Embassy of the South Pacific

[RiderSyl]

It should not be controversial for raiding to exist in the game.

Raiders should not be dismissed from being recognized for their impact in the game just because they are raiders.

I agree, and I've said nothing in opposition to this.

generalizing this notion to all those who identify as such is harmful.

I agree. I'm not doing that here, and anyone (including you) that thinks I am is mistaken.

I disagree with the notion that anyone who identifies as a raider should not be allowed in TSP or that would be benefitical to TSP.

Well, that's not what I would propose, actually. I'd set the minimum at "Any raider or raider organization that has shown hostility towards TSP is not allowed in TSP".

I also think it is important to note that there have been and will continue to be non-raiders whose presence actually do make regions less secure including TSP so creating this narrative that raiders are the problem is narrow.

Non-raiders aren't the topic here, though. That's why I'm focusing on raider impact on regional security. I'm not saying raiders are exclusively the only problem with keeping a region secure, and I'm starting to get the feeling you're intentionally misinterpreting me, Jakker.

I also disagree with your argument of the "raider mindset." Plenty of raiders are not looking to make a region like TSP more raider or easier to raid. I cannot speak for everyone because I don't know everyone, but I can speak for a lot of people. Rather, many raiders are simply trying to reduce anti-raider views.

This is actually a perfect example of the "raider mindset" thing. Reducing anti-raider views isn't raiding, is it? It's PR. They're in a PR mindset, setting aside raiding to do PR. There's nothing wrong with that. What strikes me is the implication by you that most raiders aren't focused on raiding. Why are those people called raiders then? What qualifies as a raider now?

This is mostly right-- raiding is not by nature a threat to TSP's sovereignty and security, in my opinion.

It's a weird day when I take a harsher defender stance on something than Glen-Rhodes, but when it comes to TSP's security, raiding is by nature a threat as long as TSP is the Defender GCR of NS.

[Fauxia]

It's a weird day when I take a harsher defender stance on something than Glen-Rhodes, but when it comes to TSP's security, raiding is by nature a threat as long as TSP is the Defender GCR of NS.

TRR would like a word with you.

GP is a den of cynics and nihilists

I like your quote I'm keeping it

[Roavin]

I am sure there are raiders out there who would want to see TSP reform in various ways

"Reform". Yes, they are out there. Your fellow Hawk Souls, for example:

From their admin team to their ministers
burn them all out
and build an outright invader-oriented GCR on the region's charred ashes(edited)
and the only way that's going to happen thoroughly enough to burn all the rot there is to forcibly cleanse it
not external pressure or internal strife would do more than burn half of it
letting the other half thrive
needs to be bleached
blank slated
reset

Yes, some raiders would want to see TSP "reform" in this way.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Defend against your arguments, presumably? The proscription is not dependent on your approval of it.

Is the statement not to be criticised, then? Should your Cabinet and it's decision be above criticism? I would say that it is very much the task of the Cabinet to explain or back up it's decision. Is that so unreasonable?

There is no universe in which you would ever agree that TSP is right in its belief that TBH is a threat and why we believe that.

Truly? I think that is not entirely accurate. TSP, after all, is ideologically defender so TBH should theoretically be your enemy. The proscription itself is not the problem for me; such a poorly justified effort as this, with an excuse as transparent as it is overblown, however, will absolutely draw criticism. Complaining you get criticised when you do something like this is as pointless as the statement is poor.

Even if we were to take Evil Wolf and Souls up on their advice to just ban all raiders because they're raiders (which is never going to happen, much to your chagrin!), the response here wouldn't be, "Oh that totally makes sense. Good on you for being so straight-forward TSP!" No, the response would predictably be that we're anti-democratic, corrupt defenders, spreading toxic hate of raiders.

I am not entirely sure why one would expect compliments and back-pats from your self-declared enemies in politics, but perhaps that is why I am not in TSP. There would be something to say for such a bold approach, but if you believe we would all warmly embrace it and compliment it you might find yourself disappointed.

(Those internally contradicting arguments I talked about: TSP is being anti-democratic but should just ban raiders because they're raiders.)

On the contrary, I do not believe it is contradictory at all. If you consider TSP anti-democratic, then it would only be logical to expect them to pull something similar. Personally, I would not at all be surprised by something similar.

Thus, what is the point? This announcement was posted in the GP forums for posterity, because that's tradition.

A fairly pointless tradition if you're not going to care for it any further, no?

If people are going to get back to olden days of roleplaying inter-regional politics, where we can have a decent substantive debate about threats to sovereignty and proper security policy,

The South Pacific does not exactly seem too eager to debate anything.

Yes, some raiders would want to see TSP "reform" in this way.

Most definitely so, but your proscription is not aimed at the people you cite but rather a wide ban on dozens of individuals. If the South Pacific is so concerned about some raiders, why not aim the proscription at those individuals rather than an entire region?

[Roavin]

Yes, some raiders would want to see TSP "reform" in this way.

Most definitely so, but your proscription is not aimed at the people you cite but rather a wide ban on dozens of individuals. If the South Pacific is so concerned about some raiders, why not aim the proscription at those individuals rather than an entire region?

Laz' proscription of the NPO is not aimed at the people they cite, but rather a wide ban on dozens of individuals. If Lazarus is so concerned about some francoists, why not aim the proscription at those individuals rather than an entire region? I'm sure you voted for that proscription, did you not? And publically vowed to eternally vote against any attempt to repeal that, correct?

The proscription is one tool to make sure these "reformers" don't get to cleanse, burn, reset, bleach, blank slate, or otherwise "reform" the South Pacific against the will of its citizens. That these "reformers", in their infinite benevolence, are not happy about that is to be expected and, frankly, not my or anyone else's problem.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Laz' proscription of the NPO is not aimed at the people they cite, but rather a wide ban on dozens of individuals. If Lazarus is so concerned about some francoists, why not aim the proscription at those individuals rather than an entire region? I'm sure you voted for that proscription, did you not? And publically vowed to eternally vote against any attempt to repeal that, correct?

All true enough, but there are distinct differences: after all, it is undeniable that the NPO did act, as an organisation, against Lazarus - see Task Force Lazarus, see the New Lazarene Order. By contrast, the Black Hawks' leadership, in the Red Phone logs you show, did not, to my knowledge, carry out any direct attacks against the South Pacific. It was discussed, of course, but no direct action was undertaken by the Black Hawks that I am aware of. Indeed, the commend Twobagger incident involved a mere two members of the Black Hawks, and it is unproven and unlikely that the Council of Hawks was aware of this. The New Pacific Order's history of antagonism and it's direct attacks against Lazarus were the reason they were proscribed and war was declared upon them.

To turn this around, if you believe these two cases are so similar, why are you in favour of one and appear opposed to the other?

The proscription is one tool to make sure these "reformers" don't get to cleanse, burn, reset, bleach, blank slate, or otherwise "reform" the South Pacific against the will of its citizens.

Surprising as it may be, I am in fact aware of what a proscription serves to do. However, the evidence supplied to justify the proscription does not point to the Black Hawks as an organisation being a problem.

[Unibot III]

When TBH’s leadership seeks to undermine TSP, it’s not TBH .. just some bad apples.

When TBH’s rank and file seeks to undermine TSP, it’s not TBH .. just some bad apples.

Under Evil Wolf’s logic no invaders would ever be proscribed, unless they committed sedition on official stationary. Although they’ve done that too.

I reiterate: this discussion is as dumb as it is disingenuous. Now you’ve got invaders arguing TSP should ban “every” invader — that’s a complete distortion of what being a defender region means for a region’s integration policy. TRR, for instance, has had elected invader delegates. Nor is Osiris, an invader region, at “war” with TRR, a defender region just because they disagree in terms of their political alignment. In a free and democratic region, the state can’t use its foreign policy to tell you what to believe, and what to identify with — the state has its policies, and a citizen has values and beliefs of their own.

A TSP ban on invaders would be unfair because many invader organizations have no history of attacking or threatening TSP. Since 2013, if not before that, TBH has distinguished itself as a reoccurring security problem for TSP.

[Baedan]

When TBH’s leadership seeks to undermine TSP, it’s not TBH .. just some bad apples.

Yes, when one (now retired) council member makes jokes about couping TSP in a discord server, it isn't reflective of organizational aims.

When TBH’s rank and file seeks to undermine TSP, it’s not TBH .. just some bad apples.

Yes, when two members outside of leadership positions participate in an unsanctioned """op""" that TSP received an official apology for, that isn't reflective of organizational aims either.

Under Evil Wolf’s logic no invaders would ever be proscribed, unless they committed sedition on official stationary. Although they’ve done that too.

Surely there is some middle ground between official stationary and three members of an org.

TBH has distinguished itself as a reoccurring security problem for TSP.

Even if this were true, it's a problem that proscription would be utterly incapable of solving. How is preventing members of the Black Hawks from legally acquiring citizenship a measure against foreign interference? It only punishes people who seek to participate in the region legitimately.

[Belschaft]

Sorry guys, I can't hear your facetious attacks on TSP's democracy over the sound of the largest election in NationStates as we carry out the bi-annual in-game vote for our WA Delegate.

[Unibot III]

Even if this were true, it's a problem that proscription would be utterly incapable of solving. How is preventing members of the Black Hawks from legally acquiring citizenship a measure against foreign interference? It only punishes people who seek to participate in the region legitimately.

I won’t respond to the rest of your post because I feel like I’m being even more repetitive than usual — and take my response with a grain of salt, I have no insight into the decision-making behind the prohibition, nor am I up to date on current law.

That having been said...

One of the key reasons why proscription is an attractive tool for security purposes is that in a liberal justice system it’s much easier to prosecute identity fraud than it is electioneering and voter importation. So if you know a group that’s historically a real security problem for your region (say, The Empire), proscribing that group means you only have to prove that their entryists are using fake identities, which is an easier evidentiary test than having to prove those voters are also a part of an organized conspiracy to manipulate a vote.

Hope that helps.

[Roavin]

Sorry guys, I can't hear your facetious attacks on TSP's democracy over the sound of the largest election in NationStates as we carry out the bi-annual in-game vote for our WA Delegate.

It's rare times like these that I wish this forum had a "like" button.

[Comfed]

Sorry guys, I can't hear your facetious attacks on TSP's democracy over the sound of the largest election in NationStates as we carry out the bi-annual in-game vote for our WA Delegate.

Just because there are elections does not mean that there is a free and democratic society. Banning a way of thinking is not democratic. This proscription sounds much more like banning raiders than ensuring the safety of TSP.

[Jar Wattinree]

Sorry guys, I can't hear your facetious attacks on TSP's democracy over the sound of the largest election in NationStates as we carry out the bi-annual in-game vote for our WA Delegate.

It's rare times like these that I wish this forum had a "like" button.

Add the quote to your signature.

[North Prarie]

Sorry guys, I can't hear your facetious attacks on TSP's democracy over the sound of the largest election in NationStates as we carry out the bi-annual in-game vote for our WA Delegate.

LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!!

Just because there are elections does not mean that there is a free and democratic society. Banning a way of thinking is not democratic. This proscription sounds much more like banning raiders than ensuring the safety of TSP.

I think that TSP has made it very clear that they're not putting a blanket ban on raiding.

By the way, Comfed, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Balder and Osiris' proscriptions of TSP?

[RiderSyl]

See, I actually expended the effort to address TSP from a genuine point of view and, as a reward, my takes are called being called disingenuous and facetious.

Next time a TSPer complains that there's no legitimate discussion surrounding their announcements, I'll just direct them to a mirror.

[Miss Bad Life Choices]

Just because there are elections does not mean that there is a free and democratic society. Banning a way of thinking is not democratic. This proscription sounds much more like banning raiders than ensuring the safety of TSP.

By the way, Comfed, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Balder and Osiris' proscriptions of TSP?

Given the phrasing of this -- sounds like you missed the memo Osiris repealed the proscription of the South Pacific in two pharaohs ago and back in 2019. We even have in-game embassies now ;p

[RiderSyl]

By the way, Comfed, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Balder and Osiris' proscriptions of TSP?

Given the phrasing of this -- sounds like you missed the memo Osiris repealed the proscription of the South Pacific in two pharaohs ago and back in 2019. We even have in-game embassies now ;p

LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!!

[North Prarie]

By the way, Comfed, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Balder and Osiris' proscriptions of TSP?

Given the phrasing of this -- sounds like you missed the memo Osiris repealed the proscription of the South Pacific in two pharaohs ago and back in 2019. We even have in-game embassies now ;p

I forgot about that, and am aware of the embassies/detente. I suppose I should have put two and two together ;p
Still would like to hear his thoughts, though...

[Roavin]

See, I actually expended the effort to address TSP from a genuine point of view and, as a reward, my takes are called being called disingenuous and facetious.

Next time a TSPer complains that there's no legitimate discussion surrounding their announcements, I'll just direct them to a mirror.

I don't think you belong to the group Bel was referring to

[Lord Dominator]

Hey, I'm just here to think it's a pointless reiteration of the status quo and/or generally amusing.

The statement is fluff for something TSP was probably at least partly willing to do anyways

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

in a liberal justice system

In the liberal justice system, raiding-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In The South Pacific, the dedicated defenders who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Council on Regional Security. These are their proscriptions. DUN DUN.

[The Church of Satan]

In the liberal justice system, raiding-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In The South Pacific, the dedicated defenders who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Council on Regional Security. These are their proscriptions. DUN DUN.

That's going in my sig.

[WayNeacTia]

in a liberal justice system

In the liberal justice system, raiding-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In The South Pacific, the dedicated defenders who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Council on Regional Security. These are their proscriptions. DUN DUN.

Quote of the year!

[Kringalia]

In the liberal justice system, raiding-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In The South Pacific, the dedicated defenders who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Council on Regional Security. These are their proscriptions. DUN DUN.

I absolutely love this.

--

For what it's worth, and being fully aware of the fact that I'd probably be feeling differently if I actually wanted to engage and defend the proscription, I'm happy to see that third parties are interested in discussing the issue and challenging TSP. This makes for an interesting discussion (sort of).

[Unibot III]

in a liberal justice system

In the liberal justice system, raiding-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In The South Pacific, the dedicated defenders who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Council on Regional Security. These are their proscriptions. DUN DUN.

Law & Order is getting desperate for spin-off content these days, I see.