[DEFEATED] Against Destructive Raiding Practices

[Doge Land]

Like others have already pointed out, considering that this declaration is completely unenforceable since there is no way in hell NS will alter their mechanics based upon the whims of the WA, and also noting that parts of it (#6 especially) are redundant; I have to ask, what is the point of this?

If you are going to make a do-nothing declaration such as this, at least have some balls and make it a declaration about something that has a chance of being altered or changed by discussion alone, because that is all that these can do. What more worthy proposal did this one waylay?

The only thing I can compliment about this is the flexibility required for self-fellation.

That's the point of a declaration though. It doesn't do anything, it just recommends you do something.

[Aivintis]

I've been made aware that it was a terrible idea to listen to people who told me to remove the OOC problematic exception (and myself believing a war clause wouldn't be good) so if...once...this fails, I will be replacing the OP with the draft below. I'm saying this now to hasten the process of getting input on the details.

The Security Council,

Defining “destructive raiding practices” as any act intended to harm a region or its native community during an invasion by invading forces, by irreversible or hardly reversible actions including, but not inherently limited to:

1. Banning or ejecting native nations,
2. Instituting a regional password without consent of the native community,
3. Refounding the region without consent of the native community, or
4. Closure of embassies opened by natives,

Believing these acts to be staunchly against the principles of the World Assembly,

Asserting that a stance must be taken against this deplorable practice in order to facilitate and express support for their opposition within the international community,

Hereby:

1. Condemns destructive raiding practices with the full diplomatic weight of the Security Council;
2. Entreats regional militaries that participate in invasions to not participate in any such operation employing destructive raiding practices, whether or not they are responsible for the practices themselves;
3. Exhorts the use of Security Council Liberations to protect regions against destructive raiding practices; and
4. Establishes exceptions to these proscriptions in cases where targeted regions routinely engage in destructive raiding practices, where both regions are at war with each other, or where targeted regions are displayed to be openly fascist or else morally reprehensible, in the latter case actively encouraging such action.

Co-Authored by Apatosaurus

The uh clear change is in 4, in response to the comments by Praeceps and Greater Cesnia, mostly, but in general in response to opinions from TNP, Europeia, TRR, etc.

[RiderSyl]

I've been made aware that it was a terrible idea to listen to people who told me to remove the OOC problematic exception

Well, it made your proposal better, but apparently killed its ability to pass. I suppose the majority of the voters want a declaration that can be used as an excuse to grief unpopular regions that aren't OOC problematic. When your proposal is cited to excuse a situation like that, I'll be the first to say "We could've avoided all this..."


EDIT: and of course Praeceps is one of the main folks that wants it in there. Gotta preserve TNP's ability to use stuff like this as a sword against those that get in its way.

[Red-panda]

I know this has been touched on but I believe that there should be no exceptions in destructive raiding practices other than for nations encouraging the practices themselves, if we make exceptions then we are excluding a group of nations (however small) from the protection this bill provides. There is also a danger that certain nations would be miss labeled as fascist or other categorized nations that fit into the exceptions and will not be protected.

despite this, however, I do agree with the rest of this and support the bill.

[Praeceps]

I've been made aware that it was a terrible idea to listen to people who told me to remove the OOC problematic exception

Well, it made your proposal better, but apparently killed its ability to pass. I suppose the majority of the voters want a declaration that can be used as an excuse to grief unpopular regions that aren't OOC problematic. When your proposal is cited to excuse a situation like that, I'll be the first to say "We could've avoided all this..."


EDIT: and of course Praeceps is one of the main folks that wants it in there. Gotta preserve TNP's ability to use stuff like this as a sword against those that get in its way.

Should take you about one minute to find out what it was that I said but it's pretty clear that you didn't bother to do any research.

[RiderSyl]

Well, it made your proposal better, but apparently killed its ability to pass. I suppose the majority of the voters want a declaration that can be used as an excuse to grief unpopular regions that aren't OOC problematic. When your proposal is cited to excuse a situation like that, I'll be the first to say "We could've avoided all this..."


EDIT: and of course Praeceps is one of the main folks that wants it in there. Gotta preserve TNP's ability to use stuff like this as a sword against those that get in its way.

Should take you about one minute to find out what it was that I said but it's pretty clear that you didn't bother to do any research.

What did you say then?

[Praeceps]

Should take you about one minute to find out what it was that I said but it's pretty clear that you didn't bother to do any research.

What did you say then?

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic ... t-10457290

[Goobergunchia]

Well, it made your proposal better, but apparently killed its ability to pass. I suppose the majority of the voters want a declaration that can be used as an excuse to grief unpopular regions that aren't OOC problematic. When your proposal is cited to excuse a situation like that, I'll be the first to say "We could've avoided all this..."

I agree with this, and will not be supporting the proposal if it gives invaders even more room to argue that this instance of region griefing is justified.

[Prussianball]

Can I say something controversial? I want this act voted for, because a couple years ago when I created a nationstates country, I also created a region. I was so happy about creating a region when it got a few dozen members. Then a raiding group destroyed my region. I was depressed, I was so sad that everything I worked so hard on was gone, destroyed, nada. I quit for a few years and came back, right now. And then I see this act, and then I see that over 60% of people voted against it. I felt every single emotion from back then, but worse. The idea that people would be this mean on a good act made me disgusted and appalled. I think this act should be accepted, and so should you. For Nationstates, and for us who were raided.

[RiderSyl]

What did you say then?

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic ... t-10457290

Well shit. That's on me for just assuming the worst intentions without checking.

[Tinhampton]

"Against Destructive Raiding Practices" was defeated 9,256 votes to 4,979. (34.98% support)

[RiderSyl]

So 2 out of every 3 voters were against this, essentially. That's a shame.

[Thousand Branches]

So 2 out of every 3 voters were against this, essentially. That's a shame.

To be fair, I wouldn’t say that was entirely accurate. Like 70-80% of votes (I’m totally guessing here but it’s a lot ) are just delegates. Half of delegate votes come from people who just endorsed the delegate upon joining or even people who disagree with the delegates position but stay endorsing anyway. I don’t think one could rightfully say that delegates speak for each nation under their voting power.

[Gonswanza]

Like others have already pointed out, considering that this declaration is completely unenforceable since there is no way in hell NS will alter their mechanics based upon the whims of the WA, and also noting that parts of it (#6 especially) are redundant; I have to ask, what is the point of this?

If you are going to make a do-nothing declaration such as this, at least have some balls and make it a declaration about something that has a chance of being altered or changed by discussion alone, because that is all that these can do. What more worthy proposal did this one waylay?

The only thing I can compliment about this is the flexibility required for self-fellation.

That's the point of a declaration though. It doesn't do anything, it just recommends you do something.

And it gives a free badge for little to no effort if it somehow passes.

In this case, it didn't.

[Comfed]

"Against Destructive Raiding Practices" was defeated 9,256 votes to 4,979. (34.98% support)

Good.

[WayNeacTia]

"Against Destructive Raiding Practices" was defeated 9,256 votes to 4,979. (34.98% support)

Good.

Don't believe it was ever in doubt.

[Great Algerstonia]

Don't readd a statement on OOC problematic regions.

[Lerasi]

I am completely rewriting this with Python, btw. I'm not gonna half ass this, I want to make it far stronger than it was before.

-- Aivintis

[WayNeacTia]

I am completely rewriting this with Python, btw. I'm not gonna half ass this, I want to make it far stronger than it was before.

-- Aivintis

And it still won't pass.....

[Lerasi]

I am completely rewriting this with Python, btw. I'm not gonna half ass this, I want to make it far stronger than it was before.

-- Aivintis

And it still won't pass.....

Thank you for your unwavering positivity and support!

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I am completely rewriting this with Python, btw. I'm not gonna half ass this, I want to make it far stronger than it was before.

-- Aivintis

Which will make it even more likely to fail.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

I am completely rewriting this with Python, btw. I'm not gonna half ass this, I want to make it far stronger than it was before.

-- Aivintis

Considering how a lot of the opposition to this was due to its strength, how exactly do you see a rerun passing?

[WayNeacTia]

And it still won't pass.....

Thank you for your unwavering positivity and support!

You do have a chance at passing this, but it is going to require a pretty hard decision on your part.

[Aivintis]

I am completely rewriting this with Python, btw. I'm not gonna half ass this, I want to make it far stronger than it was before.

-- Aivintis

Considering how a lot of the opposition to this was due to its strength, how exactly do you see a rerun passing?

Ah there seems to be some confusion with my use of the word stronger. I mean stronger writing, not stronger reach or tighter controls. My apologies. I got confused for a moment about how making it more likely to pass would make it less likely to pass, but that's just bad wording on my part (in my defense, I was tired when I wrote that message)