NATION

PASSWORD

Liberate Belgium... again?

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5608
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Liberate Belgium... again?

Postby Unibot III » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:09 am

I didn't intend to submit a WA proposal ever again. But apparently the code allows you to liberate a region twice. There's room for this feature being useful - you could double up liberations if you there's a chance your opponents could get a repeal in place for the original resolution. Buys you time if you're expecting a hostile repeal campaign.

Liberate Belgium
A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region.

Category: Liberation

Nominee (region): belgium

Proposed by: Unibot III

The Security Council,

Bearing in mind, Belgium's prior extant liberation in SC#4,

Seeking clarity as to the full remit of its powers and unaware of previous relevant precedent,

Acknowledging the benefits of a second liberation of Belgium in terms of its own regional security,

Hereby,

Liberates Belgium.


Frankly, I didn't expect the proposal to be accepted by the system. And no, I don't intend to pursue this resolution to vote... it's not exactly my best work.
Last edited by Unibot III on Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:11 am, edited 6 times in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL? // The Transpacific Trade
Paradise Found // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78 // The Polysemes of Nativeness;

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1853
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:21 am

While the code may allow it the rules don’t. Rule 2(b):

(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.
Former Delegate and Guardian of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart

Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

User avatar
Kuriko
Diplomat
 
Posts: 650
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Kuriko » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:33 am

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:While the code may allow it the rules don’t. Rule 2(b):

(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.

This isn't a duplication, so unfortunately it's legal. Also, Unibot, we're all aware a second liberation can be passed upon an already liberated region. It's in the SC discussions area of this forum if you deign to read through them. This is unnecessary to do.
Delegate of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~
Citizen of the 10000 Islands and The Rejected Realms

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5608
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:39 am

Kuriko wrote:This is unnecessary to do.


I don't intend to do anything. *shrugs* The easy way to check something is to do it.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:While the code may allow it the rules don’t. Rule 2(b):

Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.


The rule is about textual duplication, I'm not duplicating the substance of the resolution's text. Kuriko's explanation covers this.
Last edited by Unibot III on Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL? // The Transpacific Trade
Paradise Found // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78 // The Polysemes of Nativeness;

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Kuriko
Diplomat
 
Posts: 650
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Kuriko » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:43 am

Unibot III wrote:
Kuriko wrote:This is unnecessary to do.


I don't intend to do anything. *shrugs* The easy way to check something is to do it.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:While the code may allow it the rules don’t. Rule 2(b):

Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.


The rule is about textual duplication, I'm not duplicating the substance of the resolution's text. Kuriko's explanation covers this.

The thing is though, is that you're drawing attention to Belgium when they don't need the attention. Anyone looking at the SC will see this, and Belgium as you know is a founderless region with less than ten endos on its delegate. No one should be drawing attention to a founderless region unless absolutely necessary.
Delegate of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~
Citizen of the 10000 Islands and The Rejected Realms

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6074
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:11 pm

The arguments, such as they are, seem unique to me - I think it’s legal.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Eumaeus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 159
Founded: Jan 27, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Eumaeus » Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:55 pm

Several things:

1) I concur with Kuriko: while it does not elaborate at all on the benefits, the third clause puts forth the argument that having a second liberation would benefit Belgium. While it's not a very strong argument, it is still a different argument, and the proposal serves a different purpose than the original. Of course the lack of elaboration opens it up to interpretation, so if a Mod decides that it is duplication I would not be shocked.

2) If there is anything in this proposal that is brushing up against the boundaries of the rules I think it is the second clause. I think it may be flirting with a Rule 2c technical suggestion (comment?) violation. It basically says "oh look at what the game lets you do, neat". The phrasing may save it though. Also, this tingles my Rule 4d senses (it reads more as the author was unaware than the SC), but I also think it is not actionable.

3) I think the second clause might violate Rule 3 however, which I would appreciate a mod opinion on. The resolution seems to be stating that the Security Council is testing the extents of its powers, which I think is going beyond the usual sort of non-operative actions the SC gets away with (the various forms of "pointing out", "recognizing", "lamenting", "expressing outrage", "admiring", "remembering", etc.). To be clear, I understand that the Security Council has the power to ascribe symbolic meaning to its actions, such as sending a warning through a Condemnation or even calling for a change to the game mechanics (so long as it isn't mandating change and is R4 compliant), but this instance does not fall into this category. The second clause is not symbolically acknowledging that it is dealing with untested waters: it is implying that the SC is proactively experimenting to see what it is allowed to get away with.

4) Moving away from the topic of SC rules and towards more practical aspects of this discussion, I would like to point out that if your enemies have enough sway to repeal a Liberation, they would almost certainly have enough sway to shoot down a second Liberation as well.
\▼/We Are Not the NSA\▼/

Raiding HistorySecurity CouncilDear NativesTWP Raid

"You ask my honorable name? My name is Nohbdy:
mother, father, and friends, everyone calls me Nohbdy."

User avatar
Twobagger
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: Jan 20, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Twobagger » Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:52 pm

Eumaeus wrote:2) If there is anything in this proposal that is brushing up against the boundaries of the rules I think it is the second clause. I think it may be flirting with a Rule 2c technical suggestion (comment?) violation. It basically says "oh look at what the game lets you do, neat". The phrasing may save it though. Also, this tingles my Rule 4d senses (it reads more as the author was unaware than the SC), but I also think it is not actionable.

I don't know, I could go the other way on this. The rule in question reads as follows:
Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions.

This proposal (especially the clause you note) seems like it was explicitly designed to ask the question "Is it legal to Liberate a region which is already Liberated?" There certainly are better places to ask these questions, such as the Q&A thread stuck on this forum. It seems that usually, this rule is applied to bar resolutions from reporting rule violations in resolutions when they should be reporting them to moderators. Even though this proposal doesn't address a rules violation or a technical suggestion, it seems like this proposal certainly raises an issue (this question) that should have been raised somewhere else. This seems kind of borderline to me, though.
The views expressed above are mine alone, and not necessarily those of any region or organization (even ones I'm a member of). My nation's policies aren't necessarily my own views.

I am currently a member of 10000 Islands. Feel free to get in touch (probably via TG or discord: twobagger#6431) if you have any inquiries regarding the region or its military (TITO).

User avatar
Jakker
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2121
Founded: May 17, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jakker » Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:13 pm

Just as a note, it has been established for years that a region can have multiple Liberations as long as the proposals have unique arguments. See links below:

viewtopic.php?p=7464088#p7464088

viewtopic.php?p=22549607#p22549607

viewtopic.php?p=22802424&sid=7db629e86981747848bddd3207571e71#p22802424
One Stop Rules Shop
Getting Help Request (GHR)

The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2247
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:01 pm

Kuriko wrote:The thing is though, is that you're drawing attention to Belgium when they don't need the attention. Anyone looking at the SC will see this, and Belgium as you know is a founderless region with less than ten endos on its delegate. No one should be drawing attention to a founderless region unless absolutely necessary.

Unibot made clear that while he submitted the proposal, he doesn't intend on taking it further (i.e., to vote), so the attention drawn is minimal. I'd definitely agree with you though that taking it to vote would draw unnecessary attention to the region, so I'm glad that's not happening.

In any case, I don't think raiders exactly forgot about Belgium. :P
Last edited by Cormactopia Prime on Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cormactopia Prime
President of the Pacifica Democratic Union

Justin Amash for President | "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse." - Edmund Burke

| LAND OF THE FREE ||AMERICAN||POLITICAL|| RP || IS || UP! | - JOIN NOW!

User avatar
Neon District
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Aug 23, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Neon District » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:04 pm

Dutch Restoration of Order to the Belgian Provinces
i could care less about politics; i mean, i guess i'm into it sometimes, but most of the time i don't care
F L Y A W A Y
ライブ、 ラブ、 スープ。
"well, no place better to test the belgian tanks than against the chinese"
-iSorrowProductions
don't forget the armenian genocide

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5608
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:46 pm

Eumaeus wrote:4) Moving away from the topic of SC rules and towards more practical aspects of this discussion, I would like to point out that if your enemies have enough sway to repeal a Liberation, they would almost certainly have enough sway to shoot down a second Liberation as well.


No, not necessarily.

There’s been some very tight liberations - Liberate Free Thought being the closest - for which a single GCR’s internal politics could have changed the fate of.

I’ve also seen dozens of insta-repeals over the years.

I could anticipate scenarios where you might double-up with liberations, especially if you see your opponent drafting repeal(s) on the official forum or with WALL.
Last edited by Unibot III on Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL? // The Transpacific Trade
Paradise Found // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78 // The Polysemes of Nativeness;

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Eumaeus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 159
Founded: Jan 27, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Eumaeus » Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:50 am

Unibot III wrote:
Eumaeus wrote:4) Moving away from the topic of SC rules and towards more practical aspects of this discussion, I would like to point out that if your enemies have enough sway to repeal a Liberation, they would almost certainly have enough sway to shoot down a second Liberation as well.


No, not necessarily.

There’s been some very tight liberations - Liberate Free Thought being the closest - for which a single GCR’s internal politics could have changed the fate of.

I’ve also seen dozens of insta-repeals over the years.

I could anticipate scenarios where you might double-up with liberations, especially if you see your opponent drafting repeal(s) on the official forum or with WALL.

I guess you have a point. I do have to say that I do not think this would be a particularly successful counter to an insta-repeal, especially without precedent, mostly because the average WA voter would most definitely react by saying "but we just repealed them!" then voting against. Getting the second Liberation passed before the repeal goes to vote would prove a challenge and voters would probably start getting annoyed if this strategy was attempted over the course of only a couple days. There are other scenarios though in which doubling up might prove more effective.
\▼/We Are Not the NSA\▼/

Raiding HistorySecurity CouncilDear NativesTWP Raid

"You ask my honorable name? My name is Nohbdy:
mother, father, and friends, everyone calls me Nohbdy."

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Senator
 
Posts: 4593
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:04 pm

Cormactopia Prime wrote:In any case, I don't think raiders exactly forgot about Belgium. :P

We plan on stealing all their tulips in three days time.
Osiris Vizier of WA AffairsDee Vytherov-SkollvaldrDeputy Forest KeeperLieutenant in The Black HawksWA Minister of Lazarus


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads