by the natives, for the natives, rather than by an outside force taking over the region.

But the right of conquerer is that he now owns the land, and in time becomes a native of the land. If we allowed the 'native' definition to extend only to those who were originally there...and no conquerer could ever exist and take it over, which is wholly different than taking over a territory belonging to a dead civilization...there'd be no nation there currently is in the Americas. The USA couldn't exist because number 1 it once belonged to the Indians...and number 2...it also once belonged to the British, French, Spanish, Mexicans, and Hiwaiians.

I'm advocating neither for or against the entire idea, because in the end, the original 'natives' of Belgium conquered it back didn't they? Their right as conquerer now is to hold the land as theirs. But should it be conquered again by invading forces, my stance remains the same, the conquerer has fought for and won the land.

To me, the password protection was almost like the the Himalayas. Really fricken difficult to manuver around and conquer what's on the other side.

[Omega Uliza]

There's no motive in the code.

You're correct. On the other hand, the invaders didn't hide their motives, their goals was to destroy the region, kicking out the original peaceful community, they made no secret out of it and stated this on several occasions. Technically speaking a liberation is a invasion as well, however it rectifies an unjust situation that was created before. You call it double standards, I call it justice. It's a matter of semantics

The problem with time, is that the ruler of a land has not only the right, but the duty to protect his land. If he fails to do either, he no longer deserves it.

In this case, sense he came back and conquered it again...it once again remains his right and duty to protect his land. The failure to protect it by whomever conquered it...is only equal to the original invasion loss by the 'natives' of Belgium/the current inhabitants of Belgium.

You call it justice to rectify a previous unjust action. I call it the right of the conquerer. Whosoever shows the might, right by might, to rule a land, it is their land.

[Omega Uliza]

There's no motive in the code.

You're correct. On the other hand, the invaders didn't hide their motives, their goals was to destroy the region, kicking out the original peaceful community, they made no secret out of it and stated this on several occasions. Technically speaking a liberation is a invasion as well, however it rectifies an unjust situation that was created before. You call it double standards, I call it justice. It's a matter of semantics

All of this is completely subjective, we have no real proof of your assertions, and frankly no one has actually made any sort of case why former inhabitants should be reinstalled and current inhabitants deprived of the means to remain in Belgium. The presumptions inherent in this entire debate treat the WA as though it should work as a convenience for the former inhabitants of Belgium and those Defenders who support them in their attempts to regain that region.

At no point has anyone shown why the WA should be expected to act in this way, there is certainly no compelling moral argument, and so far no logical one either. I wont even approach the more technical debate about a legal imperative for the WA to show such favouritism in this way.

I won't bother with anything legal. My pensmenship isn't quite good enough for that.

Instead, I do rather like the idea of defenders and invaders being able to openly war for a region, rather than just throwing down a set of Himalayan mountains in order to stop new invaders (defenders in this case).

But it works both ways. In a way...I agree with you. I am a little unsettled at the thought that a region can normally just password itself...and no first round invaders can openly wage war without a good deal of espionage and sub-...and the word left me. Crap...

Aha! Subterfuge! I think...

[Northern Chittowa]

So this would be a prime example of "be careful what you wish for"?




Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I don't particularly think so, as now if invaders do take the region again, there isnt a fear of the region being Pw'ed and left to die. It will just come down to a numbers game between defenders and invaders, a nice equal footing.

[Northern Chittowa]

No... the term native was coined because it is considered different to simply being a nation which is residing in a region. A nation which is in a region in order to take part in a hostile takeover from forces originating outside the region cannot be considered a native. Belgium belongs to the natives of the region, which do not include Dysian and those who endorsed him. While the actions taken since the liberation (ejecting of nations and password protection) have been similar to those taken by the invaders, they are different, since they are done by the natives, for the natives, rather than by an outside force taking over the region.

But the right of conquerer is that he now owns the land, and in time becomes a native of the land. If we allowed the 'native' definition to extend only to those who were originally there...and no conquerer could ever exist and take it over, which is wholly different than taking over a territory belonging to a dead civilization...there'd be no nation there currently is in the Americas. The USA couldn't exist because number 1 it once belonged to the Indians...and number 2...it also once belonged to the British, French, Spanish, Mexicans, and Hiwaiians.

I'm advocating neither for or against the entire idea, because in the end, the original 'natives' of Belgium conquered it back didn't they? Their right as conquerer now is to hold the land as theirs. But should it be conquered again by invading forces, my stance remains the same, the conquerer has fought for and won the land.

To me, the password protection was almost like the the Himalayas. Really fricken difficult to manuver around and conquer what's on the other side.

I do see and understand that position, its quite an interesting one however i do disagree when it comes to this game. In real life you are quite correct of course, that without conquest there wouldnt be nations etc. However in the game it is slightly different. In real life years go by which enable the conquering states to become natives, yet in the game we dont have the luxury of time and if you decide to try and compare nationstates year to real life year, it goes into the realms of roleplaying, of which certain sections dont follow. That is why the definition of native which Sedge gave is - to the majority of gameplayers on the defender/invader game- is universally accepted as truth.

[Omega Uliza]

No... the term native was coined because it is considered different to simply being a nation which is residing in a region. A nation which is in a region in order to take part in a hostile takeover from forces originating outside the region cannot be considered a native. Belgium belongs to the natives of the region, which do not include Dysian and those who endorsed him. While the actions taken since the liberation (ejecting of nations and password protection) have been similar to those taken by the invaders, they are different, since they are done by the natives, for the natives, rather than by an outside force taking over the region.

But the right of conquerer is that he now owns the land, and in time becomes a native of the land. If we allowed the 'native' definition to extend only to those who were originally there...and no conquerer could ever exist and take it over, which is wholly different than taking over a territory belonging to a dead civilization...there'd be no nation there currently is in the Americas. The USA couldn't exist because number 1 it once belonged to the Indians...and number 2...it also once belonged to the British, French, Spanish, Mexicans, and Hiwaiians.

I'm advocating neither for or against the entire idea, because in the end, the original 'natives' of Belgium conquered it back didn't they? Their right as conquerer now is to hold the land as theirs. But should it be conquered again by invading forces, my stance remains the same, the conquerer has fought for and won the land.

To me, the password protection was almost like the the Himalayas. Really fricken difficult to manuver around and conquer what's on the other side.

I do see and understand that position, its quite an interesting one however i do disagree when it comes to this game. In real life you are quite correct of course, that without conquest there wouldnt be nations etc. However in the game it is slightly different. In real life years go by which enable the conquering states to become natives, yet in the game we dont have the luxury of time and if you decide to try and compare nationstates year to real life year, it goes into the realms of roleplaying, of which certain sections dont follow. That is why the definition of native which Sedge gave is - to the majority of gameplayers on the defender/invader game- is universally accepted as truth.

It's why I was using the term so loosely.

[New Hayesalia]

I have placed a nuclear warhead somewhere in the borders of Belgium. If you do not pay me $50,000,000 within 12 hours I will detonate it.

That is all.

[Independent Planets]

New Hayesalia, your threat is neither vry srs nor verbose enough to belong in this thread. Please issue a retraction immediately.

Also, hello new forum!

[New Hayesalia]

I refuse! Muhahaha!