PASSED: Repeal "Commend 10000 Islands"

[Aegara]

Argument: The Peoples of the World Assembled,

RECOGNISING that whilst "Commend 10000 Islands" was well intentioned, and was intended to recognise the contribution of 10000 Islands to the game;
APPALLED that such a badly written resolution is allowed to stand;

DECLARING that extra-regional alliances should not have a place in the Commendation of one region;

CONDEMNING the bias towards defenders that has been shown in the Commendation of 10000 Islands;

WISHING to maintain the time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions;

HEREBY repeals "Commend 10000 Islands" on the grounds that displays obvious ideological and technical flaws.

Please discuss, questions are welcome.

[Sedgistan]

You should probably see this: viewtopic.php?p=794170#p794170

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

HEREBY repeals "Commend 10000 Islands"

Lets not. As I understand it, 10000 Islands is happy with the commendation as written. Don't you think there are more worthwhile things the WA could spend its time on?

[Sedgistan]

(from the other thread)

Hello, if I may just explain the phrasing there, what I meant by "neutrality" is that it does not openly support either side in the "defender" and "raider" game. This resolution seems to be heavily in favour of defenders.

Well the WA is prefectly entitled to favour whatever side it wants, and it seems to support the side of those who go around protecting regions (such as 10000 Islands), rather than those who go around destroying them. Whats wrong with that?

[Aegara]

To be clear, I am not working on behalf of 10KI (as they have asked others to in the past) to assist them with repealing this Commend and then writing a new one. I am writing this one solely because I believe that this resolution is a poorly written one that show significant bias in the WA. A very bad thing, I'm sure you'll agree.

[Aegara]

@Segistan: I am not talking about the WA voting one way or the other. That is none of my business. But what I am against is favouritism written into resolutions. For instance, this is akin to saying in a tax resolution

"This tax resolution exempts all nations with the letter "o" in their name, because they are cool"

And I have no doubt that resolution would immidiately be thrown out.

[Sedgistan]

To be clear, I am not working on behalf of 10KI (as they have asked others to in the past) to assist them with repealing this Commend and then writing a new one. I am writing this one solely because I believe that this resolution is a poorly written one that show significant bias in the WA. A very bad thing, I'm sure you'll agree.

Poorly written, I dislike - but I've given up supporting repeals of resolutions which are just poorly written, since if the region concerned isn't bothered, there's no real need to waste time on them.

As for bias, see my above post (and Kenny's in the other thread).

[Sedgistan]

@Segistan: I am not talking about the WA voting one way or the other. That is none of my business. But what I am against is favouritism written into resolutions. For instance, this is akin to saying in a tax resolution

"This tax resolution exempts all nations with the letter "o" in their name, because they are cool"

And I have no doubt that resolution would immidiately be thrown out.

I don't see how this applies to 10000 Islands' commendation. Its thanking 10000 Islands for being a particularly good defender region. Yes, the WA favours defenders, but why is that wrong?

[Savaer]

Why isn't it wrong is more the question. The WA is supposed to act as an impartial base. Regardless of the Alliance based from it's stance, a region shouldn't be commended just for that. That would be like commending Grand Central for Aegara approving a liberation proposal. Just because TITO exists in 10k islands, doesn't mean 10k Islands should get a commendation.

You certainly don't see any raider orgs with a condemnation just for a military that crashes regions. You don't see any raider regions with commends on them just for not being 'griefers' by the perverse twisting of the term. By that, I mean 'if you take even one region of even one inactive nation, kick them and keep it, you're a griefer.' All that commend to 10k is, is a pat on the back to their military, not their region. Therefore, the bias is disgusting. It wouldn't be bad if it commended 10k as a whole, but no, it's only their military. Literally nothing more than a pride stroking for Grub.

But then....what's being a hero if you do it for no praise, no gain? Oh wait. It's being a hero. Doing it for your ego is nothing more than raiding with a cause

[Sedgistan]

The WA isn't supposed to be an impartial base, or we wouldn't have it voting, and thereby expressing a collective opinion. 10KI isn't being commended just for being a defender region - its being commended for being an exceptional one. The WA can commend a region for whatever aspects of it that it likes - it doesn't have to cite everything that the region did - in this case, only the defending was necessary to get the support of the NS community.

No matter how many times you griefers try and claim otherwise, defenders are the good guys, and thats why the WA has so far shown them its support (the exception being Equilism). And that last bit about praise is just a bit silly. For a start, 10KI have been defending for years - since well before Commendations existed. You can't seriously be suggesting they've been doing it in anticipation of being commended several years later? Even if they had (which blatantly isn't the case), you can do things for several reasons - the praise AND the satisfaction of helping out other regions (rather than greifing them... like Unknown does).

[Savaer]

Must not be that bad of griefing. No one's bothered condemning us for it. Although, you must be referring to Time! XD The region with three puppets owned by the point, a fourth owned by a defender she knew, and you! Although if you mean Sweden, I've telegrammed each banjected and informed them i'll be unbanning the banned when I depart. Or do you mean Prussia Reborn? The region that the FRA could have saved by simply removing spies from any of three regions? Spies>Regional Sovereignty? How does Falc sleep at night after that? Peacefully I hope. I certainly do.

Mmhmm, so...what you're saying is if a region defends for years it deserves a pat on the back just for that? Huh. How's that work with condemns, where all you need is the word 'Nazi' in your name to get condemned? I presume by being the, uh, good guys....and with the WA showing support to defenders, than by logic 'griefers,' as you love calling us, that attack Nazi regions only would be good guys? Shouldn't they get a commend? After all, Nazi Europe was condemned, the only repeal to come up to vote was shot down, and all just for being 'Nazi'. There's raider regions that solely raid nazis. (Hell, even I'll raid a Nazi region given the opportunity. I'm not bashful. I'll burn it to the ground too.)

And no, I certainly wasn't suggesting TITO and it's home region were defending for years knowing, anticipating, or thinking they'd be commended down the line. I don't believe in ESP for one, and two, that's just plain silly. Although I hear Grub was quite mad when the first repeal commend 10k came up to vote. If that isn't self absorbed egotism, I don't know what is. *shrug* I admit, I'm an arrogant egotist, but at least I don't get huffy one way or the other on C&C's regarding Unknown (Still surprised we haven't been condemned )

Although if you really want to impress me, Sedge, define griefer, then follow it with the definition of raider and invader. I don't think you know the difference. Everyone loves calling Raiders and Invaders 'griefers' regardless of what they do. If you are going by regions we own, I personally own 18 regions. Of them, two I killed. One being Prussia Reborn for the FRA's reluctance to remove spies from a few regions, the other being retaliation for claiming responsibility for the founder hack of New Folsom. You call me greifer, but I've only destroyed two regions. Unknown itself as a military center has left only 4 regions in ruin. Two that were dying anyhow. By reality, one of, we could have waited 5 days as the two natives CTE'd anyhow. But Unknown's practices aren't up for debate, now are they, Sedge? Or are you wanting information to write a condemnation that actually holds a scant amount of truth?

Even Kandarin feels the bias is used simply because of the larger amount of NS not going on the forum, and being oblivious to the raider-defender game (Until of course they have a raider WAD pop up suddenly and they find they're being occupied. What a way to get baptized in raider mechanics, eh? Heh heh heh) So your 'collective opinion' theory is more 'ignorant to surroundings' opinion.

Should 10KI have a commend? Eh. Probably. Although they deserve a condemnation for the forum color scheme. XD I just don't feel they should be commended for being defender. It's like condemning a nazi region for having the word 'Nazi' in it. Oh yeaaah. The WA does that too! I keep forgetting that obliviousness tends to allow for the silliest resos to pass.

[Neasmyrna]

I just don't feel they should be commended for being defender.

If the WA just commended people for being defenders they have a few more regions to go. 10KI was commended for their exceptional and long lasting work defending regions across the game... I don't think anyone just said... "hey, let's commend some defender regions for fun"

This resolution passed by a good margin and previous attempts at repeals have not been successful even though they contained the same reasons you are stating in this thread.

[Enn]

There've been, what, two Commendations passed? I'm not sure much precedent should be drawn from them.
If the raiders want to put serious effort into getting a commendation up for a Raider region, then they can go and do that. Then we might get this 'neutrality'.

[Kandarin]

Even Kandarin feels the bias is used simply because of the larger amount of NS not going on the forum, and being oblivious to the raider-defender game (Until of course they have a raider WAD pop up suddenly and they find they're being occupied. What a way to get baptized in raider mechanics, eh? Heh heh heh) So your 'collective opinion' theory is more 'ignorant to surroundings' opinion.

To clarify (since of all the folks in this thread, only you saw that post): I don't think most NS nations don't have either invader sympathies or defender sympathies. A majority (probably) of NS and the WA don't really know about the I/D game. Thus for this and almost any NS subject matter, getting a commend/condemn passed requires selling it to people who haven't really heard of the subject matter before. The defender community has a lot more skill and experience overall in dealing amicably with those outside of their branch of the game than invaders do, so as a result they have an easier time promoting resolutions to the world at large. There's no set-in-stone reason why it has to be this way; it's just a matter of the present state of invader and defender cultures. There was a time when invaders were the more urbane and political types and defenders generally skulked around in the dark. If the SC was around then, I have no doubt as to who would have had an easier time promoting resolutions. It is something that can be changed.

In any case, the SC is supposed to be something that any aspect of NS can use, so it should be possible (albeit requiring as much promotion and politics as anything else) for invaders to commend an invader nation/region for excellence in what they do. Defenders shouldn't be getting commended just for defending, nor invaders just for invading. As it stands, however, I don't think this is what's been going on. Macedon wasn't condemned on account of being invaders, they were condemned because they have a (quite truthful, if you ask me) bad reputation and have earned a lot of ill-will from much of the rest of the world. While I'd like to see the resolution written better, 10KI wasn't commended just for being defenders. Their commendation was made possible by building a strong positive reputation beyond their niche (although I see not everyone holds such a positive view of them!). If someone tried to, say, Commend Eagle Clan or Condemn Unknown in the same terms, it probably wouldn't work.

There is also (as Enn said while I was typing this) the volume of existing SC legislation to consider. If the SC is to be usable by more than one NS community, it must by necessity have a looser precedent structure than the GA - that is, one that allows for the recognition of nations/regions from more than one community. A commendation of a defender region shouldn't be taken as a precedent that the SC is there to commend defenders and nobody else. It is there to recognize aspects of all NS communities; rather than feeling locked out because the first regional commendation was from a different/opposing group, they ought to be campaigning to put their own luminaries up for C&Cs. Only then will the SC have the multifaceted precedent that it needs to be used by more than one group.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Wildly off-topic. I think this thread is about 10000 Islands.

[Kandarin]

Wildly off-topic. I think this thread is about 10000 Islands.

The thread is about the repeal. Bias in favor of defenders was given as a reason for the appeal, and so it makes perfect sense to question or support that reason here.

[Cell Phones Anonymous]

Aye, you're right. I did forget to link to that post as it's in a standard member's view (I'd get accused of IP phishing but hey! ) As I said, should 10KI get a commendation? Probably. Should it get one solely for ONE facet? Solely a commendation for defending well? No. I agree with Kandarin, just as an invader region shouldn't be commended or condemned solely for invading. The intent may not have specified solely for defending, however, it leaves room to become a precedent as it is kept specifically focused on the defender attribute.

Leaving that commendation as is is effectively the same as passing condemnations full of false, misleading, or inaccurate information. It's a perversion of the system. "Waste the WA's time?" Since when is maintaining a shred of integrity and preventing a precedent of ignorance a waste of time? A waste of time is voting in a proposal that is flawed. Certainly no one is perfect, but it's a whole different grade when a commendation is fixated on only one aspect of a region and actually passes.

-Savaer. XD Damn puppet.

[Krioval]

Precedent, such as it is, has nothing to say as to whether a defender region should be commended as such. Of course, "Commend 10000 Islands" was commended as the "HQ region of TITO", which implies to me (not an invader/defender) that it was about more than just defending. Further, the region is happy with the text as-is. Why not try to get commendations for raider regions who operate well, and actually use the WASC as a political organization, which it is?

[Kalibarr]

Given that WA resolutions(including SC resolutions) are for RP purposes and that the mere existence of liberations seems to hold a defender bias already, we support this repeal for increased WA neutrality.

Edit:took out extra defender

[Topid]

Awww I was planning to re-do mine next week.

Oh well, I support yours too. You shouldn't have a problem making quorum it was really easy for mine last time, just telegram a few delegates and you are set.

[Savaer]

Chances of those every happening are slim to none. Primary reason being individuals such as Sedge, who has yet to define a griefer and a raider here, have convoluted the term Griefer to be the same as raider. So anyone trying to get a raider region commended is going to be running against a brick wall due to the anti-raider hype that has been put on many of our regions. For example, Sedges last post before i noted the grand total of 4 regions Unknown has claimed as ours and kept. He called Unknown griefers, why? I have no qualms of kicking obnoxious natives. Because I took out two regions and in one of those, I effectively put the FRA at blame for not stopping it. They had the password and could liberate it, they knew the conditions but refused to concur. No liberation attempt whatsoever. (Due note, the password was native instated and visible. the FRA, TITO and CoJ all had it.)

We brought down a couple other dying regions, so now we're Griefers. The irony is, I have in my possession founder of many of our former raids. Why? CTE'd all on their lonesome. An example being 'Vampire Underground'. I liked the region, now I own it. Would I kick people that moved there? No, of course not. Prussia Reborn is the same. Where once is was a suicide locked region, I've brought new air to it. It's begun to grow. Whereas it was failing like a dead animal on life support.

Moral of my tangent? Because of extremely FEW refounds out of 44 raids, people among the FRA spread that we are griefers when we do far less raiding that falls under the term 'griefing' by pre-regional influence rules. To be honest, I don't agree with rampant region destruction (Eventually, there'd be nothing left to raid >_<) but there are times it's merited. When are those times? See my above post about the hacker. In those instances...all bets are off.

As far as 10KI being happy with it, of course they're happy! It's a commendation! They're the good guys, commendations are for good guy regions, regardless why they got it. Savvy? I realize that C&C's can work both ways, but that's not what the repeal is about. The repeal is that, if they are to be commended, at least to have more than just made X amount of defense missions (of which they count losses. A+ for effort though. Nice count.) and that they are the base HQ of TITO.

[Grub]

This has to be the seventh or eight attempted repeal of this commendation. Enough is enough. What a waste of time to try and bring this before the WA again. Nations that continually waste the time of WA members with votes on issues that have been approved or rejected multiple times should be condemned themselves.

Grub

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Damn straight.

[Morlago]

This is totally out of the question. Since when was the WA neutral?! If it were, we would be having only one law in the book: The "Neutrality" Resolution. Why do we bother wasting our time voting then? Why create the categories of Promoting/Banning Drug laws? Why bother having Relaxing/Tightening Gun Laws proposals?

[Bears Armed]

@Segistan: I am not talking about the WA voting one way or the other. That is none of my business. But what I am against is favouritism written into resolutions. For instance, this is akin to saying in a tax resolution

"This tax resolution exempts all nations with the letter "o" in their name, because they are cool"

And I have no doubt that resolution would immidiately be thrown out.

It would be thrown out because the rules explicitly don't allow GA resolutions to include such exemptions.