[Defeated] Declaration on Interregional Recruitment

[Crazy girl]

Hey all!

With the upcoming addition of declarations for the Security Council, I feel it would be prudent to include a declaration on cross-UCR recruitment and have drafted such a declaration. I’m admittedly relatively new to drafting, so very open to any suggested revisions. I’ve tried to fit it within the correct WA wordings but do let me know if changes are needed there as well.

The Security Council,

Aware of the recruitment, whether by telegram, regional message board, or other means, that occurs between regions,

Recognizing that such recruitment may lead to a decrease in the size of a target region,

However noting the position of Feeders and Sinkers as inherent locations for national foundation and the resultant consistent inflow of nations, a benefit not afforded to regions that are neither a Feeder nor a Sinker,

Concerned that recruitment between regions that are neither a Feeder nor a Sinker will harm the long-term growth of such regions,

Hereby discourages regional government-supported recruitment of nations from regions that are neither a Feeder nor a Sinker, except in the case of war between the recruiting and target region or a target region that has marked itself as recruiter friendly.

The Security Council,

Aware of the recruitment, whether by telegram, regional message board, or other means, that occurs between regions,

Recognizing that such recruitment may lead to a decrease in the size of a target region,

However noting the position of Feeders and Sinkers as inherent locations for national foundation and the resultant consistent inflow of nations, a benefit not afforded to regions that are neither a Feeder nor a Sinker,

Concerned that recruitment between regions that are neither a Feeder nor a Sinker will harm the long-term growth of such regions,

Hereby discourages regional-government-supported recruitment of nations from regions that are neither a Feeder nor a Sinker.

[Lycos]

I feel as though this document could be fleshed out quite a bit, as I know we recently had a long and spirited discussion on this topic in the NS Leaders server. I will have to come back to this to provide anything substantial, though.

I don't think making a special exemption for wartime is necessary, however. I also don't know of many regions where poaching from a region they were at war with served any purpose besides frustration and giving them the finger.

[Astrobolt]

Some UCRs may be perfectly fine with recruitment, such as those that have the "Recruiter Friendly" tag.

[Comfed]

Support the concept, but this could be elaborated further.

Some UCRs may be perfectly fine with recruitment, such as those that have the "Recruiter Friendly" tag.

You may want to take this into account.

[Khevo]

Some UCRs may be perfectly fine with recruitment, such as those that have the "Recruiter Friendly" tag.

Definitely a valid point! I’ll work in a recognition of that.

[Khevo]

I’ve updated the draft to include exemptions for a state of war - which I know still may need to be discussed further - and for regions tagged as recruiter friendly. Still open to all further thoughts! I know there’s a lot of drafts out competing for that first-ever slot but I’d much rather this be well-discussed and thorough than rushed for first.

I feel as though this document could be fleshed out quite a bit, as I know we recently had a long and spirited discussion on this topic in the NS Leaders server. I will have to come back to this to provide anything substantial, though.

Good to know - I’ll look into the discussions held in NSL myself as well but I’d love to have your input on the matter.

[Kylia Quilor]

This also depends entirely on some of the other discussions being held in Technical - because if some of the other ideas go through, we could see nations start founding in UCRs.

[The Python]

Seems sensible, support.

[TESDAI]

I’ve updated the draft to include exemptions for a state of war - which I know still may need to be discussed further - and for regions tagged as recruiter friendly. Still open to all further thoughts! I know there’s a lot of drafts out competing for that first-ever slot but I’d much rather this be well-discussed and thorough than rushed for first.

I feel as though this document could be fleshed out quite a bit, as I know we recently had a long and spirited discussion on this topic in the NS Leaders server. I will have to come back to this to provide anything substantial, though.

Good to know - I’ll look into the discussions held in NSL myself as well but I’d love to have your input on the matter.

Glad to see the couple of exceptions being added. With the assumption that Declarations will come prior to any Technical changes to foundership and recruitment, I support this.

The few conversations and debates we’ve had in NSL were a bit heated at times, and some regretful things were said, but I stand by my motives that UCRs should not be recruiting from one another with WA APIs or tag:wa. We believe recruitment should be done through the three primary functions of stamps, API, and manual to founding and refounding nations aswell as any other creative function that does not include targeting nations already in UCRs.

If changes to recruitment happen from Technical threads, this Declaration I assume could be ruled as null or void, potentially through a repeal. Are repeals going to be a thing for Declarations?

[Goobergunchia]

Are repeals going to be a thing for Declarations?

Yes. Would be a bit silly to have an unrepealable type of player-submitted resolution, no?

[Praeceps]

Are repeals going to be a thing for Declarations?

Yes. Would be a bit silly to have an unrepealable type of player-submitted resolution, no?

Other than repeals themselves.

[Khevo]

Tentatively moving this to last call, though still as open to any ideas as before and have no issue delaying. It's a short resolution but I feel that it makes an important stance clear.

[The Hazar Amisnery]

Are you saying that UCR's should stop recruiting nations?

[Ulrykk von Guelderlaand]

I disagree with the declaration here proposed. There are user created regions whose governments have collapsed some many months or even years ago and populated by lurkers who could very well be (in a working region) encouraged to grow into active participants in NationStates. To blanket condemn recruiting in all UCRs with the point of view that 'harming a dead region's growth potential' is wrong, I think is short sighted.
While I for the most part condemn antagonistic recruiting in UCRs, the question is more nuanced than what this proposal suggests.

[Khevo]

Are you saying that UCR's should stop recruiting nations?

Not at all - just that they shouldn’t recruit from other UCRs because they lack a consistent inflow of nations like Feeders and Sinkers have. It’s a standard that’s widely been followed for a while.

[WayNeacTia]

Seeing as how this will go to vote soon, figured I would bump it up. This reads to me like, as if the WA is endorsing the Arnhelm Declaration?

[Khevo]

Seeing as how this will go to vote soon, figured I would bump it up. This reads to me like, as if the WA is endorsing the Arnhelm Declaration?

It does follow that line of thinking, yes.

[Minskiev]

Discourages =/= denies. Use common sense, people. If a region has a collapsed government then there's no malicious intent to steal members from another government by recruiting from that region.

[Pland Adanna]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the Security Council resolution, "On Interregional Recruitment".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[URA World Assembly Affairs]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote against this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1571686

[Thassala]

I'm not entirely convinced by the proposal at this stage, but I'm content to lend my meagre support until it's been discussed further and I can follow the argument. It would be unfortunate if a good proposal failed because an influential delegate registered an early vote against.

[The Hazar Amisnery]

I voted against because not many people want to have to pay money in a browser game so they go to other means of recruitment and stopping regions from recruiting is unfair.

[Jibbania]

So how is this even a proper legislative document, what is a feeder? what is a sinker? all undefined terms that are not made clear to anyone at all!
Voted against purely because it was hard to understand what this is going to do in the first place

[Sunemia]

OP should have probably definited ''feeder and sinker'' before submitting

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

OP should have probably definited ''feeder and sinker'' before submitting

Why? They are standard terms in gameplay.