[Submitted] Liberate Haven

[Bretton]

Steal? Maybe. Grind into the dust? Totally.

One follows logically enough from the other. At least you didn't mince words about it.

[Allanea]

Is there any evidence, I ask again, that any Haven members actually participated in the raid, as in, moved their nations or WA puppets there?

"Haven lent moral support to the raiders" does not equate "Haven participated in the raid."

[Venico]

Steal? Maybe. Grind into the dust? Totally.

One follows logically enough from the other. At least you didn't mince words about it.

Nah, a refound would be difficult dealing with the levels of influence within the region so any permanent stealing would be a bitch. But, Mall and I have both been advocating for TBR to thug it out in Anarchy, so we'd probably see it through.

[Bretton]

Actually, on that topic, it's fortuituous I haven't deleted any telegrams in a really long time, I've got a good timeline of things.

Firstly, Haven has "hidden behind a password" since as far back as I can remember, so your assessment of four years if off by quite a bit.

Secondly, with that being the case, four years ago was about the same time Haven was invaded by people from The Genesis Corporation, which I find is a rather interesting parallel giving the dates involved with this Security Council draft...

Dear Friend,
We are closing the region Haven and turning it into a memorial region for all those we lost in the banning from the unjust moderators. I am asking that you move your nation to The Genesis Corporation. TGC is a new region that we are going to use for active role play. Even if you no long want to role play on NationStates anymore, I recommend you join the rest of us from Haven at TGC. I am asking that you please move there as soon as you read this, so we can finally set this region up as a memorial region. If you don't move your nation, we will have to eject you from the region. (Even though that is the last thing I want to do, it will just take more time if you stay.)
Sincerely,
Your WA Delegate and Fellow RPer `GoCss

That would be the last time I was aware of that Haven was directly involved with a raid one way or the other.

Anyway, please forgive me for taking this much time to get my facts straight, I haven't focused on the meta of NS in... a while.

I would offer a stylistic suggestion to the draft proposal in changing all instances of the word "liberate" to "steal" or the grammatically incorrect "theft" - the latter would be my preference as it is a good indicative of the level of intellectual honesty present.

[Venico]

I think the best person to ask about the level of Haven's involvement would be Milograd as he was the one running the coup and most in touch with the Roleplayers he was pulling to help.

[Sedgistan]

So yes, fuck off and leave us alone.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

[Unibot III]

If we're really going to use the WA Liberation feature to attack someone's home, let's start with attacking someone who was more centrally involved with The South Pacific's coup... like Mallorea and Riva!

This resolution is a ridiculous abuse of the World Assembly's powers and hopes to pass on misinformation and jingoism alone. Say no to aggression, say yes to peace and goodwill.

[Sternberg]

OOC:

I originally drafted a bit of an IC rant and I was, admittedly, a bit more angry then I should have been that something like this could be proposed. After calming down, I've compiled what practical concerns I have with the draft as best I can.

[...] Dismissing the argument that peaceful regions such as Haven should not be attacked by noting that such "peaceful regions" were heavily involved in the 2013 coup of The South Pacific.

Confident that a number of raiding organizations could utilize the region for far more interesting things than the current residents are choosing to,

First, the crux of the proposed liberation of Haven is that there were certain region members who had assisted in the subjugation of the TSP region a year ago; members who are now 'cowering', as the OP has tactfully put it ( ) behind a password-locked region and who should be retrieved from behind said password-lock, as well as the side-effect of "promoting activity". However, at the moment, there is hardly solid evidence to support the aforementioned accusation present within the text. These facts need to be clearly outlined in the final draft - with NOTHING omitted - as I can guarantee there will be voting W.A. members who would have no idea as to what the fuss is about.

I understand this aspect of the draft is being worked on at the moment, but it still is a significant cause of concern.

[...] Believing that the activity created by such invasions will outweigh any potential moral evils associated with stripping the region of its protection,

Hoping that this Liberation will spur activity in similarly protected regions lest they meet the same fate

Secondly, I would have to question both the ethics and the intent behind allowing the SC (and potentially others) to crack open password-protected regions for various reasons, including in order to allow the R/D 'game' to come flooding in, regardless as to whether the region wants it or not.

In my mind, regardless as to whether it is used to call individual raiding nations to account or for more allowing regions to become more active simply because they are being jumped by raiders constantly, this 'power' can certainly be misused in the wrong hands and can set a dangerous precedent. I am in agreement with what some of the others (especially Cormac) have said - if a region genuinely does not want to become involved in R/D, doesn't have the ability to recruit a lot of nations (metaphorically half of the regions springing up, as of late) to themselves, or wants to avoid being at risk of being raided and a password lock is the best way for them to isolate themselves from the mess, I am of the opinion that they have every right to 'cower and hide'.

Finally, as much as the OP has claimed that this is for a good cause, in my mind, the meta-response to Cormac in the discussion that

I'm not a hypocrite, I'm a raider. I raid. It's what I do. Haven is the hypocritical group for hiding behind a password which they do not deserve ...

has undermined a lot of personal trust that this liberation is for good reasons. Instead, this gives an impression (true or false) that the drafter would utilise this liberation in furtherance of his own agenda, at the detriment of anyone who would try to prevent this from happening. This is particularly apparent in the passed Condemnation of the drafter (SCR #121) towards the end of last year, which outlines:

DISGUSTED by Mallorea and Riva's involvement in the coup of the South Pacific, in which the administration of Mallorea and Riva assisted in purging around 1,000 nations from the South Pacific alongside 3,000 total with Milograd and JAL

I would expect the first quoted response typical of an average "anti-SC" John Doe nation, someone who would be trying to undermine the Security Council and those who would be trying to keep it going. But in light of all this ...

To put it bluntly, I can only find said statement and the implications it seems to cast as reprehensible.

I sincerely apoligise if I have misinterpreted anything concerning this draft or for any defamation that may have resulted in my response, but I, as a voting WA member, will NOT support this proposal. As it stands right now, it has raised way too many red flags with me to garner my support.

[Zepplin Manufacturers]

Hi. Present delegate of Haven here, once in the ancient past the keeper of the charts and doer of lineart.

My response is in short...

No.

In somewhat long form


Stirring the pot much and for what goal? Certainly not the good of Havens present occupants merely another notch on the bed post of the R/D body politic? A long term "peaceful" role-playing region thrown to the dogs a quite literal decade of history thrown in the bin for no gain at all?

As the present delegate from Haven and apparently representing its long deep and complex internal and role-play based history please let me inform you that none of us have or had any interest in participation in the raider / defender game until it was forced upon us under egregious circumstances and foul social engineering. When it was we did our humble best to insure our modus operandi of roleplaying was not disturbed and in the end we intend to keep doing just that. Further under my watch that is all we will be doing.

I say no to this, just as we all said no to previous attempts to "liberate" conquer, annihilate or otherwise do what we see as active harm to what is very much our region, our roleplays and our own work.

"No and go away" is the refrain, we do not want what you are selling, the contentious petty politics, the social engineering, the sycophancy , the cliques, the vastly unjust impositions, the base concept even of what evolved into modern gameplay where to "win" a social following one must be an utter rogue. We do not want it inflicted upon us nore would we frankly wish it on any of our brethren in other roleplaying groups who take this facet of the game with a deep at this stage to the bone dislike of those who would interfere with our work. Who as the evolution of this game proceeded ..diverged and wish to stay that way.

We do not want it and your seeking to impose it upon us is in a very real sense quite wrong. If that makes you feel good to impose your will and your ways upon us then this does not make you a very good proponent of this motion for it does not liberate haven for havenites but enslaves us in the tyranny of gameplay that we have for the best part of a decade avoided.

[Tiami]

As with Allanea, Lamoni, Italian Maifias, Unibot and undoubtedly many more players, I stand firmly against this resolution. Regions that are password-protected have a password for a reason: to keep unwanted players out. Haven has a password, but does that mean Haven's members cower behind it? No. Other RPing region (Sondria, Gholgoth, Pardes) have passwords, but that does not mean these regions should be opened up.

[Kylarnatia]

Dismissing the argument that peaceful regions such as Haven should not be attacked by noting that such "peaceful regions" were heavily involved in the 2013 coup of The South Pacific.

...and, from what I can gather from reading this thread, your only piece of evidence to support that claim is the fact that Haven had a brief embassy with The South Pacific during that time? Do you not perhaps think that, to roleplay regions, embassies embody a completely different meaning then what they do to the R/D game?

As far as I've always seen it, embassies were a friendly gesture, and that was that. Seeing as Milograd - a prominent member of the roleplaying community long before his supposedly infamous streak in the gameplay community - was in charge of The South Pacific at the time, do you not think it is plausible that regions like Haven accepted the embassies merely as a friendly gesture, and nothing else? I certainly know this to be the reason for why Gholgoth's embassy was established.

Also..."heavily involved" in the coup? Haven consists of merely five nations. Not being funny, but I'm pretty damn sure there were bigger forces who were at play during the entire thing, but you're more concerned about a five-nation region which merely wishes to go about it's own business in peace? I'm struggling to see any logic behind this entire proposal.

I can clearly see that there is a bitter taste left in your mouth after the South Pacific coup, and you have every right to feel that way, but to start 'liberating' roleplay regions who've used passwords for legitimate means (mostly for membership basis) rather than to 'cower behind' as you so naively put it, in order to achieve some form of what I can only imagine is a personal vendetta is - quite frankly - sad.

Furthermore, if this proposal sets the risk of future proposals proposing the "liberation" of roleplay regions who have no interest in the R/D game, and who have done nothing to provoke such a thing (such as now), then I think it would be a more mature thing to abandon such a proposal. All I see happening if R/D members get the idea that they can start breaking into roleplay regions who've had nothing to do with their game before, is that frustrations between both communities are just going to mount even higher than they already naturally are.

As a moderator, I was under the impression that your role was to keep the peace between players, not start the fire.

I am firmly against this proposal, as I'm sure the rest of the community - and those with a clear head - are.

[Stevid]

Here's a draft that I've been kicking around in my head for awhile. I'm open to all suggestions for improvement, but obviously I will not be abandoning the effort and I do not consider recommendations to scrap this idea entirely as a suggestion for improvement.

(Image)

Liberate Haven

The Security Council,

Aware that the region Haven has hidden behind a password for well over four years,

Disappointed that many regions have taken to cowering behind passwords for protection for long durations rather than acting to strengthen themselves,

Confident that a number of raiding organizations could utilize the region for far more interesting things than the current residents are choosing to,

Dismissing the argument that peaceful regions such as Haven should not be attacked by noting that such "peaceful regions" were heavily involved in the 2013 coup of The South Pacific.

Believing that the activity created by such invasions will outweigh any potential moral evils associated with stripping the region of its protection,

Hoping that this Liberation will spur activity in similarly protected regions lest they meet the same fate,

Hereby Liberates Haven

I'm not familiar with exactly when Haven passworded itself, so if that four year figure needs adjusting one way or the other that information would be appreciated.

What an appallingly, terrible idea.

They have a password, it's an RPing region. The password has been on Haven for waaaaaaaay longer than four years - honestly if they want to sit behind their password and mind their own business, then for God's sake just let them be.

*jots down place, date, time for future reference when the LIBERATE GREATER DIENSTAD resolution draft rears it's ugly head a few years down the line because we 'hide' behind a password*

Also, from an R&D gaming perspective as viewed by an RPer like myself, there is a distinct hint of double standards here. For example Greater Dienstad was invade whilst it was password free. After the hoo-haa of the invasion there was that long arsed debate about not attacking RP region. That bit aside, one R&D player said that should RPing regions wish to remain out of that element of the game they could simply use a password. For all the arguing, that was the consensus at the end of it.

With that in mind, the resolution proposed here not only invalidates that argument but CLEARLY abuses the 'liberate' (I use the term here extremely loosely) feature of the WA to break down a password just so a bunch of Invaders get to raid an RP region.... to what end.. oh yes - for raider players to utilise the region for something more interesting than what the current residents use it for?

But you asked for criticism/suggestions so here's what I've cobbled together - but considering what it is proposing and the fact I oppose it, this resolution needs to be airtight:

Aware that the region Haven has hidden behind a password for well over four years

Since founding I believe. Talk to someone from the region who knows for sure.

Disappointed that many regions have taken to cowering behind passwords for protection for long durations rather than acting to strengthen themselves

Just who are you (or anyone for that matter) to decide the course of action region residents should take to defend themselves? I mentioned above about passwords for defence of RP nations - like Haven. Reference: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=275968 There's a lot to read but I implore you to read it as it gives a credible account of both sides of that argument (RP vs R&D). This really should influence a lot of what you've have proposed in the resolution.

Confident that a number of raiding organizations could utilize the region for far more interesting things than the current residents are choosing to

What, on God's green Earth, does that even mean?

Who are you to say what a region should be used for? Surely just creating a new region altogether fulfils this? ... or is it 'just because' it is Haven? At any rate this needs LOTS of elaboration.

Dismissing the argument that peaceful regions such as Haven should not be attacked by noting that such "peaceful regions" were heavily involved in the 2013 coup of The South Pacific

Hypocritical really for an R&D player (see link I provided above). RP nations don't tend to get heavily involved in the NS game mechanics. But this issue is forced upon them sometimes (again, see link about the GD invasion and the ensuing row). But if you think RP regions are fair game anyway, why even bring this point up. Invalid argument really, but be that as it may - should the use of a WA resolution be needed to exact 'revenge'? Because that's what it looks like... Definitely an abuse of the WA's liberate feature should the resolution get that far.

Believing that the activity created by such invasions will outweigh any potential moral evils associated with stripping the region of its protection

Looks like an admittance that this resolution is crossing some sort of line here. Please elaborate on 'moral evils' in regards to striping Haven of its password. Something tells me they will echo those of other players who have voiced their opposition thus far.

Hoping that this Liberation will spur activity in similarly protected regions lest they meet the same fate

Very, very callous. If they don't want to play and just RP/chill/socialise/whatever people might come here to do, just leave them be. This is a form of social network and imposing your will on a region that doesn't want to play with you is akin to a weird sort of bullying.

This whole thing strikes me as someone trying to stir up a pot of emotions. This resolution is utterly ridiculous.

[Questers]

Possibly because you're opening a region, that clearly has no interest in such things, to raiding.

They seemed to have an interest in it when it was TSP getting wrecked and not them.

You won't find anyone who raided TSP in Haven right now. It's hilarious that the combined intelligence of the raiding community would suggest that any of the five people in Haven are actually capable of raiding. But, by the way, your idea that this is ok because some ex Havenites (also ex NS players) did take part in TSP is also wrong. TSP is not a passworded region. It is open to gameplay. Haven is a passworded region - it's closed. None of the Havenites who participated in TSP would participate in invading a passworded region.

Going to a party at a person's house does not allow them to enter your house at any time for a party.

I have to state again: it's ridiculous that roleplayers have to deal with the gameplay game whereas gameplayers don't have any any obligation to recognise roleplaying.

[Questers]

Here's a draft that I've been kicking around in my head for awhile. I'm open to all suggestions for improvement, but obviously I will not be abandoning the effort and I do not consider recommendations to scrap this idea entirely as a suggestion for improvement.

(Image)

Liberate Haven

The Security Council,

Aware that the region Haven has hidden behind a password for well over four years,

Disappointed that many regions have taken to cowering behind passwords for protection for long durations rather than acting to strengthen themselves,

Confident that a number of raiding organizations could utilize the region for far more interesting things than the current residents are choosing to,

Dismissing the argument that peaceful regions such as Haven should not be attacked by noting that such "peaceful regions" were heavily involved in the 2013 coup of The South Pacific.

Believing that the activity created by such invasions will outweigh any potential moral evils associated with stripping the region of its protection,

Hoping that this Liberation will spur activity in similarly protected regions lest they meet the same fate,

Hereby Liberates Haven

I'm not familiar with exactly when Haven passworded itself, so if that four year figure needs adjusting one way or the other that information would be appreciated.

I am quite confident I can use your country more interestingly than you can use it. I am believe that any activity created by taking your country will outweigh any moral evils associated with strippng you of your protection. I therefore propose that your password should be removed and we should be able to use your nationstates.net account. If the majority wants to do it, and benefits from doing it, it's ok, right? This is such a senseless argument. There are rules on this forum - this game - and passwords exist to protect us the vacuity of gameplay. If the gameplayers can actually get the password and break into the region - good luck with tht one, by the way, because there are only two people who know it (I am one of them) that is another thing, but you can not remove an obstacle that exists for the very reason that it is working well in a specific case. If you can just get passwords removed by majority, what's the point in them?

[Stevid]

I am quite confident I can use your country more interestingly than you can use it. I am believe that any activity created by taking your country will outweigh any moral evils associated with strippng you of your protection. I therefore propose that your password should be removed and we should be able to use your nationstates.net account. If the majority wants to do it, and benefits from doing it, it's ok, right? This is such a senseless argument. There are rules on this forum - this game - and passwords exist to protect us the vacuity of gameplay. If the gameplayers can actually get the password and break into the region - good luck with tht one, by the way, because there are only two people who know it (I am one of them) that is another thing, but you can not remove an obstacle that exists for the very reason that it is working well in a specific case. If you can just get passwords removed by majority, what's the point in them?

Here, here.

[Questers]

NationStates remains an excellent educational tool for children. It can teach you exactly just how far people will go to gain extrajudicially what they could never gain legitimately.

[The Dark Star Republic]

When [violet] first introduced her shitty new game-breaking proposal categories, I predicted people would use them to grief Haven, and I was told there was of course no way that could happen:

So I wouldn't expect regions like Haven to be under threat, unless the invaders were considerably cleverer than defenders.

This is nothing more than a cheap attempt to drive roleplayers out of the game altogether because you don't like them, through a mechanism against which by design they cannot defend themselves.

[Nephmir]

Proposals to liberate a region to invade it afterwards is not an "abuse of SC powers". It's completely legal, as stated in the stickies in this forum, and one of the intended uses of the liberation.

While I don't think this region is significant enough to raid anymore, I think the response to the passing of this resolution and the follow-up raid would be very significant.

I support.

Confident that a number of raiding organizations could utilize the region for far more interesting things than the current residents are choosing to,

I'd suggest removing "raiding" entirely and either leaving it be or replacing it with a more broad term. Not a lot of delegates would support this as soon as they saw the word "raiding" in it, as we've seen in this thread so far. Not every delegate will finish reading after seeing that mentioned in the proposal.

Just advice of course, as I've never actually attempted to right an honest proposal

*Grabs notepad and starts plotting first proposal*

[Questers]

Proposals to liberate a region to invade it afterwards is not an "abuse of SC powers". It's completely legal, as stated in the stickies in this forum, and one of the intended uses of the liberation.

What is the purpose of the password then? Seems like a pointless thing to have. If gameplayers want to raid a region they can just liberate it. So ultimately why bother having the password?

[Zepplin Manufacturers]

Speaking as a roleplayer rather than the delegate and thus with somewhat more emotional not to mention prior repeated content ...

It seems our very existence and way of operation is not acceptable to you and yours. That nothing you say or do should have had impact on us on forum I have always presumed (oh the temerity I know) leaves you feeling threatened in that you cannot threaten us for even if the region were to fall to these machinations we would simply ICly ignore it as you ignore all of roleplay.

This is not only offensive it is intolerable that one entire section should suffer for the entertainment of others who produce little creative content but endless controversy. You who worship at the altar of the troll ,of strife and of personal conflict. Yes you create endless activity but of what value? These are questions that have risen in the minds of roleplayers and on these we judged you just as you judge us. They will rise again and we have always in the end found it easier to simply maintain separation but active segregation? Is that what it has come to where we really become 2nd class users to kowtow to the almighty gameplays every demand? Is it bad enough you already have the mechanism for our undoing but to actively pursue its use?

That while we have all the time in the world when we are on our own section of the forums as soon as our existence pops up on your radar we, the entire role-playing community count for naught and none of our work or content has value at all save to be something smashed under your collective heels for the joy of watching our constructs burn, a pack of bullies breaking sand castles would do you proud.

You seek to impose, you lack ethical constraint (note not by rule but by ethical choice I personally judge your acts in this matter) without exterior imposition of it in this arena and it seems you do not wish to consider our wishes, will or prior decisions at all and you take us into account not one iota.

We collectively found long ago little value in what has evolved to become modern gameplay, indeed we find your demands as spurious as you perhaps find our even concept of existence.

I reiterate as a roleplayer and an individual player.

No.

[Stevid]

Proposals to liberate a region to invade it afterwards is not an "abuse of SC powers". It's completely legal, as stated in the stickies in this forum, and one of the intended uses of the liberation.

While I don't think this region is significant enough to raid anymore, I think the response to the passing of this resolution and the follow-up raid would be very significant.

I support.

Confident that a number of raiding organizations could utilize the region for far more interesting things than the current residents are choosing to,

I'd suggest removing "raiding" entirely and either leaving it be or replacing it with a more broad term. Not a lot of delegates would support this as soon as they saw the word "raiding" in it, as we've seen in this thread so far. Not every delegate will finish reading after seeing that mentioned in the proposal.

Just advice of course, as I've never actually attempted to right an honest proposal

*Grabs notepad and starts plotting first proposal*

I direct you here:

Of course i want to raid Haven. Again the draft says that. There is no sneaky hidden agenda here. And it's not because of TSP. That line is just there to demonstrate the hyprocrisy of the region. It really doesn't matter that it wasn't recent.

It is clearly for bragging rights and an attempt to weaponise the WA resolution - ergo: trying to see what he can get away with. So yes, it is abusing the power of the WA liberation - it's painstakingly clear.

You would raid an RP region because, as an R&D player you feel like you could put it to better use? That's not good reason, that's not even an excuse; and even if it is allowed it certainly isn't good enough to get the WA to do your dirty work.

The help in the coup (reading back through this read) was nothing more than an embassy exchange - a long time ago. Not the most concrete argument for a counter-invasion I've ever heard.

RP guys don't want to play the R&D game. You can't (or rather shouldn't) force people to play your game if they don't want to... that is the WHOLE POINT behind these passwords. You don't like it? All of a sudden you use the WA to get your way. It is a form of bullying whether you like it or not. It is abuse of the system, whether you agree or not. There's nothing personal about these callous attacks when you sit behind a computer on the other side of the world - but when the delegate Zepplin Manufacturers says, no thank you. We do not wish to play with you..... you think it's okay to force it on them? Try doing that in real life to people - eventually you'll get your head kicked in.

They have a password, they don't want to play with you. Certain R&D players need grow up and stop getting pissy because a region with a reputation is beyond their grasp. Find, somewhere else and some other people who will 'play' with you; and stop abusing the WA system to suit your own ends.

EDIT: This is dangerously close to a hijack. I'll throw it out there and say that this proposal for the WA is trolling. This was inevitably going to devolve into bickering about the issues/gripes between RP players and R&D players.

[Nephmir]

Yes, I read through the entire thread before posting, thank you.

[Oyada]

I'd suggest removing "raiding" entirely and either leaving it be or replacing it with a more broad term. Not a lot of delegates would support this as soon as they saw the word "raiding" in it, as we've seen in this thread so far. Not every delegate will finish reading after seeing that mentioned in the proposal.

Nice to see the standards of honesty, integrity, and commitment to clarity are all alive and well in the Security Council. "Well, if we actually admit that what we want to do is force a region open so we can trash it, people might not agree to let us!"

This is exactly what's wrong with Raiding/Defending. It's a cheap exploit of a game mechanic that's too deeply ingrained in the code to be removed, and it allows bullies and vandals to break into other people's regions, for no purpose other than to damage them. It is morally no better than kicking in someone's front door, spraying graffiti all over their wallpaper, breaking anything fragile one can find, and then leaving with a cheery, "so long, we all had fun". It is not only wanton vandalism, but vandalism which is not (and, realistically, probably cannot be) policed against by the moderation team. As the final and bitterest pill, there is essentially nothing that anyone of us not interested can do about being forced into it; any RP region which does not wish to have its peace and quiet disrupted is obliged to have founder protection, in order to keep the R/D types out. It's not even as though there's any active defence against it - except by becoming a Raid/Defend type oneself. We don't, and can't, go scrawling densely-written RP posts across Raider and Defender regions' message boards all day; even if we had the ability, most of us aren't interested in doing so. We're too busy, you know, writing. Being creative. Not breaking everyone else's stuff.

Conducted without the consent of the victim region, providing nothing in the way of benefit to them, and leaving them to pick up the pieces, R/D is nothing more than a plague. In the real world, it would be a crime. This resolution is designed to facilitate the commission of that crime.

[Nephmir]

I'd suggest removing "raiding" entirely and either leaving it be or replacing it with a more broad term. Not a lot of delegates would support this as soon as they saw the word "raiding" in it, as we've seen in this thread so far. Not every delegate will finish reading after seeing that mentioned in the proposal.

Nice to see the standards of honesty, integrity, and commitment to clarity are all alive and well in the Security Council. "Well, if we actually admit that what we want to do is force a region open so we can trash it, people might not agree to let us!"

This is exactly what's wrong with Raiding/Defending. It's a cheap exploit of a game mechanic that's too deeply ingrained in the code to be removed, and it allows bullies and vandals to break into other people's regions, for no purpose other than to damage them. It is morally no better than kicking in someone's front door, spraying graffiti all over their wallpaper, breaking anything fragile one can find, and then leaving with a cheery, "so long, we all had fun". It is not only wanton vandalism, but vandalism which is not (and, realistically, probably cannot be) policed against by the moderation team. As the final and bitterest pill, there is essentially nothing that anyone of us not interested can do about being forced into it; any RP region which does not wish to have its peace and quiet disrupted is obliged to have founder protection, in order to keep the R/D types out. It's not even as though there's any active defence against it - except by becoming a Raid/Defend type oneself. We don't, and can't, go scrawling densely-written RP posts across Raider and Defender regions' message boards all day; even if we had the ability, most of us aren't interested in doing so. We're too busy, you know, writing. Being creative. Not breaking everyone else's stuff.

Conducted without the consent of the victim region, providing nothing in the way of benefit to them, and leaving them to pick up the pieces, R/D is nothing more than a plague. In the real world, it would be a crime. This resolution is designed to facilitate the commission of that crime.

You obviously don't know much about me, do you? I am no Raider.

I suggested this to allow the unbiased, for lack of a better word, decision making for delegates. Defenders are quick to throw away this resolution without fully thinking about what it will change, while Raiders seem to acknowledge the changes. At first, the Raiders will benefit from this, but then the Defenders will have the long-term advantage. Although, you are correct, I don't believe that the region should be raided for "fun" or based on an event that happened over a year ago like the Raiders who wish to support this (excuse my hasty generalizations, but if this is not true feel free to correct me).

[Sternberg]

You obviously don't know much about me, do you? I am no Raider.

I suggested this to allow the unbiased, for lack of a better word, decision making for delegates. Defenders are quick to throw away this resolution without fully thinking about what it will change, while Raiders seem to acknowledge the changes. At first, the Raiders will benefit from this, but then the Defenders will have the long-term advantage. Although, you are correct, I don't believe that the region should be raided for "fun" or based on an event that happened over a year ago like the Raiders who wish to support this (excuse my hasty generalizations, but if this is not true feel free to correct me).

Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical, but if that's the case, then this "proposal" (as thin a term as it is), in its present state, would have to be completely rewritten. As it stands, well ...

*points up at Oyada's post*.

I think that sums it up.