[PASSED] Repeal "Liberate Catholic"

[Christian Democrats]

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 82
Repeal "Liberate Catholic"

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC#80 | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The Security Council,

Recognizing that the military forces that occupied the region of Catholic withdrew two days after the passage of Resolution 80, "Liberate Catholic," thereby allowing the native government to resume power,

Applauding the liberation resolution for accomplishing its goal of preventing Catholic from being totally destroyed,

Realizing that the same liberation resolution now prevents the native delegate of Catholic from password protecting the region, which greatly threatens the security of Catholic in the future,

Believing that all regions, especially populous regions like Catholic, should be able to defend themselves against threats of invasion,

Repeals Security Council Resolution 80, "Liberate Catholic."

Coauthor: Devoted Decons

REACHED QUORUM ON MARCH 9, 2012

PASSED 8,064 TO 2,074 ON MARCH 13, 2012

[United Celts]

On behalf of Exshaw, I strongly oppose this repeal and will launch a full scale campaign against it the moment it reaches quorum. If there exists a right to free and unrestricted movement into Catholic, that right exists whether the Delegate is invader or native. Put another way, you made this bed -- or more accurately, stood by while defenders made it for you -- now lie in it.

Liberate Catholic was hastily drafted and submitted with absolutely no evidence that the invading Delegate was planning a purge. No purge ever resulted, the invaders left of their own accord and without defender intervention, and Liberate Catholic was absolutely unnecessary. I argued before Liberate Catholic's passage that it would leave Catholic vulnerable to future raiding and I warned that I would oppose repeal. Those warnings went unheeded. Face it: You were provoked by clever invaders into doing exactly what they wanted, and you did it even after being persistently warned what would happen. It's bad enough that the Security Council so willingly made itself a rubber stamp for defender policy by passing Liberate Catholic; this Council shouldn't double down on that by immediately repealing it.

I urge other members of the Security Council to make the citizens of Catholic live with the consequences of their hasty actions for at least a little while and, once again, to refrain from being a rubber stamp for defender policy. I urge the Delegates from raider, raider-friendly, and even neutral regions who would prefer to see the Security Council be something besides a weapon in the defender arsenal not to approve this repeal and to vote against it should it reach quorum.

[Unibot II]

Face it: You were provoked by clever invaders into doing exactly what they wanted, and you did it even after being persistently warned what would happen. It's bad enough that the Security Council so willingly made itself a rubber stamp for defender policy by passing Liberate Catholic; this Council shouldn't double down on that by immediately repealing it.

The purpose of this institution is the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary; The Security Council took the actions necessary to protect Catholic and now it is perfectly acceptable to retract it's early protections for the sake of Native Rights. Only in a world where native communities meant nothing to the Security Council and its cause was the dissemination of inter-regional conflict and bad-will would our Council harbor such schizophrenic ill-sentiments to native communities.

The Security Council is not the "rubber stamp" for defender policy, the considerable overlap of humanitarian interests is easily explainable: The Security Council is committed to goodwill and it should not delve into your kind of retributive injustice.

[United Celts]

And if the Security Council repeals Liberate Catholic and the region is invaded again next week, will CD and the Catholic Delegate be back here asking for another liberation resolution and another repeal three days later?

They wanted a liberation resolution. They have a liberation resolution. Asking the Security Council to repeal it three days later is preposterous.

[Unibot II]

And if the Security Council repeals Liberate Catholic and the region is invaded again next week, will CD and the Catholic Delegate be back here asking for another liberation resolution and another repeal three days later?

In that situation, the raiders are trolling them -- The Security Council should be above trolling and should endeavor to help the unfortunate victims of these back-to-back invasions. You're arguing as if liberations cost the Security Council money and we're the welfare providers; the only resource that is used by submitting a repeal or a liberation is time: (1) liberations and their repeals do not circumvent the queue -- CD still has to "wait his turn", (2) the security of a region is a major issue -- it's what the Security Council is here for, (3) time is a near infinite resource, we always have more time to do stuff.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

And what message would refusing to repeal liberate catholic send, precisely, as to the World Assembly's goals and intentions?

Agree with our every desire or face our determination to block your self-determination?

As to the original resolution, surely an invader delegate setting a password is prima facie evidence of malicious intent? Indeed, under the original policy on griefing, any password concealed from native nations of a region was griefing, and this was a rule made for good reason. By setting a secret password, the invader delegate made it impossible for native nations to freely return to the region. This could be used to inflict further malice by "purging" the region of its native nations (further griefing) but even the password in and of itself is wrong. In addition, through careful observation the Zemnaya Svoboda Ministry of Intelligence is able to report to the World Assembly that the invader delegate banned spiritu from Catholic, Spiritu having been resident in Catholic since January 8th, 2012. This combines to not one but two forms of griefing of the native nations.

As to invaders leaving of their own accord with the liberation having passed that tells us nothing as to what the invaders might have done had it not passed.

[Unibot II]

By setting a secret password, the invader delegate made it impossible for native nations to freely return to the region.

Indeed, I believe it's called the "Right to Return" in real political dialogue.

[United Celts]

In other words, once again the Security Council should pass this because defenders say so. No other good reason. There was no evidence of any purge, yet Liberate Catholic was vitally necessary. There is no evidence that Catholic will face another raid, yet Repeal "Liberate Catholic" is vitally necessary. There's a theme here, and the theme is that the defenders come into the Security Council demanding that what they want be done immediately or terrible things will happen. Except, astonishingly enough, none of those terrible things are happening.

Completely OOC: If the Security Council keeps operating as a rubber stamp for defending, it's going to seriously impact gameplay. What motivation is there for raiders even continuing to participate in gameplay if the SC is going to remove password protection for a region to help defenders defend it and then reinstate it three days later to prevent raiders from raiding? I assume there are at least some defenders who actually enjoy gameplay. You do realize that if you completely demoralize raiders, gameplay won't exist -- right? You kind of need raids to defend.

[Ballotonia]

United Celts does have a reasonably good point, actually.

A region is IMHO more secure with a Liberate resolution in force, regardless of who has the delegacy that day. A password won't stop an invasion. Passwords tend to leak to let nations in, and that's when invaders do come in as well. A password is great when one wants to completely shut down all entry into the region (never giving out the password to anyone, ever), but is a poor way to defend a region against invasion.

Just as with the removal of the Liberate Resolution from Eastern Europe, I do think the natives are making a mistake by getting rid of the Liberate Resolution on their region. And we know how badly that turned out. But I still do believe native rights trump my personal opinion on the matter, and as such will support the native (ill-considered) efforts to remove the Liberate Resolution.

Completely OOC: If the Security Council keeps operating as a rubber stamp for defending, it's going to seriously impact gameplay. What motivation is there for raiders even continuing to participate in gameplay if the SC is going to remove password protection for a region to help defenders defend it and then reinstate it three days later to prevent raiders from raiding? I assume there are at least some defenders who actually enjoy gameplay. You do realize that if you completely demoralize raiders, gameplay won't exist -- right? You kind of need raids to defend.

Right now there are substantially more invaders than defenders. I think the graver concern should be defenders ending up demoralized and giving up.

Ballotonia

[Cinistra]

And if the Security Council repeals Liberate Catholic and the region is invaded again next week, will CD and the Catholic Delegate be back here asking for another liberation resolution and another repeal three days later?

They wanted a liberation resolution. They have a liberation resolution. Asking the Security Council to repeal it three days later is preposterous.

The power abuse by fendas reach new hights with this one, indeed. Catholic behaves like a spoilt child. "Mummy, I want ice cream!" *Mummy gives spoilt child ice cream*. "Mummy, I don't want ice cream after all. I want candy!" And now mummy caves in for another demand? NO!
With the liberation, and the possible repeal of Catholic, we have a demonstrated clearly that the "security" of any regions is at the whim of a few players. Catholic: you asked for a liberation. Now live with it.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Apparently the Security Council is in the business these days of passing liberation resolutions that are authored by non-natives and without first consulting natives. Just ask the co-authors of Liberate Catholic.

United Celts needs to make up his mind.

I will support if natives wish for a repeal.

[Mahaj]

I must ask one question first.

Does Devoted Deacons have the influence to password the region at the moment?

[Cinistra]

I must ask one question first.

Does Devoted Deacons have the influence to password the region at the moment?

Why do you ask this question? Your liberation stripped any WA delegate's power to pw protect the region. His influence is irrelevant.

[Devoted Decons]

I've been delegate for over a year. I have enough influence to eject/banject the nation in our region with the most influence. So, yeah... I have enough influence for a password. I've put a password in place several times to protect the region. But, as Cinistra points out, right now I can't.

[Damanucus]

I have seen the results of the Liberation, and now believe it is time for the region of Catholic to rebuild itself. If it means allowing it to erect protections that have been otherwise prevented from occurring, thn so be the case.

I support this repeal. (OOC: Just make sure you PP it as soon as the repeal passes.)

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Mahaj]

I must ask one question first.

Does Devoted Deacons have the influence to password the region at the moment?

Why do you ask this question? Your liberation stripped any WA delegate's power to pw protect the region. His influence is irrelevant.

If the liberation was repealed now but D.D. doesn't have influence to password for a year, then its risky and stupid to repeal.

As he has the influence, i support.

[Drop Your Pants]

If the delegates want it then I'll support the proposal.

[Unibot II]

United Celts does have a reasonably good point, actually.

A region is IMHO more secure with a Liberate resolution in force, regardless of who has the delegacy that day. A password won't stop an invasion. Passwords tend to leak to let nations in, and that's when invaders do come in as well. A password is great when one wants to completely shut down all entry into the region (never giving out the password to anyone, ever), but is a poor way to defend a region against invasion.

Just as with the removal of the Liberate Resolution from Eastern Europe, I do think the natives are making a mistake by getting rid of the Liberate Resolution on their region. And we know how badly that turned out. But I still do believe native rights trump my personal opinion on the matter, and as such will support the native (ill-considered) efforts to remove the Liberate Resolution.

Basically my opinion on the matter too, regions are generally better off retaining their liberation status but I'm not going to vote against the native will.

[Cinistra]

United Celts does have a reasonably good point, actually.

A region is IMHO more secure with a Liberate resolution in force, regardless of who has the delegacy that day. A password won't stop an invasion. Passwords tend to leak to let nations in, and that's when invaders do come in as well. A password is great when one wants to completely shut down all entry into the region (never giving out the password to anyone, ever), but is a poor way to defend a region against invasion.

Just as with the removal of the Liberate Resolution from Eastern Europe, I do think the natives are making a mistake by getting rid of the Liberate Resolution on their region. And we know how badly that turned out. But I still do believe native rights trump my personal opinion on the matter, and as such will support the native (ill-considered) efforts to remove the Liberate Resolution.

Basically my opinion on the matter too, regions are generally better off retaining their liberation status but I'm not going to vote against the native will.

There is of the option of not voting at all?

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

I think it's a rather silly thing to do (especially after the liberation was just passed), but if the natives think they will be safer without it, so be it.

[Jakker]

I think this shows that defenders need to stop acting like they know best and that they have to always get involved in other region's affairs.

Although I think the SC is meaningless, I would hope this will teach a lesson that no Liberations should be passed unless fully supported by the targeted region.

[Unibot II]

I think this shows that defenders need to stop acting like they know best and that they have to always get involved in other region's affairs.

Although I think the SC is meaningless, I would hope this will teach a lesson that no Liberations should be passed unless fully supported by the targeted region.

It was supported by the targeted region... they needed it...

I don't think you're in a position to teach a lesson, while you're the one of the people who created the threat...

[Jakker]

I think this shows that defenders need to stop acting like they know best and that they have to always get involved in other region's affairs.

Although I think the SC is meaningless, I would hope this will teach a lesson that no Liberations should be passed unless fully supported by the targeted region.

It was supported by the targeted region... they needed it...

I don't think you're in a position to teach a lesson, while you're the one of the people who created the threat...

I could say the same thing about you for helping to write the Liberation

[A mean old man]

Flippity floppity. I'm guessing the invaders will be back soon after this passes. If it passes.

[Drop Your Pants]

Then we can redo the process till people get bored Its not as if there's something better to be doing in here.