[DEFEATED] Don't Shoot Strangers Act

[Gastash]

Don't you think there's a higher chance that they aren't intent on immediately killing you?

OOC: Regardless of what I actually think or what I RP as, I'm trying to explain to you that this is going to be the attitude that you'll be fighting against not just drafting but also in vote. If you can't give a better answer but "give peace a chance!", you're going to lose.

I do have a better answer, which I tried to put in the preamble. When encountering a nation for the first time, you have absolutely no knowledge of their tech level, population, allies, etc., so you can't possibly know if you'll win if you start a war with them. The same goes for the other nation. If both sides acted logically, there wouldn't be any fighting during a first contact, at least until they got more information.

Unfortunately, people sometimes do attack due to the uncertainty and fear in meeting a new civilization. We can stop a WA nation from attacking, so under this proposal a first contact between two WA nations would never be violent.

The worst possible thing that could happen is a nonmember nation attacks you and "gets the first strike". This is not a big deal. If they're advanced enough to destroy you in one hit, they're advanced enough to get the first strike anyway. Otherwise, one shot doesn't decide a battle.

To summarize:

• Attacking makes no sense.
• We can stop WA nations from attacking out of fear, so we should.
• Worst case scenario: one bullet in your wall.

I have put this in the OP.

[Kowani]

Don't you think there's a higher chance that they aren't intent on immediately killing you?

"No."

“Your paranoia is not shared by the reality based community.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"No."

“Your paranoia is not shared by the reality based community.”

"It isn't paranoia, it's good sense, ambassador. If you're wrong, no harm done. If you're right, you have the drop on them."

[Kimmer]

Even as a non combatant nation, I believe this resolution serves no true purpose. As it is rather included in the realm of common sense.
Not only that, but in the cases of a nation having light reconnaissance it would take away a nation's upper hand against a militarist threat.
Particularly so when a member nation is centered around information technology is forced against a rival nation with more shear man power.

To put simply, this resolution puts far more power in the hands of a possible aggressor.

[Araraukar]

Worst case scenario: one bullet in your wall.

OOC: ...or one bullet through your head, or one nuke in your capital, or one destroyed living planet, if you want to scale up properly.

I could see a point of making this a thing when you (a member nation) are venturing outside your borders, but not when someone else ventures inside yours. Basically, give nations the chance to defend themselves, even by first strike, if strangers come a-knocking, but tell them to hold fire when they go knocking on someone else's door.

[Kowani]

“Your paranoia is not shared by the reality based community.”

"It isn't paranoia, it's good sense, ambassador. If you're wrong, no harm done. If you're right, you have the drop on them."

“It’s not good sense in the slightest. Leaving aside the issue of the innocent people you may have just killed, if they came in any official capacity, (or, with sufficiently developed nations), have managed to screw over any relationship possible. And no, being able to kill random civilians is not evidence that you can win a war.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"It isn't paranoia, it's good sense, ambassador. If you're wrong, no harm done. If you're right, you have the drop on them."

“It’s not good sense in the slightest. Leaving aside the issue of the innocent people you may have just killed, if they came in any official capacity, (or, with sufficiently developed nations), have managed to screw over any relationship possible. And no, being able to kill random civilians is not evidence that you can win a war.”

"They aren't innocent if they entered into our territory against prior warning. That makes them hostile. Whether they come in an official capacity or not is entirely irrelevant to the C.D.S.P. If we had an interest in peaceful contact, we would make overtures or have given prior, explicit permission. Unsolicited official attempts at contact are illegal, hostile attempts to enter our territory, and are dealt with accordingly.

"Unidentified entrants who pass the demarcated border are hostile until proven otherwise."

[Gastash]

"If they cross your border after clear warning, they're attacking you and nothing in this proposal stops you from striking back.

"If they do not cross your border or otherwise engage in hostilities, this proposal prevents you from attacking, because it is irrational to start a war with a nation you know nothing about."

[Kenmoria]

“Could I have a ‘directly’ before ‘at’ in clause 1a, to make it clear that warning shots are not an act of hostility, since they may be used to enforce borders?”

[Gastash]

Even as a non combatant nation, I believe this resolution serves no true purpose. As it is rather included in the realm of common sense.

"In the heat of the moment, people often act out of fear rather than common sense."

Not only that, but in the cases of a nation having light reconnaissance it would take away a nation's upper hand against a militarist threat.
Particularly so when a member nation is centered around information technology is forced against a rival nation with more shear man power.

To put simply, this resolution puts far more power in the hands of a possible aggressor.

"It that situation the militaristic nation already had the upper hand."

Worst case scenario: one bullet in your wall.

OOC: ...or one bullet through your head, or one nuke in your capital, or one destroyed living planet, if you want to scale up properly.

If they're advanced enough to blow up your planet in one hit, it wouldn't matter whether you shot first.

I could see a point of making this a thing when you (a member nation) are venturing outside your borders, but not when someone else ventures inside yours. Basically, give nations the chance to defend themselves, even by first strike, if strangers come a-knocking, but tell them to hold fire when they go knocking on someone else's door.

The proposal currently applies to both of those things. It also applies if they meet each other in the wilderness. I have not been convinced that stopping immediate attacks in any of those situations is unreasonable.

“Could I have a ‘directly’ before ‘at’ in clause 1a, to make it clear that warning shots are not an act of hostility, since they may be used to enforce borders?”

"An excellent idea."

[Disembodied Voice]

A voice, seemingly coming out of nowhere, whispered right behind the author's left ear: "You will have a far easier time passing this, if you allow nations to defend their borders from intruders and focus on what they do when venturing outside of them. Organic minds especially can be very territorial. Either allow for that or fight futilely against their basic animal instincts. Your choice."

[Gastash]

Azaven looks around, confused. Who had spoken?

"Eh, whoever you are, I already have allowed nations to defend their borders. It's right here:

Defines... "an act of hostility" towards an entity as any of the following:
...
c. crossing a border that the entity has issued clear, universal warning signals to not cross; and

Prohibits member nations from committing an act of hostility towards another nation during the nations' initial encounter if the encountered nation has not committed an act of hostility.

"So as you can see, eh..." He trails off, feeling increasingly like he was talking to himself. Would the potted plants argue with him next?

[Liberimery]

Azaven looks around, confused. Who had spoken?

"Eh, whoever you are, I already have allowed nations to defend their borders. It's right here:

Defines... "an act of hostility" towards an entity as any of the following:
...
c. crossing a border that the entity has issued clear, universal warning signals to not cross; and

Prohibits member nations from committing an act of hostility towards another nation during the nations' initial encounter if the encountered nation has not committed an act of hostility.

"So as you can see, eh..." He trails off, feeling increasingly like he was talking to himself. Would the potted plants argue with him next?

What about crossings into disputed territory where the region is claimed by two nations? One nation may see the entry into disputed territory as a hostile invasion while the other sees it as “What border?” MNy times these conflicts start as military drills designed to look like hostile as it will either deter the intrusion if not acted upon and give the drilling nation a cause bellici for military occupation of the disputed territory and invasion of sovereign territory.

[Kenmoria]

“The ‘realising’ clause should not have a full stop at the end.”

[Gastash]

What about crossings into disputed territory where the region is claimed by two nations? One nation may see the entry into disputed territory as a hostile invasion while the other sees it as “What border?” MNy times these conflicts start as military drills designed to look like hostile as it will either deter the intrusion if not acted upon and give the drilling nation a cause bellici for military occupation of the disputed territory and invasion of sovereign territory.

"The 'border' is not necessarily a national boundary. It could be a military camp in the wilderness. The point is that when one entity has given a signal to 'stop or we'll shoot', not stopping is an act of hostility."

“The ‘realising’ clause should not have a full stop at the end.”

Azaven squints at the draft. "How did that happen?"

[Araraukar]

"The 'border' is not necessarily a national boundary. It could be a military camp in the wilderness. The point is that when one entity has given a signal to 'stop or we'll shoot', not stopping is an act of hostility."

OOC: And when the border is a national border, but is literally an uninhabited stretch of wilderness, like most land borders are in RL? Where you just need to know where the border goes, to avoid crossing it? Or for starfaring nations it can be an unmarked border in literal space between the stars.

[Gastash]

"The 'border' is not necessarily a national boundary. It could be a military camp in the wilderness. The point is that when one entity has given a signal to 'stop or we'll shoot', not stopping is an act of hostility."

OOC: And when the border is a national border, but is literally an uninhabited stretch of wilderness, like most land borders are in RL? Where you just need to know where the border goes, to avoid crossing it? Or for starfaring nations it can be an unmarked border in literal space between the stars.

That information would be part of the "clear signals". Or it could just be a signal to not go any further.

[Araraukar]

OOC: And when the border is a national border, but is literally an uninhabited stretch of wilderness, like most land borders are in RL? Where you just need to know where the border goes, to avoid crossing it? Or for starfaring nations it can be an unmarked border in literal space between the stars.

That information would be part of the "clear signals". Or it could just be a signal to not go any further.

OOC: Ignorance of border is no excuse to be found on the wrong side of it. Especially when there are detailed maps available just by asking.

So, again, limit this to when nations venture outside of their own borders, and leave it entirely up to them as to whether to attack or not when someone ventures inside theirs, and you'll have a better chance at passing it.

[Gastash]

OOC: Ignorance of border is no excuse to be found on the wrong side of it. Especially when there are detailed maps available just by asking.

There aren't detailed maps available; the two nations have absolutely no knowledge of each other. Without warning signals it's impossible to know where to stop.

I've replaced "crossing a border" in 1(c) to "entering an area", to emphasize that coming too close is an act of hostility, whether it's on a border or not.

[Araraukar]

There aren't detailed maps available; the two nations have absolutely no knowledge of each other. Without warning signals it's impossible to know where to stop.

OOC: So this is only for space exploration then? Because like if the nations are on the same planet, there's no plausible way for them to not be aware of "this land belongs to someone", unless you're writing this for past-tech nations instead. (And even then I'm fairly sure there's already a resolution requiring member nations to make such information easily available.) I mean, I might not know in the middle of wilderness exactly where the border between Finland and Russia goes, but I know if I go far enough east, eventually I'm going to run into someone asking pointed questions (that is, a weapon pointed at me while questions are asked) in a language I can only say a few phrases in.

to emphasize that coming too close is an act of hostility, whether it's on a border or not.

Getting better.

[Liberimery]

I mean the U.S.-Canada border is the largest real world national border in the world and the U.S. caught Brits who were “confused” about the boundary and arrested them (two were previously refused visas into the U.S. and Canada refused to take them back.).

[Gastash]

So this is only for space exploration then? Because like if the nations are on the same planet, there's no plausible way for them to not be aware of "this land belongs to someone", unless you're writing this for past-tech nations instead.

It's possible for an area to be so isolated it'd be reasonable to think no one lives there. For example, if a region in the middle of Antarctica was somehow habitable. Other than that, yes, it'll mostly apply to space exploration.

(And even then I'm fairly sure there's already a resolution requiring member nations to make such information easily available.)

The proposal also applies in the case of a member nation encountering a nonmember nation.

[Araraukar]

I mean the U.S.-Canada border is the largest real world national border in the world and the U.S. caught Brits who were “confused” about the boundary and arrested them (two were previously refused visas into the U.S. and Canada refused to take them back.).

OOC: The main issue in that area is (to my understanding, which is based on the border control reality TV shows about the USA-Canada border) that the border services don't let you leave the area when you realize it's the road leading to the border crossing. You're assumed to be trying to cross the border if you go anywhere near it. Even if you just literally took a wrong turn and didn't realize where you were until you saw the border crossing checkpoint.

The proposal still doesn't make any difference in whether the member nation is the one entering someone else's area or vice versa. It should.

[Gastash]

The proposal still doesn't make any difference in whether the member nation is the one entering someone else's area or vice versa. It should.

Something like this?

d. knowingly trespassing on the entity's national territory;

The problem with that is it's hard to know whether they know they're trespassing. Especially if they've also claimed the area as their national territory.

I'm honestly confused. It would help if I knew why firing a warning shot is unacceptable in these circumstances.

[Araraukar]

It would help if I knew why firing a warning shot is unacceptable in these circumstances.

OOC: You're the one forbidding hostile actions. Shooting tends to be taken as a hostile action, especially if you don't know if you're being shot at (and just missed).