[ABANDONED] Acknowledging Neutrality and Pacifism

[Daarwyrth]

Acknowledging Neutrality and Pacifism
Category: Declaration | Proposed by: Daarwyrth

---

Let it be known that this honourable council laments the nonexistence of any formal acknowledgement of the status of neutrality and pacifism that regions are able to adopt, if they formally wish to declare their position in the eternal struggle between the raiding axes and defending powers; and

To mend such a lack of acknowledgement on the part of this assembly of nations, and to provide regions who have declared their state of neutrality or their intent to strive for peace with protections in the form of recommendations and suggestions for the member states of this noble body to adopt;

The Security Council states the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a 'neutral entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy to not act or carry itself in a manner that would encourage or help any of the parties involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders. Similarly, a 'pacifist entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy that any conflict between regions such as the raider and defender wars is objectionable and should be avoided or opposed at all times.
   
   
2. A region has its neutrality recognised if it is a non-fascist region which formally describes itself as 'neutral' or acts as a neutral entity. Similarly, a region has its pacifism recognised if it is a non-fascist region which formally describes itself as 'pacifist' or acts as a pacifist entity. Yet, any such recognition is subject to the limitations set forth by the articles of this resolution. Additionally, self-defence against a raid by the natives of a region that has its neutrality or pacifism recognised should never result in a breach of that recognition;
   
   
3. A region to which Clause 2 applies should have its neutrality or pacifism respected by the member nations of the World Assembly at all times, regardless of whether a member state identifies as a raider or defender. Yet, nothing in this article should prevent defenders from coming to the aid and defence of a region whose neutrality or pacifism has been recognised, and that is being raided or is under the threat of such, if its natives have requested assistance from those defending entities;
   
   
4. Any region to which Clause 2 applies should not be targeted by any raiding entity as an objective to raid, or as an object to infiltrate with the purpose of changing or removing that region's status as 'neutral', 'pacifist' or both, or changing their regional policies regarding international conduct;
   
   
5. The raiding of a region to which Clause 2 applies, or any other non-fascist region that is not actively involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders, should be treated by the member states of this council of nations as a condemnable act;
   
   
6. Nothing in the articles of this resolution should prevent or discourage natives of a region to which Clause 2 applies, or any other non-fascist region that is not actively involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders, from requesting aid and assistance from defenders in a time of need. Yet, no such plea for help should result in the creation of a debt or situation where the natives of that region owe the defending entity anything for their aid, such as pledging themselves to the cause of the defenders.

---

DRAFT1:

Acknowledging Neutrality and Pacifism
Category: Declaration | Proposed by: Daarwyrth

---

Let it be known that this honourable council laments the nonexistence of any formal acknowledgement of the status of neutrality and pacifism that regions are able to adopt, if they formally wish to declare their position in the eternal struggle between the raiding axes and defending powers; and

To mend such a lack of acknowledgement on the part of this assembly of nations, and to provide regions who have declared their state of neutrality or their intent to strive for peace with protections in the form of recommendations and suggestions for the member states of this noble body to adopt;

The Security Council states the following:

1. A region formally declares its state of neutrality by officially describing itself as 'neutral'. Similarly, a region formally declares its intent to strive for peace by officially describing itself as 'pacifist';
   
   
2. A region that has declared its status as per Article 1 of this resolution should have its status as either 'neutral' or 'pacifist' respected by the member nations of the World Assembly at all times, regardless of whether a member state identifies as a raider or defender. Yet, nothing in this article should prevent defenders from coming to the aid and defence of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist', and is being raided or is under the threat of such, if its natives have requested assistance from those defending entities;
   
   
3. Any region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' should not be targeted by any raiding entity as an objective to raid, or as an object to infiltrate with the purpose of changing or removing that region's status as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or both;
   
   
4. The raiding of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' should be treated by the member states of this council of nations as a condemnable act, and any party to such a raid should be denounced and deplored;
   
   
5. Any member nation that comes to the defence or aid of a region that is being raided or under the threat of such should be praised, and their act of help or protection should be viewed by the member states of this assembly as commendable. Yet, this should apply for as long as that region's status of 'neutral' or 'pacifist' is respected thereafter;
   
   
6. Nothing in the articles of this resolution should prevent or discourage natives of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' from requesting aid and assistance from defenders in a time of need. Yet, no such plea for help should result in the creation of a debt or situation where the natives of that region owe the defending entity anything for their aid, such as pledging themselves to the cause of the defenders.

DRAFT 2:

Acknowledging Neutrality and Pacifism
Category: Declaration | Proposed by: Daarwyrth

---

Let it be known that this honourable council laments the nonexistence of any formal acknowledgement of the status of neutrality and pacifism that regions are able to adopt, if they formally wish to declare their position in the eternal struggle between the raiding axes and defending powers; and

To mend such a lack of acknowledgement on the part of this assembly of nations, and to provide regions who have declared their state of neutrality or their intent to strive for peace with protections in the form of recommendations and suggestions for the member states of this noble body to adopt;

The Security Council states the following:

1. A region has its neutrality recognised if it formally describes itself as 'neutral' or acts accordingly in international conduct. Similarly, a region has its pacifism recognised if it formally describes itself as 'pacifist' or acts accordingly in international conduct;
   
   
2. A region that holds the status of 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or acts accordingly in international conduct should have their neutrality or pacifism respected by the member nations of the World Assembly at all times, regardless of whether a member state identifies as a raider or defender. Yet, nothing in this article should prevent defenders from coming to the aid and defence of a region whose neutrality or pacifism has been recognised, and that is being raided or is under the threat of such, if its natives have requested assistance from those defending entities;
   
   
3. Any region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or acts accordingly in international conduct should not be targeted by any raiding entity as an objective to raid, or as an object to infiltrate with the purpose of changing or removing that region's status as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or both, or changing their policies regarding international conduct;
   
   
4. The raiding of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or acts accordingly in international conduct should be treated by the member states of this council of nations as a condemnable act, and any party to such a raid should be denounced and deplored;
   
   
5. Any member nation that comes to the defence or aid of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or acts accordingly in international conduct, and which is being raided or under the threat of such should be praised, and their act of help or protection should be viewed by the member states of this assembly as commendable. Yet, this should apply for as long as that region's neutrality and pacifism is respected thereafter;
   
   
6. Nothing in the articles of this resolution should prevent or discourage natives of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or acts accordingly in international conduct from requesting aid and assistance from defenders in a time of need. Yet, no such plea for help should result in the creation of a debt or situation where the natives of that region owe the defending entity anything for their aid, such as pledging themselves to the cause of the defenders.

---

DRAFT1:
[spoiler]

Acknowledging Neutrality and Pacifism
Category: Declaration | Proposed by: Daarwyrth

---

Let it be known that this honourable council laments the nonexistence of any formal acknowledgement of the status of neutrality and pacifism that regions are able to adopt, if they formally wish to declare their position in the eternal struggle between the raiding axes and defending powers; and

To mend such a lack of acknowledgement on the part of this assembly of nations, and to provide regions who have declared their state of neutrality or their intent to strive for peace with protections in the form of recommendations and suggestions for the member states of this noble body to adopt;

The Security Council states the following:

1. A region formally declares its state of neutrality by officially describing itself as 'neutral'. Similarly, a region formally declares its intent to strive for peace by officially describing itself as 'pacifist';
   
   
2. A region that has declared its status as per Article 1 of this resolution should have its status as either 'neutral' or 'pacifist' respected by the member nations of the World Assembly at all times, regardless of whether a member state identifies as a raider or defender. Yet, nothing in this article should prevent defenders from coming to the aid and defence of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist', and is being raided or is under the threat of such, if its natives have requested assistance from those defending entities;
   
   
3. Any region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' should not be targeted by any raiding entity as an objective to raid, or as an object to infiltrate with the purpose of changing or removing that region's status as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or both;
   
   
4. The raiding of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' should be treated by the member states of this council of nations as a condemnable act, and any party to such a raid should be denounced and deplored;
   
   
5. Any member nation that comes to the defence or aid of a region that is being raided or under the threat of such should be praised, and their act of help or protection should be viewed by the member states of this assembly as commendable. Yet, this should apply for as long as that region's status of 'neutral' or 'pacifist' is respected thereafter;
   
   
6. Nothing in the articles of this resolution should prevent or discourage natives of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' from requesting aid and assistance from defenders in a time of need. Yet, no such plea for help should result in the creation of a debt or situation where the natives of that region owe the defending entity anything for their aid, such as pledging themselves to the cause of the defenders.

DRAFT 3:

Acknowledging Neutrality and Pacifism
Category: Declaration | Proposed by: Daarwyrth

---

Let it be known that this honourable council laments the nonexistence of any formal acknowledgement of the status of neutrality and pacifism that regions are able to adopt, if they formally wish to declare their position in the eternal struggle between the raiding axes and defending powers; and

To mend such a lack of acknowledgement on the part of this assembly of nations, and to provide regions who have declared their state of neutrality or their intent to strive for peace with protections in the form of recommendations and suggestions for the member states of this noble body to adopt;

The Security Council states the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a 'neutral entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy to not act or carry itself in a manner that would encourage or help any of the parties involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders. Similarly, a 'pacifist entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy that any conflict between regions such as the raider and defender wars is objectionable and should be avoided or opposed at all times.
   
   
2. A region has its neutrality recognised if it formally describes itself as 'neutral' or acts as a neutral entity. Similarly, a region has its pacifism recognised if it formally describes itself as 'pacifist' or acts as a pacifist entity;
   
   
3. A region to which Clause 2 applies should have its neutrality or pacifism respected by the member nations of the World Assembly at all times, regardless of whether a member state identifies as a raider or defender. Yet, nothing in this article should prevent defenders from coming to the aid and defence of a region whose neutrality or pacifism has been recognised, and that is being raided or is under the threat of such, if its natives have requested assistance from those defending entities;
   
   
4. Any region to which Clause 2 applies should not be targeted by any raiding entity as an objective to raid, or as an object to infiltrate with the purpose of changing or removing that region's status as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or both, or changing their regional policies regarding international conduct;
   
   
5. The raiding of a region to which Clause 2 applies should be treated by the member states of this council of nations as a condemnable act, and any party to such a raid should be denounced and deplored;
   
   
6. Any member nation that comes to the defence or aid of a region to which Clause 2 applies, and which is being raided or under the threat of such should be praised, and their act of help or protection should be viewed by the member states of this assembly as commendable. Yet, this should apply for as long as that region's neutrality and pacifism is respected thereafter;
   
   
7. Nothing in the articles of this resolution should prevent or discourage natives of a region to which Clause 2 applies from requesting aid and assistance from defenders in a time of need. Yet, no such plea for help should result in the creation of a debt or situation where the natives of that region owe the defending entity anything for their aid, such as pledging themselves to the cause of the defenders.

DRAFT 4:

Acknowledging Neutrality and Pacifism
Category: Declaration | Proposed by: Daarwyrth

---

Let it be known that this honourable council laments the nonexistence of any formal acknowledgement of the status of neutrality and pacifism that regions are able to adopt, if they formally wish to declare their position in the eternal struggle between the raiding axes and defending powers; and

To mend such a lack of acknowledgement on the part of this assembly of nations, and to provide regions who have declared their state of neutrality or their intent to strive for peace with protections in the form of recommendations and suggestions for the member states of this noble body to adopt;

The Security Council states the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a 'neutral entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy to not act or carry itself in a manner that would encourage or help any of the parties involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders. Similarly, a 'pacifist entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy that any conflict between regions such as the raider and defender wars is objectionable and should be avoided or opposed at all times.
   
   
2. A region has its neutrality recognised if it formally describes itself as 'neutral' or acts as a neutral entity. Similarly, a region has its pacifism recognised if it formally describes itself as 'pacifist' or acts as a pacifist entity. Yet, any such recognition is subject to the limitations set forth by the articles of this resolution;
   
   
3. A region to which Clause 2 applies should have its neutrality or pacifism respected by the member nations of the World Assembly at all times, regardless of whether a member state identifies as a raider or defender. Yet, nothing in this article should prevent defenders from coming to the aid and defence of a region whose neutrality or pacifism has been recognised, and that is being raided or is under the threat of such, if its natives have requested assistance from those defending entities;
   
   
4. Any region to which Clause 2 applies should not be targeted by any raiding entity as an objective to raid, or as an object to infiltrate with the purpose of changing or removing that region's status as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or both, or changing their regional policies regarding international conduct;
   
   
5. The raiding of a region to which Clause 2 applies should be treated by the member states of this council of nations as a condemnable act, and any party to such a raid should be denounced and deplored;
   
   
6. Any member nation that comes to the defence or aid of a region to which Clause 2 applies, and which is being raided or under the threat of such should be praised, and their act of help or protection should be viewed by the member states of this assembly as commendable. Yet, this should apply for as long as that region's neutrality and pacifism is respected thereafter;
   
   
7. Nothing in the articles of this resolution should prevent or discourage natives of a region to which Clause 2 applies from requesting aid and assistance from defenders in a time of need. Yet, no such plea for help should result in the creation of a debt or situation where the natives of that region owe the defending entity anything for their aid, such as pledging themselves to the cause of the defenders;
   
   
8. A region that adheres to fascist ideology or derivates thereof should not be considered as a neutral or pacifist entity under any circumstance, even if it formally describes itself as 'neutral' or 'pacifist', and Clauses 3 to 7 should not apply to any such region.

DRAFT 5:

Acknowledging Neutrality and Pacifism
Category: Declaration | Proposed by: Daarwyrth

---

Let it be known that this honourable council laments the nonexistence of any formal acknowledgement of the status of neutrality and pacifism that regions are able to adopt, if they formally wish to declare their position in the eternal struggle between the raiding axes and defending powers; and

To mend such a lack of acknowledgement on the part of this assembly of nations, and to provide regions who have declared their state of neutrality or their intent to strive for peace with protections in the form of recommendations and suggestions for the member states of this noble body to adopt;

The Security Council states the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a 'neutral entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy to not act or carry itself in a manner that would encourage or help any of the parties involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders. Similarly, a 'pacifist entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy that any conflict between regions such as the raider and defender wars is objectionable and should be avoided or opposed at all times.
   
   
2. A region has its neutrality recognised if it is a non-fascist region which formally describes itself as 'neutral' or acts as a neutral entity. Similarly, a region has its pacifism recognised if it is a non-fascist region which formally describes itself as 'pacifist' or acts as a pacifist entity. Yet, any such recognition is subject to the limitations set forth by the articles of this resolution;
   
   
3. A region to which Clause 2 applies should have its neutrality or pacifism respected by the member nations of the World Assembly at all times, regardless of whether a member state identifies as a raider or defender. Yet, nothing in this article should prevent defenders from coming to the aid and defence of a region whose neutrality or pacifism has been recognised, and that is being raided or is under the threat of such, if its natives have requested assistance from those defending entities;
   
   
4. Any region to which Clause 2 applies should not be targeted by any raiding entity as an objective to raid, or as an object to infiltrate with the purpose of changing or removing that region's status as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or both, or changing their regional policies regarding international conduct;
   
   
5. The raiding of a region to which Clause 2 applies, or any other non-fascist region that is not actively involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders, should be treated by the member states of this council of nations as a condemnable act, and any party to such a raid should be denounced and deplored;
   
   
6. Any member nation that comes to the defence or aid of a region to which Clause 2 applies, or any other non-fascist region that is not actively involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders, and which is being raided or under the threat of such should be praised, and their act of help or protection should be viewed by the member states of this assembly as commendable. Yet, this should apply for as long as that region's neutrality and pacifism is respected thereafter;
   
   
7. Nothing in the articles of this resolution should prevent or discourage natives of a region to which Clause 2 applies, or any other non-fascist region that is not actively involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders, from requesting aid and assistance from defenders in a time of need. Yet, no such plea for help should result in the creation of a debt or situation where the natives of that region owe the defending entity anything for their aid, such as pledging themselves to the cause of the defenders.

DRAFT 6:

Acknowledging Neutrality and Pacifism
Category: Declaration | Proposed by: Daarwyrth

---

Let it be known that this honourable council laments the nonexistence of any formal acknowledgement of the status of neutrality and pacifism that regions are able to adopt, if they formally wish to declare their position in the eternal struggle between the raiding axes and defending powers; and

To mend such a lack of acknowledgement on the part of this assembly of nations, and to provide regions who have declared their state of neutrality or their intent to strive for peace with protections in the form of recommendations and suggestions for the member states of this noble body to adopt;

The Security Council states the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a 'neutral entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy to not act or carry itself in a manner that would encourage or help any of the parties involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders. Similarly, a 'pacifist entity' should be understood as a region that has adopted as its formal international policy that any conflict between regions such as the raider and defender wars is objectionable and should be avoided or opposed at all times.
   
   
2. A region has its neutrality recognised if it is a non-fascist region which formally describes itself as 'neutral' or acts as a neutral entity. Similarly, a region has its pacifism recognised if it is a non-fascist region which formally describes itself as 'pacifist' or acts as a pacifist entity. Yet, any such recognition is subject to the limitations set forth by the articles of this resolution. Additionally, self-defence against a raid by the natives of a region that has its neutrality or pacifism recognised should never result in a breach of that recognition;
   
   
3. A region to which Clause 2 applies should have its neutrality or pacifism respected by the member nations of the World Assembly at all times, regardless of whether a member state identifies as a raider or defender. Yet, nothing in this article should prevent defenders from coming to the aid and defence of a region whose neutrality or pacifism has been recognised, and that is being raided or is under the threat of such, if its natives have requested assistance from those defending entities;
   
   
4. Any region to which Clause 2 applies should not be targeted by any raiding entity as an objective to raid, or as an object to infiltrate with the purpose of changing or removing that region's status as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' or both, or changing their regional policies regarding international conduct;
   
   
5. The raiding of a region to which Clause 2 applies, or any other non-fascist region that is not actively involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders, should be treated by the member states of this council of nations as a condemnable act, and any party to such a raid should be denounced and deplored;
   
   
6. Any member nation that comes to the defence or aid of a region to which Clause 2 applies, or any other non-fascist region that is not actively involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders, and which is being raided or under the threat of such should be praised, and their act of help or protection should be viewed by the member states of this assembly as commendable. Yet, this should apply for as long as that region's neutrality and pacifism is respected thereafter;
   
   
7. Nothing in the articles of this resolution should prevent or discourage natives of a region to which Clause 2 applies, or any other non-fascist region that is not actively involved in the conflicts between raiders and defenders, from requesting aid and assistance from defenders in a time of need. Yet, no such plea for help should result in the creation of a debt or situation where the natives of that region owe the defending entity anything for their aid, such as pledging themselves to the cause of the defenders.

[Comfed]

I think that your declaration should have something about "Neutral" and "Pacifist" regions actually acting as such.

[Daarwyrth]

I think that your declaration should have something about "Neutral" and "Pacifist" regions actually acting as such.

A good suggestion! I'll consider adding it in, in the next draft

[Tinhampton]

I think that your declaration should have something about "Neutral" and "Pacifist" regions actually acting as such.

Daar is probably talking about the Neutral and Pacifist tags. (Now I wonder if it's legal to directly refer to region "tags" in a proposal...)

[Daarwyrth]

I think that your declaration should have something about "Neutral" and "Pacifist" regions actually acting as such.

Daar is probably talking about the Neutral and Pacifist tags. (Now I wonder if it's legal to directly refer to region "tags" in a proposal...)

That is the case, yes, it's specifically about the regions that adopt the tags. I'd welcome any more insight of the question of legality!

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Daar is probably talking about the Neutral and Pacifist tags. (Now I wonder if it's legal to directly refer to region "tags" in a proposal...)

That is the case, yes, it's specifically about the regions that adopt the tags. I'd welcome any more insight of the question of legality!

From the SC rules, specifically 2(a)

Tag" (and other variants - "tagging", "detagging" etc.) - legal when referring to the raider/defender practices.

[The Orwell Society]

I'll support any well-written declaration with a good message, and this falls under both. Support.

[Tinhampton]

Anyway, this is sensible enough

[Daarwyrth]

From the SC rules, specifically 2(a)

Tag" (and other variants - "tagging", "detagging" etc.) - legal when referring to the raider/defender practices.

That is indeed why I thought this should be doable, because it is indeed referencing raider/defender practices. Thank your for the quote nonetheless!

[Refuge Isle]

From the SC rules, specifically 2(a)

Tag" (and other variants - "tagging", "detagging" etc.) - legal when referring to the raider/defender practices.

That is indeed why I thought this should be doable, because it is indeed referencing raider/defender practices. Thank your for the quote nonetheless!

I think you might be misunderstanding. A "tag" in raiding is to take over a region, change its WFE into an advertisement, demolish embassies, construct embassies with the home region, sometimes suppress the RMB etc. Detagging is reversing that. While it includes adjusting region tags, a region's tags are not the same as tagging.

[Daarwyrth]

I think you might be misunderstanding. A "tag" in raiding is to take over a region, change its WFE into an advertisement, demolish embassies, construct embassies with the home region, sometimes suppress the RMB etc. Detagging is reversing that. While it includes adjusting region tags, a region's tags are not the same as tagging.

Ah, I wasn’t aware of that, thank you for explaining. So, do I understand correctly that the proposal would be illegal in its current form, as it references the tags like 'neutral'?

[Astrobolt]

Why is it that only regions which declare themselves to be neutral or pacifist are given protection? Why not all regions except those which regularly raid or grief others?

[Daarwyrth]

Why is it that only regions which declare themselves to be neutral or pacifist are given protection? Why not all regions except those which regularly raid or grief others?

The idea I had was that choosing the pacifist or neutral tag is a fairly conscious choice, like it's an overt declaration on where you stand regarding the raider/defender issue. While I don't disagree with what you're saying, I believed that those regions in particular should receive some form of protection plus, it may encourage regions to actively declare their intent for neutrality or pacifism, and not stay within a limbo of apathy, so to speak.

[Astrobolt]

Why is it that only regions which declare themselves to be neutral or pacifist are given protection? Why not all regions except those which regularly raid or grief others?

The idea I had was that choosing the pacifist or neutral tag is a fairly conscious choice, like it's an overt declaration on where you stand regarding the raider/defender issue. While I don't disagree with what you're saying, I believed that those regions in particular should receive some form of protection plus, it may encourage regions to actively declare their intent for neutrality or pacifism, and not stay within a limbo of apathy, so to speak.

Why are neutral regions more deserving of protection than other regions, such as those which are, or support defenders?

[Daarwyrth]

Why are neutral regions more deserving of protection than other regions, such as those which are, or support defenders?

As I said before, because those regions choose to be neutral, they choose not be involved in the struggle. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're more deserving, I simply chose this as my subject of focus, as I'm not at all well-versed in the intricacies of raiders and defenders yet

[Refuge Isle]

I think you might be misunderstanding. A "tag" in raiding is to take over a region, change its WFE into an advertisement, demolish embassies, construct embassies with the home region, sometimes suppress the RMB etc. Detagging is reversing that. While it includes adjusting region tags, a region's tags are not the same as tagging.

Ah, I wasn’t aware of that, thank you for explaining. So, do I understand correctly that the proposal would be illegal in its current form, as it references the tags like 'neutral'?

Referring to the tags themselves would be a violation. That said, "neutral" and "pacifist" are concepts that exist in the world and are able to stand alone in that regard. To my personal assessment, while the proper noun thing is a little weird, your writing can be interpreted as referring to the concepts of a region being pacifist or neutral. This is supported by such phrases as "describing itself as", "identifies as", "declaring its intent to strive for", which indicate a deeper meaning than just the game tag. And that's probably the right way to go. Mods will have the last word on it however.

I would share Astro's concern that probably most regions that get raided aren't signing up to do so, and the existing tags a region has aren't much of a concern to raiders when they hit. That is to say that the only way regions can really opt-out of getting raided is when it's impossible to do so. But I'm not against the concept. It's possible to come up with a verbiage that recognises regions' neutrality, how that should ideally be interacted with, and promote their inherent sovereignty.

[Daarwyrth]

Referring to the tags themselves would be a violation. That said, "neutral" and "pacifist" are concepts that exist in the world and are able to stand alone in that regard. To my personal assessment, while the proper noun thing is a little weird, your writing can be interpreted as referring to the concepts of a region being pacifist or neutral. This is supported by such phrases as "describing itself as", "identifies as", "declaring its intent to strive for", which indicate a deeper meaning than just the game tag. And that's probably the right way to go. Mods will have the last word on it however.

That is indeed what I was going for, yes. I'll see to perhaps decapitalising the nouns so that what you speak of is further emphasised.

I would share Astro's concern that probably most regions that get raided aren't signing up to do so, and the existing tags a region has aren't much of a concern to raiders when they hit. That is to say that the only way regions can really opt-out of getting raided is when it's impossible to do so. But I'm not against the concept. It's possible to come up with a verbiage that recognises regions' neutrality, how that should ideally be interacted with, and promote their inherent sovereignty.

I definitely do agree with the viewpoints raised. For now, I'll keep the draft focused on neutral and pacifist regions, but based on further feedback and commentary I'll consider changing it to a wider scope of regions.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Let it be known that this honourable council laments the nonexistence of any formal acknowledgement of the status of neutrality and pacifism that regions are able to adopt, if they formally wish to declare their position in the eternal struggle between the raiding axes and defending powers; and

What is "raiding axes" meant to refer to, out of curiosity? I am possibly just misinterpreting the clause, my apologies if so.

A region formally declares its state of neutrality by officially describing itself as 'neutral'. Similarly, a region formally declares its intent to strive for peace by officially describing itself as 'pacifist';

It might simply be me, but I always assumed it was defenders who (officially) strove for peace. Would that not be the view of the World Assembly?

The raiding of a region that identifies as 'neutral' or 'pacifist' should be treated by the member states of this council of nations as a condemnable act, and any party to such a raid should be denounced and deplored;

And raiding a region without such a tag isn't condemnable? Sure, directly raiding a defender region is perhaps a fairer fight, and I do agree with the idea that a region uninvolved in R/D might deserve some more sympathy or protection than a region that has chosen to directly interfere in the conflict, but I doubt most regions we target expressedly proclaim a neutral stance on raiding or defending, rather than just disregarding its existence. While I understand that the intent behind this resolution seems to be affording regions tagged "neutral" and/or "pacifist" additional protection, I fail to see who could or would throw their support behind this. To defenders, you'd assume all regions would be equal, regardless of tags (problematic tags excepted) - as such, you'd assume they would not want to broadcast a message that implies any region not tagged "neutral" or pacifist" is somehow a lesser priority. To raiders, there is little in the way of a reason for us to respect the proposal, let alone support it.

So I am curious: why should a region tagged "neutral" be regarded as more important than a region with no tags on the matter of invading?

Any member nation that comes to the defence or aid of a region that is being raided or under the threat of such should be praised, and their act of help or protection should be viewed by the member states of this assembly as commendable. Yet, this should apply for as long as that region's status of 'neutral' or 'pacifist' is respect thereafter;

I believe "is respect thereafter" is an error. Additionally, this does not specify the neutrality of the hypothetical defended region, unlike the rest of the proposal (and what I assume is its subject matter).

[Daarwyrth]

What is "raiding axes" meant to refer to, out of curiosity? I am possibly just misinterpreting the clause, my apologies if so.

Oh, "axes" in this instance is meant to be the plural form of "axis"

It might simply be me, but I always assumed it was defenders who (officially) strove for peace. Would that not be the view of the World Assembly?

Oh, I admit I don't know for sure. The "strive for peace" was meant to reference the "pacifist" tag, so I might consider rewording it.

And raiding a region without such a tag isn't condemnable? Sure, directly raiding a defender region is perhaps a fairer fight, and I do agree with the idea that a region uninvolved in R/D might deserve some more sympathy or protection than a region that has chosen to directly interfere in the conflict, but I doubt most regions we target expressedly proclaim a neutral stance on raiding or defending, rather than just disregarding its existence. While I understand that the intent behind this resolution seems to be affording regions tagged "neutral" and/or "pacifist" additional protection, I fail to see who could or would throw their support behind this. To defenders, you'd assume all regions would be equal, regardless of tags (problematic tags excepted) - as such, you'd assume they would not want to broadcast a message that implies any region not tagged "neutral" or pacifist" is somehow a lesser priority. To raiders, there is little in the way of a reason for us to respect the proposal, let alone support it.

So I am curious: why should a region tagged "neutral" be regarded as more important than a region with no tags on the matter of invading?

Of course, it's not the intent here to differentiate between regions and say one is more deserving of protection than another, or more important than another. I wanted to focus on neutral and pacifist regions in this particular proposal, but by no means is that meant to indicate or say that any other raid is any less condemnable. I'll try to rephrase that part to better suit the intent that I had in the next draft.

I believe "is respect thereafter" is an error. Additionally, this does not specify the neutrality of the hypothetical defended region, unlike the rest of the proposal (and what I assume is its subject matter).

Yes, it was meant to be "respected" instead of "respect". I'll also indicate the neutrality more clearly.

[Unibot III]

I’m not sure I see the value in this resolution as many founderless regions won’t follow the WASC closely and the lack of a tag doesn’t mean their invasion is justified.

In fairness to raiders too, how legitimate is a tag? What if a region that really isn’t neutral, tags itself as neutral?

However, I do think that last clause has a nugget of a better idea in it, something about the conduct of defenders. You may see a political compromise form around legislation that dictates how defenders should behave — like, for instance, a defender shouldn’t tag or alter a native WFE, and they shouldn’t set a “debt” on services rendered without prior authorization. There’s probably a lot of “no brainer” rules that you could put together as expectations for good defender conduct.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Of course, it's not the intent here to differentiate between regions and say one is more deserving of protection than another, or more important than another. I wanted to focus on neutral and pacifist regions in this particular proposal, but by no means is that meant to indicate or say that any other raid is any less condemnable. I'll try to rephrase that part to better suit the intent that I had in the next draft.

My question does still remain on why pacifist and neutral regions should be recognised as separate. If they are not more deserving of protection or more condemnable to invade as any other regions, then what sets them apart that warrants a declaration? All it says is that such regions should be protected and any infringement upon that neutrality or the regions’ sovereignty should be condemned, but that is the case for regions not tagged neutral or pacifist as well, and you do not intend to imply they are special in that regard. Put bluntly, I fail to see what justifies the draft.

[Comfed]

I do not think that it really makes sense to base this off region tags.

[Daarwyrth]

I have extend the scope of the protections in this resolution. The proposal doesn't only rely on the tags now, but also applies to any region that acts accordingly with those tags, so in other words, which acts as a neutral or pacifist region in international conduct.

[Comfed]

I have extend the scope of the protections in this resolution. The proposal doesn't only rely on the tags now, but also applies to any region that acts accordingly with those tags, so in other words, which acts as a neutral or pacifist region in international conduct.

It should apply only to the latter regions.

[Astrobolt]

What is the definition of neutral or pacifist here?