[PASSED] Historical Region Act

[Goobergunchia]

As I stated within the other thread, I plan on redrafting this resolution in order to make it stand the test of time. The singular most objectionable thing brought to my attention was the preemptive liberation clause, which is the main thing I'm working on now. I've sent a telegram to all of the active members of the regions in question regarding the resolution and it's fix, and I am awaiting their replies.

Co-author: Xanthal

The Security Council,

Noting that extant within the NationStates multiverse there are a dwindling number of regions created between November 2002 and early April 2003 before founding nations held executive power, excepting those not made immortal by the gods to serve as their machinery;

States that because of their status as not having nations to use these awesome powers, historical regions are uniquely vulnerable;

Enumerates the last remaining historical regions that never acquired an executive founder: Belgium, Bucketheadland, Carioch, Eutopia, EWU, Hattrick, Haven, Lake ilopango, Liberal Paradise, Secularia, Seven Eleven, South Pacific, The AGS Commonwealth, The Proletariat Coalition, The West, User Friendlia, NationStates, Canada, Middle Earth, St Abbaddon, Stargate, Yorkshire, SPACE, and LUE;

Recognizes those historical regions that have since had a founder nation appointed to lead them, including but not limited to: Europe, 10000 Islands, Texas, The Heartland, Wysteria, Nasicournia, Space Sector RPRA, Hell, ISAF2, Subreality, Germany, Kattar, Katasia, USSR, Anarchy, and Axis of Absurdity; and

Remembers the many regions from this period, too many to list, that have ceased to exist.

Believing that historical regions are worthy of preservation, and declares:

The interregional community should protect these historical regions, whether they are founderless now or lose their founders in the future, against subversion or aggression via:

• The writing of interregional protection treaties which can be adopted by those of defender, independent, imperialist and non-aligned ideologies alike to protect historical regions from external military forces.
• The enactment of measures by governments of historical regions to preempt attack and malicious refounding.
• The passage or rejection of Liberation resolutions and their repeals based on native support.
• The establishment of policies by all regional governments to support the native population and governance of historical regions, including political and military intervention where appropriate.

The doctrine of this Assembly is that the expressed will of the native population and its recognized representatives are the supreme authority in deciding a region's policy and its future, including whether and how to implement access controls

With the passage of time, native populations and governments may become silent, indifferent, inactive, or cease to exist entirely, and

Encourages the creation by concerned nations of Caretaker Conservation Administrations (CCAs) to govern historical regions where no legitimate native leaders exist, or where such leaders request them, recommending and recognizing those which:

• Operate independently and do not limit membership based on affiliations outside the region,
• Require participating nations to be present in the governed region for the duration of their participation in the CCA,
• Make a good faith effort to honor the history of the region and the preferences of pre-established natives,
• Prioritize the best interest of the region over that of their members and other organizations,
• Recruit for and promote active participation in the region to establish new native stakeholders,
• Vigorously pursue the goal of establishing a healthy, independent region with independent native leadership,
• Dissolve or subordinate themselves to native administration once native leaders are established, and
• Do not allow members to serve concurrently in the native administration, nor use proxies to do so.

Establishes this Historical Region Act and authorizes the passage of additional resolutions to advance native rights and regional conservation.

The Security Council,

Noting that throughout the NationStates Multiverse there are regions of truly ancient status that were founded in the time before founding nations held executive power amongst their peers, which happened to be between November 2002 and early April 2003;

Knowing that among this group of regions there are some that had one nation take executive powers over the region through many different means, while a small minority of the group did not;

Naming the few regions thought to be the last of these truly ancient regions which have never had a founder nation lording over them to be Belgium, Bucketheadland, Carioch, Eutopia, EWU, Hattrick, Haven, Lake ilopango, Liberal Paradise, Secularia, Seven Eleven, South Pacific, The AGS Commonwealth, The Proletariat Coalition, The West, User Friendlia, NationStates, Canada, Middle Earth, St Abbaddon, Stargate, Yorkshire, Space, and LUE;

Further naming some of the regions within this category of ancient regions that had a founder nation selected to lead them, and subsequently were appointed by the gods themselves, to be Europe, 10000 Islands, Texas, The Heartland, Wysteria, Nasicournia, Space Sector RPRA, Hell, ISAF2, Subreality, Germany, Kattar, Katasia, USSR, Anarchy, and Axis of Absurdity.

Acknowledging that not all of the ancient regions having a founder appointed by the gods themselves can be listed within this resolution, as only approximately 15.5%, or slightly more but not all, still exist to this day;

Believing that these regions hold a significant position within the interregional community and that due to this status these regions should be considered as historical places within the Multiverse;

Stating that these regions, whether they are Founderless now or lose their founders in the future, ought to be protected from subversion or attack to the best of the interregional communities ability by:

• The writing of interregional protection treaties. All regions of defender, Independent, Imperialist and non-aligned ideologies can sign and adopt treaties to protect these regions from aggression by military forces.

• The creation and passage of regional laws if they have a functioning government. These laws would deter the regional military forces from attacking these regions and keep them from destroying them by removing all native nations and refounding.

• Supporting only the Liberation resolutions that the relevant native population has given their explicit permission to be passed. It should be the interregional community's stance that the will of the native population is above all the most important when it comes to their regions future, as well as the native populations choice whether or not the password is removed, and

Encourages regional governments to take up policies that will actively discourage the subversion or destruction of these regions such as political isolation of the offending region or entity and having their regional militaries, if one exists, intervene on behalf of the original native populations to free their region with their permission, and

Sanctions the creation by concerned nations of Caretaker Conservation Administrations (CCAs) to govern regions of historical interest where no legitimate native leaders exist, subject to the following conditions:

• CCAs may include nations not native to the region they govern, but these must move to the region for the duration of their participation in the CCA.

• CCAs must operate independently and membership cannot be limited or denied based on outside affiliations or lack thereof.

• CCAs are obliged to recruit for and promote active participation in the region to establish new native stakeholders.

• The express end goal of a CCA is to establish a healthy region with independent native leadership. Once conditions for such are met, the CCA must subordinate itself to the native administration.

• To avoid the appearance of nepotism, members of the CCA and their affiliates are discouraged from claiming native status.

• The Security Council may pass additional resolutions to define or expand the framework for regional conservation.

The Security Council,

Noting that throughout the NationStates Multiverse there are regions of truly ancient status that were founded in the time before founding nations held executive power amongst their peers;

Acknowledging that among this group of regions the majority had one nation that took executive powers over the region through many different means, including democratic elections and godly appointments, while a select few did not;

Naming the few regions thought to be the last of these truly ancient regions which have never had a founder nation lording over them to be Belgium, Bucketheadland, Carioch, Eutopia, EWU, Hattrick, Haven, Lake ilopango, Liberal Paradise, Secularia, Seven Eleven, South Pacific, The AGS Commonwealth, The Proletariat Coalition, The West, User Friendlia, NationStates, Canada, Middle Earth, St Abbaddon, Stargate, Yorkshire, Space, and LUE;

Believing that these regions hold a significant historical position within the interregional community, as they are among the last of the first regions ever founded within NationStates, and that due to this status these regions should be especially protected from destruction and loss;

Differentiating the regions listed within this resolution from other truly Founderless regions that hold the name of Feeder, Sinker, and Warzone in so far as the regions with those titles are not at the same risk of regional destruction;

Hereby states that regions and organizations should take the following steps to protect these special historical regions from being destroyed and founded under new nations:

• Interregional protection treaties. All major regions of defender, Independent, Imperialist and non-aligned ideologies can sign and adopt treaties to protect these regions from aggression.
• Regional laws if they have a functioning government. These laws would restrict the regional military forces from attacking these regions and keep them from destroying them by removing all native nations and refounding.
• Taking a stance against any Liberation resolution that the native populations have explicitly stated they do not want. It should be the interregional communities stance that the will of the native population is above all the most important when it comes to their regions future.
• Preserving the regional history and message boards through making copies of their contents and publishing them in their regional libraries for all nations to see.

Encouraging regional governments to take the following actions against military and non-military entities who disregard the protection of these regions:

• Political isolation by closing existing embassies, repealing any existing treaties, and pulling regional ambassadors back.
• Direct military intervention against the attacking forces, and any future endeavors by those attacking forces that does not include attacking their home regions, to attempt to pressure the offending entities into following the outlines of this declaration.

[Lenlyvit]

I've taken the preemptive liberation clause from this:

Using preemptive liberation resolutions to keep the regions from being passworded and to protect them from internal threats. These must first have consultation from any existing native nations and communities before being drafted, and must only be used in dire circumstances in which the region is close to being lost forever due to ceasing to exist. This would make it harder to refound the region by passwording the regional borders to prevent new nations from moving in.

To possibly being written as:

Using a Liberation resolution as an extreme last resort to save the region from loss, only used when the last nation within the region enters an anarchical phase and is about to cease to exist as a political entity. This will allow the password on the region to be lifted, if one exists, or prevent one from being applied by invading forces wishing to take the region as a trophy. The nations of the Security Council are encouraged to send a colony nation to the regions after that point in order to keep the region alive and preserve it's historical status

Any feedback on this would be appreciated!

[Tinhampton]

I remain iffy about the final clause. As I grumbled offsite, we should not be targetting regions for invasion simply because they forgot to run Dot's Region Saver feature on the RMB of South Pacific. (You insist that such actions be aimed at "entities who disregard the protection of these regions" while your first list describes possible "steps to protect these special historical regions from being destroyed.")

[Lenlyvit]

I remain iffy about the final clause. As I grumbled offsite, we should not be targetting regions for invasion simply because they forgot to run Dot's Region Saver feature on the RMB of South Pacific. (You insist that such actions be aimed at "entities who disregard the protection of these regions" while your first list describes possible "steps to protect these special historical regions from being destroyed.")

Oh, I see that that clause is being read the wrong way. I'll have to clear it up, what it's supposed to mean is that there should be direct military intervention to liberate the region from occupation, not attacking their home regions.

[Lenlyvit]

I remain iffy about the final clause. As I grumbled offsite, we should not be targetting regions for invasion simply because they forgot to run Dot's Region Saver feature on the RMB of South Pacific. (You insist that such actions be aimed at "entities who disregard the protection of these regions" while your first list describes possible "steps to protect these special historical regions from being destroyed.")

I've made a small edit to the clause in question to try and clear that up, does that work better?

[Xanthal]

I'm all for preservation of the historical record, but I'm not convinced that letting a dried husk of a region linger on forever as an undead zombie in the name of preservation is preferable to letting someone with interest and ambition refound it as something new and vital.

If it's the wellbeing of these regions you have at heart and not their value as exhibits in a museum hall that you can slap your name on, I'd encourage you to affirm their residents' right to self-determination in the event they don't want to be Founderless anymore.

[Free Algerstonia]

You should rework this whole proposal into a historic designation on founderless regions, and nothing more. No military advice whatsoever is needed.

[The Sygian]

You should rework this whole proposal into a historic designation on founderless regions, and nothing more. No military advice whatsoever is needed.

I actually agree. Still against the proposal as it stands, but I don’t see a harm in classifying the regions as historical. Especially if their unique histories were actually noted.

[Lenlyvit]

You should rework this whole proposal into a historic designation on founderless regions, and nothing more. No military advice whatsoever is needed.

I actually agree. Still against the proposal as it stands, but I don’t see a harm in classifying the regions as historical. Especially if their unique histories were actually noted.

Would that involve chucking everything under "encouraging", or would it be more than that?

[Lenlyvit]

I'm still looking for feedback on the resolution. As it stands now, I have two of the regions in the proposal who support it (St Abbaddon and Carioch) and one that's against it because of the Liberation clause I think (NationStates). I don't want to let this die, so I'm just bumping this.

[The Orwell Society]

I'm still looking for feedback on the resolution. As it stands now, I have two of the regions in the proposal who support it (St Abbaddon and Carioch) and one that's against it because of the Liberation clause I think (NationStates). I don't want to let this die, so I'm just bumping this.

Nationstates is against the SC, period, but I still think that they more than worthy (if not the most worthy) of mention.

[Free Algerstonia]

I'm still looking for feedback on the resolution. As it stands now, I have two of the regions in the proposal who support it (St Abbaddon and Carioch) and one that's against it because of the Liberation clause I think (NationStates). I don't want to let this die, so I'm just bumping this.

I gave you feedback.

[Lenlyvit]

I'm still looking for feedback on the resolution. As it stands now, I have two of the regions in the proposal who support it (St Abbaddon and Carioch) and one that's against it because of the Liberation clause I think (NationStates). I don't want to let this die, so I'm just bumping this.

I gave you feedback.

You gave feedback and then I asked what it entailed, and then you never replied.

[Stella Amore]

Region	Nation Count	Border Status
Belgium	207	Liberated
Bucketheadland	1	Locked
Canada	191	Open
Carioch	2	Locked
Eutopia	2	Locked
EWU	1	Locked
Hattrick	1	Locked
Haven	5	Locked
Lake ilopango	1	Locked
Liberal Paradise	1	Locked
LUE	3	Locked
Middle Earth	132	Open
NationStates	877	Open
Secularia	1	Locked
Seven Eleven	1	Locked
South Pacific	148	Liberated
Space	27	Locked
St Abbaddon	109	Liberated
Stargate	122	Open
The AGS Commonwealth	2	Locked
The Proletariat Coalition	5	Locked
The West	3	Locked
User Friendlia	6	Locked
Yorkshire	74	Open

It looks prettier in dispatch form.

So as a breakdown:

5 open regions
3 liberated ones
16 locked one.

Of those 16 locked regions, 8 are controlled by a single player and would cease to exist if that player left the game. The open and liberated regions are reasonably secure in that they have larger communities and would be pretty unreasonable to attempt to empty. Any operation would be seen well in advance. So the portion of this resolution that calls to more specific action is really concerned with those 16 locked regions. I think that's where this resolution gets into muddy waters.

Basically, you can't really prevent the 16 tiny founderless regions from ceasing to exist without preemptively liberating and occupying them, but by doing that you are robbing the nations who have maintained those regions for almost two decades of their control.

I think the resolution would work better without the call to Liberate them and the final Encouraging bit.

[Unibot III]

Just throwing a grenade into this discussion, a lot of these regions are at a greater security risk due to being passworded versus if they were permanently liberated.

There is also little to no community left in some of these regions, because the password has killed their region’s growth.

I don’t think it’s a good idea for the WA to pursue a blanket approach, where we liberate regions against their will, but the status quo is also full of unnecessary risk. All it takes is a password to be slipped to the wrong person or a login-script to fail, and boom, you’ve lost the region. And it’s sad to see regions exist only to exist, when their growth is throttled by a password.

My suggestion is calls for:
1. A coalition of the willing to help free any invaded ‘historical’ region
2. Political sanctions against those that support the invasion of ‘historical’ regions
3. Defence organizations and regions to convene high-level security discussions with ‘historical’ regions about steps can be taken to support their region’s security, offering their experience, insight, and assistance
4. The creation of a standing historical society that seeks to preserve and curate these ‘historical’ regions in the absence of an active native community

And finally, 5. Invite the consideration of preemptive WA Liberations of ‘historical’ governments with native approval

That is to say, it’s not being requested of all of these regions, but the WA is inviting all parties to consider the preemptive use of WA Liberations in these cases.

[Free Algerstonia]

I gave you feedback.

You gave feedback and then I asked what it entailed, and then you never replied.

Delete the "encouraging" bit and all of the "hereby" bit except for the section on preserving regional message boards.

[Lenlyvit]

Region	Nation Count	Border Status
Belgium	207	Liberated
Bucketheadland	1	Locked
Canada	191	Open
Carioch	2	Locked
Eutopia	2	Locked
EWU	1	Locked
Hattrick	1	Locked
Haven	5	Locked
Lake ilopango	1	Locked
Liberal Paradise	1	Locked
LUE	3	Locked
Middle Earth	132	Open
NationStates	877	Open
Secularia	1	Locked
Seven Eleven	1	Locked
South Pacific	148	Liberated
Space	27	Locked
St Abbaddon	109	Liberated
Stargate	122	Open
The AGS Commonwealth	2	Locked
The Proletariat Coalition	5	Locked
The West	3	Locked
User Friendlia	6	Locked
Yorkshire	74	Open

It looks prettier in dispatch form.

So as a breakdown:

5 open regions
3 liberated ones
16 locked one.

Of those 16 locked regions, 8 are controlled by a single player and would cease to exist if that player left the game. The open and liberated regions are reasonably secure in that they have larger communities and would be pretty unreasonable to attempt to empty. Any operation would be seen well in advance. So the portion of this resolution that calls to more specific action is really concerned with those 16 locked regions. I think that's where this resolution gets into muddy waters.

Basically, you can't really prevent the 16 tiny founderless regions from ceasing to exist without preemptively liberating and occupying them, but by doing that you are robbing the nations who have maintained those regions for almost two decades of their control.

I think the resolution would work better without the call to Liberate them and the final Encouraging bit.

Thank you for the breakdown Luna, I appreciate it. While I may be open to removing the encouraging bit, I don’t think I’ll remove the liberation clause. I re-wrote that clause away from being a preemptive liberation clause and turned it into an extreme last resort clause, one that encourages the use only when all of the last nations in the region are about to CTE. That’s to save the region from being completely lost until it’s refounded by a new nation and looses its historical status. I also think that removing those bits might remove the most supported parts of the proposal.

Just throwing a grenade into this discussion, a lot of these regions are at a greater security risk due to being passworded versus if they were permanently liberated.

There is also little to no community left in some of these regions, because the password has killed their region’s growth.

I don’t think it’s a good idea for the WA to pursue a blanket approach, where we liberate regions against their will, but the status quo is also full of unnecessary risk. All it takes is a password to be slipped to the wrong person or a login-script to fail, and boom, you’ve lost the region. And it’s sad to see regions exist only to exist, when their growth is throttled by a password.

My suggestion is calls for:
1. A coalition of the willing to help free any invaded ‘historical’ region
2. Political sanctions against those that support the invasion of ‘historical’ regions
3. Defence organizations and regions to convene high-level security discussions with ‘historical’ regions about steps can be taken to support their region’s security, offering their experience, insight, and assistance
4. The creation of a standing historical society that seeks to preserve and curate these ‘historical’ regions in the absence of an active native community

And finally, 5. Invite the consideration of preemptive WA Liberations of ‘historical’ governments with native approval

That is to say, it’s not being requested of all of these regions, but the WA is inviting all parties to consider the preemptive use of WA Liberations in these cases.

I’m not sure how they would react to having a non-native historical society deciding stuff for regions they aren’t natives of….

You gave feedback and then I asked what it entailed, and then you never replied.

Delete the "encouraging" bit and all of the "hereby" bit except for the section on preserving regional message boards.

That removes a massive chunk of the proposal, I’m not quite sure I want to do that. A lot of people feel like a declaration should have at least a little bite, which is what I intended in the “encouraging” bit.

[Refuge Isle]

Just throwing a grenade into this discussion, a lot of these regions are at a greater security risk due to being passworded versus if they were permanently liberated.

There is also little to no community left in some of these regions, because the password has killed their region’s growth.

There are nearly four thousand founderless regions out there, which make up the body of tag targets that get hit and cleaned up on a nightly basis. The cause of a region's decline and death is varied, some caused by passwords choking growth, the vast majority just because their natives left the game or moved on. Regardless of what, of the infinite possible, causes the result of a single-nation passworded region, it's not up to you or the Security Council to decide on behalf of the region that foreigners know what's best for the natives and liberate it "for the greater good". It's not your region! There's a reason we, as defenders, get native consent. There's a reason natives want the liberation removed when the occupation has ended.

The fact that this discussion is still ongoing in this poorly revised second attempt is staggering.

I don’t think it’s a good idea for the WA to pursue a blanket approach, where we liberate regions against their will, but the status quo is also full of unnecessary risk. All it takes is a password to be slipped to the wrong person or a login-script to fail, and boom, you’ve lost the region. And it’s sad to see regions exist only to exist, when their growth is throttled by a password.

This is such a naive take, considering liberated-Boston remains dead as ever, and Syria remains a dead and stagnant region with a liberation produced by the same author as this. A region requires region-building in order for it to grow and prosper. In the absence of that, it will decline and die, just as a hundred regions do every day. Taking off a password will not magically produce work and new recruits.

If the native(s) of these regions wish to see the region exist to exist, that is their prerogative and no concern of a third party gawker solely because they're fascinated by the novelty of the region not having an founder listing. They have no lesser or greater sovereignty than the regions we defend on a daily basis.

My suggestion is calls for:
1. A coalition of the willing to help free any invaded ‘historical’ region
2. Political sanctions against those that support the invasion of ‘historical’ regions
3. Defence organizations and regions to convene high-level security discussions with ‘historical’ regions about steps can be taken to support their region’s security, offering their experience, insight, and assistance
4. The creation of a standing historical society that seeks to preserve and curate these ‘historical’ regions in the absence of an active native community

As someone with a more recent relevancy in defending than 2015, let me just state: we're not interested in defending more regions than are necessary to. That is to say, we're not interested in making regions, which are safely secured with their native owners, artificially vulnerable.

Their owners are able to make sure they continue to exist at the current time. With a liberation, their owner, having a couple thousand influence, is not going to matter for anything during an occupation. So, the burden of responsibility switches to defenders -- their owners will no longer be able to control their own defence, it would require us to be on constant alert and frequently devoting pilers and liberators to keep the region going when it would have previously taken care of itself. This all while raiders are able to spam up the RMB, WFE, destroy embassies and whatever else they can think to do with the place.

And for what? So you can look at the novelty of a region without a founder while reciting a mantra to yourself about how you're "saving" the region. Sounds good mate.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Good intentions, but we know what road is paved with those.

Luca makes some excellent and pertinent points in their post, enough to persuade me that this Declaration really should be abandoned or to oppose it should it come to vote.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Do you intend to keep The Proletariat Coalition in the proposal, protecting the region and calling for the "isolation" of those who'd raid the region notorious for its extensive participation in forum destruction? That seems like a strange choice.

[Lenlyvit]

Do you intend to keep The Proletariat Coalition in the proposal, protecting the region and calling for the "isolation" of those who'd raid the region notorious for its extensive participation in forum destruction? That seems like a strange choice.

I actually had honestly forgotten about that region. It's possible I could write a clause that makes an exception to that region based on its history of forum destruction, if that works?

[Lenlyvit]

Good intentions, but we know what road is paved with those.

Luca makes some excellent and pertinent points in their post, enough to persuade me that this Declaration really should be abandoned or to oppose it should it come to vote.

I feel like Luca is still making an outdated argument against the proposal that doesn't acknowledge the changes that I've made. This proposal no longer calls for offensive Liberations, only Liberations when and if the last remaining nation within the region is about to CTE. There's a vast difference between those two things. Also, there's nothing at all saying that those Liberations can't be repealed as soon as the region is secured by non-threatening forces like defenders. There's a possibility I could even add a clause calling for a neutral defense force to secure the regions in question and to hold them under password, to be handed over to original native populations if they return.

[A Bloodred Moon]

I actually had honestly forgotten about that region. It's possible I could write a clause that makes an exception to that region based on its history of forum destruction, if that works?

Personally I wouldn’t have included them in the first place, but that is an option.

[Unibot III]

There are nearly four thousand founderless regions out there, which make up the body of tag targets that get hit and cleaned up on a nightly basis. The cause of a region's decline and death is varied, some caused by passwords choking growth, the vast majority just because their natives left the game or moved on. Regardless of what, of the infinite possible, causes the result of a single-nation passworded region, it's not up to you or the Security Council to decide on behalf of the region that foreigners know what's best for the natives and liberate it "for the greater good". It's not your region! There's a reason we, as defenders, get native consent. There's a reason natives want the liberation removed when the occupation has ended.

The fact that this discussion is still ongoing in this poorly revised second attempt is staggering.

I literally said I didn’t think it was up to the WA to tell native communities what to do. Go dunk on someone else…

This is such a naive take, considering liberated-Boston remains dead as ever, and Syria remains a dead and stagnant region with a liberation produced by the same author as this. A region requires region-building in order for it to grow and prosper. In the absence of that, it will decline and die, just as a hundred regions do every day. Taking off a password will not magically produce work and new recruits.

I never said that a lack of password was sufficient for regional growth. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I say enough stupid things in a day, I don’t need you falsely attributing more stupid things to me, thank you very much.

I said that passwords restrict growth. It’s almost impossible to sustain a region safely and healthily behind a password. Syria is a good example of a founderless region where a WA Liberation hasn’t diminished its regional security; the absence of a password is a step in the right direction of regional development if a local organizer wanted to take the challenge on, but it is not a sufficient criterion.

That is to say, we're not interested in making regions, which are safely secured with their native owners, artificially vulnerable.

I wasn’t suggesting defenders would necessarily play an active role in a historical society.

Time has passed, but not enough time has passed for me to forget the day to day work that goes into defending and I know that the work that such a society would be doing would not line up with the conventional activities of a defender organization.

I would imagine a historical society would be led by people who aren’t active defenders or active raiders, but are interested in reviving ancient regions in a culturally sensitive way, dredging up old regional flags, and acting as a resource for them.

Their owners are able to make sure they continue to exist at the current time. With a liberation, their owner, having a couple thousand influence, is not going to matter for anything during an occupation. So, the burden of responsibility switches to defenders -- their owners will no longer be able to control their own defence, it would require us to be on constant alert and frequently devoting pilers and liberators to keep the region going when it would have previously taken…

This is not an accurate consideration of the stakes at play.

If a native in a near dead passworded UCR gives their password out accidentally to an invader spy who is phishing for the password, defenders won’t be able to intervene until 1) the native awakes and gives you the password (could take days/weeks), 2) a WA Liberation is passed (could potentially take a while), or 3) the password is obtained through raider intelligence (only a possibility.)

That means any passworded, zombie UCR is a time bomb, if a password is passed to the wrong hand, the region can be destroyed.

Likewise, if a log-in script fails, someone needs to catch this in time to submit a WA Liberation to intervene, and these things aren’t necessarily always caught right away.

Whereas invaders can disrupt a WA-liberated region, but they basically cannot destroy it due to the freedom of movement present.

The greatest security that could be obtained in a founderless region is through concurrent freedom of movement and regional development: strong endorsement levels and a permanent open border.

I’m not sure how they would react to having a non-native historical society deciding stuff for regions they aren’t natives of….

My thinking is the society would be governed by a WA code of conduct that emphasized cultural and historical sensitivity — trying, essentially, to recreate the essence of the original region and researching and articling the region’s history.

I don’t think it’s safer for these regions to exist as “tombstones” and I also think it’s a waste of the region’s potential to just unquestionably lock the regions down entirely, frozen in a moment from 2009 or whatever during its final state of dormancy.

I believe in the right of self-determination, but there has to be a point where we question the capacity for self-determination. Does a native community even exist anymore? These are philosophical questions we’ll have to ask more and more as the game mature and activity wanes. My inclination is that an attempt to maintain the spirit of the old region is more in keeping with the will and memory of the native community, than permanently locking a region which was trapped in a cycle of inactivity due to a password.

None of this manifested in a vacuum, many of these regions sought a password because they were regular targets for invasions due to their historical significance but they couldn’t maintain a community behind a password, so they withered away. That’s why I find the idea of tough standards on invading historical UCRs in conjunction with freedom of movement and regional development. It’s something we could have never have pursued in the past. We didn’t have the tools then, we have them now.

[Goobergunchia II]

Do you intend to keep The Proletariat Coalition in the proposal, protecting the region and calling for the "isolation" of those who'd raid the region notorious for its extensive participation in forum destruction? That seems like a strange choice.

I actually had honestly forgotten about that region. It's possible I could write a clause that makes an exception to that region based on its history of forum destruction, if that works?

Will not support any resolution that concedes to LWU propaganda.