[Submitted] Repeal "Liberate Republicans"

[Captain Apollo]

Second Draft:
---

The Security Council,

Acknowledging the purpose of Security Council Resolution #41, "Liberate Republicans," to help return the region to the native nations of Republicans by restoring free entry to the region and removing a password imposed by the Nazi-affiliated region The Greater German Reich,

Noting the Security Council's support of Republicans in their time of need,

Recognizing that there is now an active founding nation that has the ability to suppress foreign invasions from enemy groups,

Applauding that the founder has limited World Assembly Delegate access to regional control for regional security,

Realizing that the Liberation currently in effect for this region is unnecessary as the region is not at risk for future invasions,

Observing that this Resolution was enacted over nine years ago and that foreign invaders are no longer present,

Cognizant of the fact that Republicans’ founding nation has been active for the last six years,

Believing that this Liberation is no longer required and that the ability to password protect the region should be returned to the community of Republicans,

Hereby Repeals Security Council Resolution #41, "Liberate Republicans."

---
First Draft:
---

The Security Council,

Acknowledging the purpose of Security Council Resolution #41, "Liberate Republicans," to help return the region to the native nations of Republicans by restoring free entry to the region and removing a password imposed by the Nazi-affiliated region The Greater German Reich,

Noting the Security Council's support of Republicans in their time of need,

Recognizing that there is now an active Founding Nation that has the ability to suppress foreign invasions from enemy groups,

Realizing that this Resolution was enacted over a year and a half ago and that foreign invaders are no longer present,

Cognizant of the fact that Republicans’ native population has grown since the enactment of the Liberation,

Believing that this Liberation is no longer required and that the ability to password protect the region should be returned to the community of Republicans,

Hereby Repeals Liberate Republicans.

Edited to remove excessive tags.
Edited to fix "acknowleding"

Acknowledging the purpose of Security Council Resolution #41 “Liberate Republicans” to remove a Nazi-affiliated group by the name of The Greater German Reich's imposed password that barred entrance into Republicans to help return the region to the native nations of Republicans,

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

inb4 asking what the natives think

Support. It's been long enough that this resolution is far from being necessary.

[Frattastan]

The repeal isn't necessary either, so I don't see why we should waste 4 days of voting for it.

[Cormac Stark]

I personally don't see the benefit to repealing liberation resolutions. The region is foundered now, as you note, which means that the founder can impose a password (liberation resolutions only remove Delegate-imposed passwords) and in any case doesn't really need a password in order to protect it. And if it goes founderless again we could wind up with Republicans in need of liberation again. On the other hand, allowing password protection would enable a native Delegate to protect the region if it ever goes founderless again so that is one benefit.

I don't really feel strongly about this either way. It's a fairly well written proposal and if it can be demonstrated that it has native support, I would support it.

EDIT: Just a friendly note, you may only want to use region and nation tags once in your proposal. People tend to get a bit annoyed by excessive tags.

EDIT 2: Sorry, noticed something else.

Acknowledging the purpose of Security Council Resolution #41 “Liberate Republicans” to remove a Nazi-affiliated group by the name of The Greater German Reich's imposed password that barred entrance into Republicans to help return the region to the native nations of Republicans,

That's a bit off grammatically (I know, I'm so picky ). You might want to try:

Acknowledging the purpose of Security Council Resolution #41, "Liberate Republicans," to help return the region to the native nations of Republicans by restoring free entry to the region and removing a password imposed by the Nazi-affiliated region The Greater German Reich,

Hope that helps.

[Captain Apollo]

Thanks for the edit suggestions, Cormac. I'll fix the proposal in a second.
--
I think the ability of password-protection should be up to the region and since they haven't been targeted in over a year and a half there's no need of a Liberation resolution any longer.

[Unibot III]

I don't see the need for a repeal. If the region goes founderless, it'd be protection for it from griefers. Once again we have a raider proposing to repeal a liberation under the guise of "it not being necessary (at the moment)" and another raider supporting the repeal under the guise of it "not being necessary (at the moment)". There's no reason to try to keep our resolution books as "lean" as possible, when we'd actually gain more potentially from keeping it on the books than not.

Also the password-protection of the region is up to region, they can propose to repeal the resolution if they want to. Furthermore, the founder can password the region.

[Captain Apollo]

I don't see the need for a repeal. If the region goes founderless, it'd be protection for it from griefers. Once again we have a raider proposing to repeal a liberation under the guise of "it not being necessary (at the moment)" and another raider supporting the repeal under the guise of it "not being necessary (at the moment)". There's no reason to try to keep our resolution books as "lean" as possible, when we'd actually gain more potentially from keeping it on the books than not.

Also the password-protection of the region is up to region, they can propose to repeal the resolution if they want to. Furthermore, the founder can password the region.

Yes, the region could go founderless, but as, in the proposal, mentions that the Founder is active (18 hours ago).
Oh yeah, the big bad raider who hasn't password protected a region as point is going to go through the long process of repealing a lib to invade: is going to invade... I just don't see that happening.
What would we gain from leaving this one on the books? Without it the region can protect itself by passwording itself if it wants.

[Captain Apollo]

Does anyone see any rule violations in the current draft?

[SkyDip]

Does anyone see any rule violations in the current draft?

Looks clean to me.

EDIT: Dammit, posted with the wrong nation. You get the idea.

[Captain Apollo]

Here's my next draft...

The Security Council,

Acknowledging the purpose of Security Council Resolution #41, "Liberate Republicans," to help return the region to the native nations of Republicans by restoring free entry to the region and removing a password imposed by the Nazi-affiliated region The Greater German Reich,

Noting the Security Council's support of Republicans in their time of need,

Recognizing that there is now an active Founding Nation that has the ability to suppress foreign invasions from enemy groups,

Applauding that the founder has restricted WA Delegate access to regional control for regional security,

Realizing that the Liberation currently in effect for this region is unnecessary as the region is not at risk for future invasions,

Observing that this Resolution was enacted over a year and a half ago and that foreign invaders are no longer present,

Cognizant of the fact that Republicans’ native population has grown since the enactment of the Liberation,

Believing that this Liberation is no longer required and that the ability to password protect the region should be returned to the community of Republicans,

Hereby Repeals Security Council Resolution #41, "Liberate Republicans."

Co-authored by Mousebumples.

[Mousebumples]

I don't see the need for a repeal. If the region goes founderless, it'd be protection for it from griefers.

Wouldn't it be much more likely that - if the founder CTEs - the native WAD would want to password protect the region for the region's protection? This resolution would currently prevent that option.

As such, I tentatively support the repeal. (And thanks to Apollo for the co-author credit )

[Captain Apollo]

I don't see the need for a repeal. If the region goes founderless, it'd be protection for it from griefers.

Wouldn't it be much more likely that - if the founder CTEs - the native WAD would want to password protect the region for the region's protection? This resolution would currently prevent that option.

As such, I tentatively support the repeal. (And thanks to Apollo for the co-author credit )

Yep, exactly that! And you're definitely welcome, Mouse! You helped a lot.

[Cinistra]

WASC jargon: to prevent immigration = to protect the region.

You guys have too much spare time, BTW? Republicans has a founder. Founders are omnipotent. Thus, it's really no need for this repeal.

[Eist]

Wouldn't it be much more likely that - if the founder CTEs - the native WAD would want to password protect the region for the region's protection? This resolution would currently prevent that option.

If this goes to vote, I will vote AGAINST. The greatest threat to regions is the locking and refounding (and then again locking) by a rogue player. Liberations considerably decrease the likelihood of a region being refounded. While the liberation is in place the region will likely see more tag raids, they are relatively inconsequential. While there is a founder active in the region, it doesn't really matter if the liberation is in place or not, so, as above, and in order to not waste the time of the SC, it should be left.

[Unibot III]

I don't see the need for a repeal. If the region goes founderless, it'd be protection for it from griefers.

Wouldn't it be much more likely that - if the founder CTEs - the native WAD would want to password protect the region for the region's protection? This resolution would currently prevent that option.

As such, I tentatively support the repeal. (And thanks to Apollo for the co-author credit )

Not necessarily; most regions don't want to be passworded because it affects the region's maneuverability. The basis of this repeal is to prioritize a leaner Security Council book over the security of a region despite the fact that we're an organization called the Security Council not the Scarcity Council.

Furthermore, there are nuances to security,

Low Level Threats: Taggers and such, which one is vulnerable to by not being passworded and being founderless.

High Level Threats: Griefers, which one is vulnerable to by not being "liberated" and being founderless.

The reason why qualified security advisers recommend to regions to keep the Liberation badge is because it protects you against High Level Threats. Only propagandists tend to prioritize Low Level Threats over High Level Threats and use that to campaign for a unreasonable measure that actually puts the long-term security of the region at risk. When the region name is "Republicans", I can assure you that it will be a target for griefing, not simply low level threats.

[Sanctaria]

The reason why qualified security advisers recommend to regions to keep the Liberation badge is because it protects you against High Level Threats.

I'm sorry, but this made me laugh.

Qualified? By whom? Yourself? Indeed. Qualified.

[Unibot III]

Qualified?

Anyone who has any experience in the security of regions and a background to suggest that you believe in native rights. Apollo on the other hand is the commander of an invader ("independent") army and Mousebumbles has been caught in a recent scandal where she communicated glee at the fact that a competitor WA Region could be griefed -- then her words got out, her image was tarnished and she got her gang of AOers to argue that reconnaissance is utterly the worst thing in the world (perhaps because they haven't had their regions griefed before).

[Eldarion Telcontar]

Apollo on the other hand is the commander of an invader ("independent") army

I am!? Which one, which one? I didn't know I was commander of such a secret army I didn't even know about it.

As to your "High Level Targets" you know full-well a region can be griefed without having it being passworded. Just as long as an invading group can hold the delegacy then can grief all they want, they don't have to have a password. If I wanted to raid Republicans I wouldn't wait until I repealed the Liberation to raid it, mostly because I've never passworded a region and don't, personally, partake in (my definition) of griefing. If I had any intent to raid Republicans I would have invaded it by now, I assure you.

Edit: This is Captain Apollo.

[Unibot III]

Apollo on the other hand is the commander of an invader ("independent") army

I am!? Which one, which one? I didn't know I was commander of such a secret army I didn't even know about it.

Sorry, were.

As to your "High Level Targets" you know full-well a region can be griefed without having it being passworded. Just as long as an invading group can hold the delegacy then can grief all they want, they don't have to have a password. If I wanted to raid Republicans I wouldn't wait until I repealed the Liberation to raid it, mostly because I've never passworded a region and don't, personally, partake in (my definition) of griefing. If I had any intent to raid Republicans I would have invaded it by now, I assure you.

You don't want to grief Republicans, but there are ulterior motives behind this resolution and your last; you've been rushing your resolutions to the queue without proper drafting because you want to backlog the Security Council to block an emergency liberation proposal. Hence the commendation of someone who didn't need to be commended and a repeal of a resolution that probably shouldn't be repealed.

Furthermore, it is very difficult to destroy a region without a password since it is easier to intercept such refound attempts. That's why WA Liberated regions are eventually liberated or the raiders leave and Utopia was intercepted by the UDL last time this year before The Phantom Knights could destroy it.

[Sanctaria]

Qualified?

Anyone who has any experience in the security of regions and a background to suggest that you believe in native rights. Apollo on the other hand is the commander of an invader ("independent") army and Mousebumbles has been caught in a recent scandal where she communicated glee at the fact that a competitor WA Region could be griefed -- then her words got out, her image was tarnished and she got her gang of AOers to argue that reconnaissance is utterly the worst thing in the world (perhaps because they haven't had their regions griefed before).

Oh right, so only defenders are "qualified" to speak on the "security" of regions. Right.

I'm still amused at the world qualified. As if all defenders have graduate degrees on international and regional security.

[Unibot III]

I'm still amused at the world qualified. As if all defenders have graduate degrees on international and regional security.

We have as much of a grasp on the subject as you have on misdirection, irrelevant debate and bad argumentation.

I don't care about your real life debate credentials, you still have yet to offer anything to this debate regarding substance other than to criticize the experience of people who spend their free-time helping regions' security -- yes, we know a lot about interregional security and we know this resolution is bunk; I know that's hard to believe considering our title is "defender" and all.

[Sanctaria]

I'm still amused at the world qualified. As if all defenders have graduate degrees on international and regional security.

We have as much of a grasp on the subject as you have on misdirection, irrelevant debate and bad argumentation.

I don't care about your real life debate credentials, you still have yet to offer anything to this debate regarding substance other than to criticize the experience of people who spend their free-time helping regions' security -- yes, we know a lot about interregional security and we know this resolution is bunk; I know that's hard to believe considering our title is "defender" and all.

No. You argument is presupposed on the fact that because you, a "qualified security" official, disagree with it's intentions, it should not go through with it. That's part of your argument. My question to you is how are you qualified and who determines your qualification.

Just saying your a defender doesn't answer my question.

[Unibot III]

No. You argument is presupposed on the fact that because you, a "qualified security" official, disagree with it's intentions, it should not go through with it. That's part of your argument. My question to you is how are you qualified and who determines your qualification.

Just saying your a defender doesn't answer my question.

This would be a worthy analysis if I hadn't explained my reasons for thinking this resolution is risky for the region to adopt. Instead you just quoted a side-note, that qualified security advisers would agree with me, to criticize that -- a piecemeal attack.

Furthermore your "question" was rhetorical and not substantive.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Furthermore, it is very difficult to destroy a region without a password since it is easier to intercept such refound attempts. That's why WA Liberated regions are eventually liberated or the raiders leave and Utopia was intercepted by the UDL last time this year before The Phantom Knights could destroy it.

That was not UDL. TITO intercepted it. Please do not make up facts here Unibot. I should know as it was my puppet.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Anyone who has any experience in the security of regions and a background to suggest that you believe in native rights. Apollo on the other hand is the commander of an invader ("independent") army and Mousebumbles has been caught in a recent scandal where she communicated glee at the fact that a competitor WA Region could be griefed -- then her words got out, her image was tarnished and she got her gang of AOers to argue that reconnaissance is utterly the worst thing in the world (perhaps because they haven't had their regions griefed before).

"Scandal"? Really? I think you're overstating your point. I know there was *some* blowback, but it was nothing serious, since she didn't participate at all in said griefing, and indeed didn't know it was actually going to happen until after it already had(at which point she could do nothing about it).

I'm not sure how we can say someone who essentially just laughed at a joke is guilty of anything. I think you should let that one die.