[DEFEATED] Commend Crushing Our Enemies

[Jakker City]

The perfidious thing about this resolution is that it has been soiled by being a thinly-veiled advertisement for TBH and thereby undermining an otherwise great resolution for a wholly deserving nominee. If I was COE, I would be absolutely furious at Jakker.

You are very much not COE then

[Roavin]

See, you didn't even deny it

[Jakker City]

See, you didn't even deny it

My focus was on me thinking it was funny that you think COE would be upset as if he wasn't involved in seeing the proposal.

Anyways, this has been a fun battle and it was truly cool to see those who supported this. It looks like it most likely will not be passing. Guess the SC is not as progressive as I would hope, but there is always another time.

[Green Days and Equality]

See, you didn't even deny it

My focus was on me thinking it was funny that you think COE would be upset as if he wasn't involved in seeing the proposal.

Anyways, this has been a fun battle and it was truly cool to see those who supported this. It looks like it most likely will not be passing. Guess the SC is not as progressive as I would hope, but there is always another time.

Its not a matter of being progressive or not. You are commending a nation that is no better than any other raider nation and the region they reside in that they helped quite abit has 2 condemnations.

[Yokiria]

You are commending a nation that is no better than any other raider nation

That's... not true.

[Roost1513]

I was very conflicted upon this, torn about it for quite a few days. I've finally made my decision - I'm voting against.

While I recognize that there are very significant contributions made that deserve to be commended, and I would even recommend a re-submission with a revised draft. If my concerns are met, I'll be voting 'for'.

However... I believe that any commendation should not include this segment:

Recognizing this nation’s 10+ years of influence on The Black Hawks (TBH) which included their roles as Head of Military, Head of Foreign Affairs, and Military Advisor, as well as developing the rank and promotion system that TBH uses and has also since been adopted by many other regional militaries,

Complementing that Crushing Our Enemies played a vital role in the foreign policy practices and regional responses of The Black Hawks' Council including the aftermath of the military weapon, Predator, being found to be against international law,

Noting Crushing Our Enemies’ induction into the Raiding Hall of Fame for their integrity and leadership,

Summarizing that when given the ability to conquer other regions, this practice can attract nations who selfishly commit acts which negatively impact regional partners, and Crushing Our Enemies helped to develop a culture of professionalism and responsibility to mitigate this within The Black Hawks

Leadership influence on a raiding nation that's been condemned repeatedly is not something that should be commended. 'Complementing' (it should be 'Complimenting') a nation for their foreign policy of a Raiding nation should not be a commendation. Being in a raiding Hall of Fame (regardless of the reason) is not worth a commendation. Additionally, 'raising standards' to not do very bad acts and instead do just bad acts is also not worth a commendation (anyone who didn't join a raiding region would deserve a commendation before this does).

Everything in that quote is basic standards that the average person wouldn't just meet but exceed - it isn't hard to understand that raiding within itself is bad, no matter how well you do it or how pretty a bow you tie upon it. Most people wouldn't do that.

Unlike the claim that the SC isn't 'progressive' enough, these segments I (and others) have pointed out are indeed very 'regressive'.


EDIT: Additionally, especially if the segment I quoted is removed, the nation General COE is more appropriate to be commended.

[Yokiria]

'Complementing' (it should be 'Complimenting') a nation for their foreign policy of a Raiding nation should not be a commendation.

Unlike the claim that the SC isn't 'progressive' enough, these segments I (and others) have pointed out are indeed very 'regressive'.

The segment commending COE's role in response to the Predator scandal is not "very regressive". It's not regressive at all. Saying so is just ignorance of what the Predator scandal was. Educate yourself on the Predator scandal, what it meant, and why COE's behavior as a raider mattered in its aftermath.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I hope after this, TNP and the other regions joining them in voting for this proposal will have a more critical eye toward fluff proposals that aim to commend defenders essentially for nothing more than defending. We've had quite a few of those in recent months, many authored by people from the region that led the counter-campaign against this proposal, and I'd personally like to see the pro-defender fluff proposals stopped in their tracks if this is how defenders are going to treat other players and their accomplishments. Respect works both ways, and if defenders won't give it, they shouldn't get it.

In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

[A Bloodred Moon]

In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

I believe TWP opposed this because of their opposition to the World Assembly much rather than any friendly feelings towards defenderism.

It really is a shame that people still can't look past their hatred of raiding to recognise the achievements of someone who has done way more than some defender footsoldier from TITO. It is truly a terrible shame. I suppose there is little we can do except hope that people will eventually grow past that bias.

EDIT: Badger released something regarding it here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=37496022

It appears Badger suspects TBH of pursuing an agenda that opposes TWP's.

[Aingard]

Jakker City, I read your telegram, and although I would be voting against, I would like to commend you for including and not hiding the part about COE's raiding history in the proposal, and for writing one the most interesting resolutions I have the pleasure of participating in.

[Bears Armed]

I hope after this, TNP and the other regions joining them in voting for this proposal will have a more critical eye toward fluff proposals that aim to commend defenders essentially for nothing more than defending. We've had quite a few of those in recent months, many authored by people from the region that led the counter-campaign against this proposal, and I'd personally like to see the pro-defender fluff proposals stopped in their tracks if this is how defenders are going to treat other players and their accomplishments. Respect works both ways, and if defenders won't give it, they shouldn't get it.

In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

WALL is not a block of raiders, though.

[Lord Dominator]

I hope after this, TNP and the other regions joining them in voting for this proposal will have a more critical eye toward fluff proposals that aim to commend defenders essentially for nothing more than defending. We've had quite a few of those in recent months, many authored by people from the region that led the counter-campaign against this proposal, and I'd personally like to see the pro-defender fluff proposals stopped in their tracks if this is how defenders are going to treat other players and their accomplishments. Respect works both ways, and if defenders won't give it, they shouldn't get it.

In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

WALL is not a block of raiders, though.

At no point did Cormac say such. WALL is however presently unanimously in favor of this proposal (going by the gameside votes).

[Superbunny]

My apologies, but I cannot in good faith vote for a resolution that commends a nation performing the opposite of international security in a WA branch that is supposed to be promoting it.

OOC: Holy cow, the for/against margin on this one is super tight. As of writing, only off by a couple hundred.

[Borovan entered the region as he]

The Borovan ambassador uses his expert reading skills using the two page technique to pore over the recent telegrams and resolution at question. "Hmmm difficult choice. Good stuff done at the North Pacific but mentions war against nations. ABSTAIN."
"Boooo!!!" A crowd of pro hawks protestors are stand outside the building pelting tomatoes at the window.
He opened the window only to be pelted by a tomato and changed it to Against.

[Green Days and Equality]

It is still very close to call but let me say i find it interesting that almost a 2/3rds majority of individual nation are against while the slight majority of delegate votes are in favor. I think individual nations don't want to commend a raider.

To elaborate on my earlier point, COE has played a huge role in a region that has been condemned many times. For me that makes COE responsible and causes me too vote strongly against.

[Unibot III]

I'm surprised such an Accord would even pass S1&2 of TNP Bill of Rights ... but then again, their ruling on "the TNP Flag as a National Flag" makes you wonder.

Which looks to only apply to resident nations, which the vast majority of those sending campaign tgs are not.

(note, it was later repealed for policy rather than legal reasons)

You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.

[Yokiria]

Which looks to only apply to resident nations, which the vast majority of those sending campaign tgs are not.

(note, it was later repealed for policy rather than legal reasons)

You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.

It's a weird day when I agree with Unibot.

The sorts of restrictions being described used to be common only in gameplay organizations, and even they've allowed for more player freedom with time. It's really odd seeing it make a comeback in the largest GCR in the game.

[Lord Dominator]

Which looks to only apply to resident nations, which the vast majority of those sending campaign tgs are not.

(note, it was later repealed for policy rather than legal reasons)

You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.

Huh? It was a policy regarding the delegate's vote. It didn't conflict legally with any freedoms as mentioned (only impact was the delegate's vote) and was appropriately passed by the Regional Assembly. At most, it restricted the delegate's voting options and discouraged mass campaigns from targeting the region.

You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.

It's a weird day when I agree with Unibot.

The sorts of restrictions being described used to be common only in gameplay organizations, and even they've allowed for more player freedom with time. It's really odd seeing it make a comeback in the largest GCR in the game.

The relevant treaty hasn't been in force in several years (this technically started off of Europe's similar law on the subject), nor has it been applied regardless as a policy to my knowledge in said timeframe.

[McMasterdonia]

You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.

It's a weird day when I agree with Unibot.

The sorts of restrictions being described used to be common only in gameplay organizations, and even they've allowed for more player freedom with time. It's really odd seeing it make a comeback in the largest GCR in the game.

Which looks to only apply to resident nations, which the vast majority of those sending campaign tgs are not.

(note, it was later repealed for policy rather than legal reasons)

You've read my interpretation backwards, I meant that resident nations have a right to self-determination and freedom of expression. They're free to choose for themselves their policy on WA Telegrams (an option that the game provides) and recieve telegrams from whoever they like. Banning types of telegrams is like telling a nation what way to answer issues or whether to set your nation on Vacation Mode or not - it's a flagrant violation of national self-determination.

Just to confirm the above by Lord Dominator. The treaty has been repealed for some time now. The North Pacific otherwise has no laws against campaign telegrams.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I hope after this, TNP and the other regions joining them in voting for this proposal will have a more critical eye toward fluff proposals that aim to commend defenders essentially for nothing more than defending. We've had quite a few of those in recent months, many authored by people from the region that led the counter-campaign against this proposal, and I'd personally like to see the pro-defender fluff proposals stopped in their tracks if this is how defenders are going to treat other players and their accomplishments. Respect works both ways, and if defenders won't give it, they shouldn't get it.

In any case, very unfortunate to see COE's commendation failing. As surprised as I am to say it, I hope WALL will regroup, maybe add a region or two to its ranks, and maybe this can be passed at a later time. Whatever one thinks of WALL, a WA bloc of defenders + whatever TWP is would be worse.

WALL is not a block of raiders, though.

That's a nice straw man you've got there. Fancier than a lot of straw men I've seen. Taller too. A real catch.

[Yokiria]

<snip>

Thanks for setting the record straight. I had my doubts that TNP was restricting player freedom, but I don't know anything about TNP other than the very basic, so I have to rely on what I hear.

[Lord Dominator]

<snip>

Thanks for setting the record straight. I had my doubts that TNP was restricting player freedom, but I don't know anything about TNP other than the very basic, so I have to rely on what I hear.

That's fine, understandable that it'd be assumed the debate was about existing policy, given the context

[One Small Island]

It is still very close to call but let me say i find it interesting that almost a 2/3rds majority of individual nation are against while the slight majority of delegate votes are in favor. I think individual nations don't want to commend a raider

The against campaign targeted tag:WA the for campaign targeted tag:delegate.

Correlation does not equal causation, but it looks like those people who received the for campaign decided to vote for, and those who didn't decided to vote against. What I'm taking away from this is that the money talks.

[Flanderlion]

It is still very close to call but let me say i find it interesting that almost a 2/3rds majority of individual nation are against while the slight majority of delegate votes are in favor. I think individual nations don't want to commend a raider

The against campaign targeted tag:WA the for campaign targeted tag:delegate.

Correlation does not equal causation, but it looks like those people who received the for campaign decided to vote for, and those who didn't decided to vote against. What I'm taking away from this is that the money talks.

Well, for my one nation who was WA until a few mins ago (accidentally resigned it rather than switching to this one), I got 3 TGs re the resolution. First, a TG from 10KI's del urging to vote against. Second, a TG from TNP's del urging a vote for the resolution. Finally a TG from TBH (Jakker) also urging a vote for the resolution. If anything the tag:WA TGs to individual nations have been heavily one sided towards the for campaign. You might not have seen the second one as it was -delegates. The third was also -10KI, while all 3 were minus tnp, europe and europeia.

[Praeceps]

Guess what I'm taking away from this is that more people agree with Kuriko's stance than people do with McMasterdonia's and Jakker's stance.