(Draft) Condemn Vando0sa

[Free Azell]

The Security Council;

Believing the concept of raiding to be a reprehensible conduct against established morals accepted by the international community.

Understanding nevertheless that it's an important antagonist for defender-raider conflicts.

Observing [nation=short+noflag]Vando0sa[/nation]’s substantial contributions to raiders in leadership and resources.

Concerned though about the methods used by Vando0sa and other raiders in determining potential raiding candidates; especially during so-called 'tag-raids'.

Appalled at the heedless methods in which 'tag-raiding' candidates are selected and the passage of this information beforehand. During 'tag-raids' candidates are selected by a single condition: regions which have an Executive Delegate regardless of Founder activity. A list of candidates is then dispatched minutes before an update occurs to designated Commanders in the raiding community who execute their missions without any consideration of who they are targeting.

Further appalled at Vando0sa's leadership and The Glorious Nations of Iwaku's influence in determining raids against regions incapable of self-defense measures en masse; especially during WA updates.

Asserting that measures be taken by the defender-raider community to establish self-enforced boundaries for their missions to be executed within so as to not hinder the experience of other, non-participating regions.

Hereby condemns [nation=short+noflag]Vando0sa[/nation].
Co-authored by, [nation=short+noflag]Solariia[/nation]

[Kaboomlandia]

Vandy already has a condemnation and this one doesn’t really add anything new. Opposed.

[Borovan entered the region as he]

Here is the condemnation
viewtopic.php?p=27170153#p27170153
However Vandy's original nation cte because of the predator scandal but the condemnation is there

[Bormiar]

Just a note: The SC defaults to a short version of the nation's name (without the pretitle), and I don't believe you can use the noflag customization.

[Kuriko]

These are both points I told the author and co-author, but I'd like to thank them for taking my advice and posting it here. Let's try not to chase them away? If I remember correctly, Iwaku used to be semi-active taggers but hasnt done much for a really long time.

[Solariia]

Whether Vandy has a condemn or not is not the point. I'd simply like to have this draft checked for consistency with the rules and rather or not it meets them. I do not care if some of you are against the proposal, it will be submitted again either way and when it is, I'd like for it to remain legal because it meets the rules of posting to the WA.

[Kuriko]

Whether Vandy has a condemn or not is not the point. I'd simply like to have this draft checked for consistency with the rules and rather or not it meets them. I do not care if some of you are against the proposal, it will be submitted again either way and when it is, I'd like for it to remain legal because it meets the rules of posting to the WA.

Rule check complete, compliance totalled.

[Bormiar]

Whether Vandy has a condemn or not is not the point. I'd simply like to have this draft checked for consistency with the rules and rather or not it meets them. I do not care if some of you are against the proposal, it will be submitted again either way and when it is, I'd like for it to remain legal because it meets the rules of posting to the WA.

If you aren't even confident with making a legal proposal, you shouldn't be so confident with making a good draft. In its current state, this proposal won't pass (Don't worry. Proposals don't really pass without forum drafting), but you obviously don't care about that, or perhaps find yourself to be the best possible source of feedback for your own draft. Note, regardless of what you say, this thread doubles as a debate thread, so people will say what they wish about the draft.

I, and several others, can otherwise provide feedback.

Looks legal except for (potentially) the usage of tag-raiding. It's not a game-provided term and doesn't apply to real world nations (e.g. Ransium wouldn't let me use "endo-tarting" in one of my resolutions), so it will probably fall foul of rule 4.

[Tinhampton]

...Looks legal except for (potentially) the usage of tag-raiding. It's not a game-provided term and doesn't apply to real world nations (e.g. Ransium wouldn't let me use "endo-tarting" in one of my resolutions), so it will probably fall foul of rule 4.

Speaking only as a player with some experience of proposal submission, I was never dinged by the moderators for making reference to "tag raiding" in my ill-fated repeal of SC#52. Note also that six resolutions, all passed in the Rule 4 era, have made reference to tag raiding.

For future reference, I am opposed to this proposal and have an InstaRepeal lined up if this somehow passes in its current state.

[Solariia]

If you aren't even confident with making a legal proposal, you shouldn't be so confident with making a good draft. In its current state, this proposal won't pass (Don't worry. Proposals don't really pass without forum drafting), but you obviously don't care about that, or perhaps find yourself to be the best possible source of feedback for your own draft. Note, regardless of what you say, this thread doubles as a debate thread, so people will say what they wish about the draft.

I, and several others, can otherwise provide feedback.

Looks legal except for (potentially) the usage of tag-raiding. It's not a game-provided term and doesn't apply to real world nations (e.g. Ransium wouldn't let me use "endo-tarting" in one of my resolutions), so it will probably fall foul of rule 4.

(1) If I didn't care about making a good draft then I wouldn't have listened to the advice of Kuriko and told Free Azell to have it submitted here for review.
(2) I don't have confidence in making a good draft which is why I have others examine my work before publishing. Previously we had Ransium's blessing on the first proposal and the draft was checked by Free Azell, one other in Autropolis and others in the URA voting bloc. Do not assume what I do and don't care about or insult me by claiming I believe myself to be both writer and reviewer.
(3) Because it seems there is some confusion on what I expected from this type of forum, I will therefore tell you exactly what I expected:
(3a) I expected to have the draft criticized to meet the criteria.
(3b) I expected opinions to be based on the writing, not whether people would support the legislation or not.
(4) Therefore, I came here expecting criticism on what is written which is why it was posted here. I don't want to know or care who supports it. What I want is for the draft to be criticized to meet the WA's criteria so it will be declared and remain legal so as to have the potential to enter quorum.

[Solariia]

...Looks legal except for (potentially) the usage of tag-raiding. It's not a game-provided term and doesn't apply to real world nations (e.g. Ransium wouldn't let me use "endo-tarting" in one of my resolutions), so it will probably fall foul of rule 4.

Speaking only as a player with some experience of proposal submission, I was never dinged by the moderators for making reference to "tag raiding" in my ill-fated repeal of SC#52. Note also that six resolutions, all passed in the Rule 4 era, have made reference to tag raiding.

For future reference, I am opposed to this proposal and have an InstaRepeal lined up if this somehow passes in its current state.

This is what I want to know most about, so I appreciate your input. Whether you support or not and have an insta-repeal ready or whatnot is not of my concern.

[Eidolons]

Do not assume what I do and don't care about or insult me by claiming I believe myself to be both writer and reviewer

I imagine what they were referring to was your very off-putting tone.

[Kuriko]

Mention of tag raiding is legal Bormiar, it's been used before.

[Free Azell]

I will most likely be resubmitting tomorrow after work my time if no issues are found by then.

[Vando0sa]

Aww you left out the part where I j-walk in front of old people and children..

Also I believe "tag record" is in my previous condemnation so tag raid would be fine right?

[Bormiar]

(1) If I didn't care about making a good draft then I wouldn't have listened to the advice of Kuriko and told Free Azell to have it submitted here for review.

Whether you support or not and have an insta-repeal ready or whatnot is not of my concern.

If you want a good draft, that is absolutely your concern. You want people to like it, and you want your forum thread to appear like people like it (same concept as vote-stacking). If the general consensus is that Vandoosa's already got a condemn and this doesn't really address anything different, then you really should consider that.

(2) I don't have confidence in making a good draft which is why I have others examine my work before publishing. Previously we had Ransium's blessing on the first proposal and the draft was checked by Free Azell, one other in Autropolis and others in the URA voting bloc. Do not assume what I do and don't care about or insult me by claiming I believe myself to be both writer and reviewer.

I wasn't aware of any ruling on the previous submission. As for those other people, they have just about as much authority on proposal legality as me or anyone else that's not a moderator. And while private drafting is fine, you need to be very open to input in order to consolidate enough feedback to make a solid draft. Your tone is, as Eidolons said, off-putting and suggests a certain level of unjustified confidence.

(3) Because it seems there is some confusion on what I expected from this type of forum, I will therefore tell you exactly what I expected:
(3a) I expected to have the draft criticized to meet the criteria.
(3b) I expected opinions to be based on the writing, not whether people would support the legislation or not.
(4) Therefore, I came here expecting criticism on what is written which is why it was posted here. I don't want to know or care who supports it. What I want is for the draft to be criticized to meet the WA's criteria so it will be declared and remain legal so as to have the potential to enter quorum.

Legality isn't all that matters; content actually happens to be minimally policed by the mods and is very important. This is also a debate thread, so people may comment about whether or not they support the draft as they wish.

Because I'm not meeting what you expect of me, here's what I expect out of you:
1) I expect an open mind and a willingness to consider all feedback, concerns, and opinions, regardless of whether you like the player or their comment.
2) I expect that you request clarification and elaboration when you do not understand why someone feels a certain way about your draft.
3) I expect that you reply to all relevant feedback, concerns, and opinions which don't agree with you, and that you debate these comments honestly and to the best of your ability for the merits of your own resolution rather than your own lazy disregard for other's opinions.
4) I expect that you maintain a reasonable level of humility when choosing to draft on these forums.
and 5) I expect that you recognize that this thread is used for a variety of things, including debate and suggestions not regarding the legality of proposals. If you can't deal with that, go somewhere else.

[Solariia]

If the general consensus is that Vandoosa's already got a condemn and this doesn't really address anything different, then you really should consider that.

We've considered this already, and we wanted to pursue this to generate discussion on tag-raiding and condemn Vandoosa's current primary that is not removed.

You need to be very open to input in order to consolidate enough feedback to make a solid draft. Your tone is, as Eidolons said, off-putting and suggests a certain level of unjustified confidence.

I want to clarify that I have no issue with having opposition to the proposal; in fact, this is expected with the number of people involved. It's off because I am expected by you (it appears) to try and change the opinion of a couple here who will not support this proposal for what it is. At least, this is what I am getting from your past two posts. I posted here already because I am open to opinion, and if they decide to start off with just saying "Opposed for what it is", I don't wager I've much chance to changing their opinions. What we hope is that even if they're opposed, they can still say "Hey, I am opposed but maybe try changing so and so to have a better chance from others." You know, information to change a specific line or way something is worded, that is to get more out of the proposal without shutting down the discussion with a flat-disapproval for what it is.

1) I expect an open mind and a willingness to consider all feedback, concerns, and opinions, regardless of whether you like the player or their comment.
2) I expect that you request clarification and elaboration when you do not understand why someone feels a certain way about your draft.
3) I expect that you reply to all relevant feedback, concerns, and opinions which don't agree with you, and that you debate these comments honestly and to the best of your ability for the merits of your own resolution rather than your own lazy disregard for other's opinions.
4) I expect that you maintain a reasonable level of humility when choosing to draft on these forums.
5) I expect that you recognize that this thread is used for a variety of things, including debate and suggestions not regarding the legality of proposals. If you can't deal with that, go somewhere else.

If you think I came here with none of this in mind and are making this judgement of character after a few posts to this forum, you are mistaken greatly. If all you have to make are personal attacks on me, then I will ignore it henceforth.

We who are involved in this proposal will submit it anyway and garner support, recommendations for change and encouragement elsewhere. Do not mistaken this optimism for blind confidence or as an inflation of self-worth. There are over 1000 delegates to get approval from when it's in the proposal queue. We already have just short of 40 nations who are ready to give their approval once it's resubmitted. They are willing to support a cause against raiders who have caused them or friends great grievances.

[East Meranopirus]

Your disregard for the opinions of SC regulars is mindblowing. Don't overestimate your ability to gather support if you can't get any support here.

[Free Azell]

In his defense we put this on here to make serenity was legal and get input. The tone of some seems very intimidating to non regulars. We really are just trying to follow protocol to make this have a shot at passage.

[Solariia]

Your disregard for the opinions of SC regulars is mindblowing. Don't overestimate your ability to gather support if you can't get any support here.

Yet another personal attack. If you've nothing to provide, then I will have to ignore it.

[Kaboomlandia]

In his defense we put this on here to make serenity was legal and get input. The tone of some seems very intimidating to non regulars. We really are just trying to follow protocol to make this have a shot at passage.

The opposition here isn't unrealistic or over the top. Even if this proposal is legal, it doesn't make it good. Vandoosa has already been condemned by the SC for doing pretty much the exact same stuff described here (and now I'm curious, does duplication apply if the player, but not the nation, has a badge?), and it's such a generic proposal that you could apply it to a lot of raiders by just swapping the names.

[Solariia]

In his defense we put this on here to make serenity was legal and get input. The tone of some seems very intimidating to non regulars. We really are just trying to follow protocol to make this have a shot at passage.

The opposition here isn't unrealistic or over the top. Even if this proposal is legal, it doesn't make it good. Vandoosa has already been condemned by the SC for doing pretty much the exact same stuff described here (and now I'm curious, does duplication apply if the player, but not the nation, has a badge?), and it's such a generic proposal that you could apply it to a lot of raiders by just swapping the names.

Then what is it about other condemnations that makes them unique from one another? Are they not all aiming to accomplish the same thing? If condemning a raider for doing something bad is just 'generic' then what is the purpose of the whole condemnation other than for other RP's that 1000's of other nations would need to participate to understand the context behind their support or disapproval of non-defender-raider gameplay?

[Funeral]

Then what is it about other condemnations that makes them unique from one another? Are they not all aiming to accomplish the same thing? If condemning a raider for doing something bad is just 'generic' then what is the purpose of the whole condemnation other than for other RP's that 1000's of other nations would need to participate to understand the context behind their support or disapproval of non-defender-raider gameplay?

The idea is that a condemnation would be for going above and beyond what any old raider would do. I don't know the target, but I believe that was the implication being made -- not that the condemnation was generic like all of the other condemnations, but that the activities described in your proposal could as easily be applied to other non-condemned raiders.

[Bormiar]

I’m not gonna argue with someone who’s got it all figured out. If you know what you’re doing, do it. Pass a proposal.

This thread won’t be very useful to you, of course.

[Solariia]

Then what is it about other condemnations that makes them unique from one another? Are they not all aiming to accomplish the same thing? If condemning a raider for doing something bad is just 'generic' then what is the purpose of the whole condemnation other than for other RP's that 1000's of other nations would need to participate to understand the context behind their support or disapproval of non-defender-raider gameplay?

The idea is that a condemnation would be for going above and beyond what any old raider would do. I don't know the target, but I believe that was the implication being made -- not that the condemnation was generic like all of the other condemnations, but that the activities described in your proposal could as easily be applied to other non-condemned raiders.

Fair point, if we were to bring up the issue of tag-raiding, would it be better done in the SC or in the GA? And while that is the concern, we are also still desiring to condemn Vandoosa whether they have one or not. The idea here was 2 birds 1 stone sort of approach.