NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Declaration of Neutrality

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Phyr
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

[DRAFT] Declaration of Neutrality

Postby Phyr » Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:40 pm

Lord Flint Tinder of the Empire of Phyr stands at the podium in a drafting room to address the assembled ambassadors.

"To put it simply gentlemen, LET'S GET READY TO RUUUMBLEEEE!"

Lord Flint throws a handful of copies the draft into the air so they scatter around the room. He seems oddly eager, as if about to see some impressive spectacle.

The World Assembly Security Council,

Recognizing our body has an important role in the conflict between raiders (or invaders), defenders, independents, and natives,

Noting the World Assembly Security Council has the power to impact invasions through liberations, and has most often used this power to protect native populations from hostile invaders attempting to become the region’s founder, but has in a few circumstances the World Assembly Security Council has taken the opposite stance and made it easier for a region to be invaded,

Recalling that some nations have asserted the act of invading or raiding is immoral or wrong despite the history of this body’s endorsement of such actions, and further recalling that this has led to the vilification of nations and regions that engage in even harmless invasions,

Understanding either because nations come together within their community to overcome the temporary setback, or because nations are exposed to the possibility of raiding or defending, often raids lead to a higher level of engagement and a more productive international or interregional community,

Seeking to clarify the status of raiding and defending in the eyes of this great body, and reaffirm the time honored tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions,

Proclaims that all alignments (defender, raider, independent, imperialist, neutral, pacifist, etc) are valid and not necessarily moral or immoral, but that the facts and circumstances of each diplomatic incident between sovereign regions must be analyzed to determine if a conflict is harmful or beneficial to any region or the world as a whole,

Declares that this body does not prefer defending to raiding or to any other alignment but rather takes a neutral stance between factions, and takes action when specific facts or circumstances merit interference or recognition,

Denounces the vilification of all invader, raider, imperialist, or independent regions or nations simply because of an identification rather than a thoughtful analysis regarding the specific invasions or raids the nation participated in or lead and how those events impacted the world.

OOC: I think because they are tags, it is ok to refer to each of these alignments as such since they appear on region pages. I would like to use the term 'refounding' in the noting line, but not sure if it is R4 kosher. What I have works but is needlessly wordy if 'refounding' can happen. I couldn't find any ruling via search, anyone know?
Last edited by Phyr on Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Jedinsto
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:43 am

Based.

Edit: I haven’t read the whole thing yet but support in premise.
Last edited by Jedinsto on Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is indeed, once again, a signature.

User avatar
Picairn
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Picairn » Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:48 am

Yes, please. This needs to be the 1st or 2nd Declaration on the list of passed ones, or at least in the top 10.
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Relations
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Factbook | Constitution | Newspaper
Albrenia wrote:With great power comes great mockability.

Proctopeo wrote:I'm completely right and you know it.

Moralityland wrote:big corporations allied with the communist elite
Social democrat, passionate political observer, and naval warfare enthusiast.
Listen here Jack, we're going to destroy malarkey.
♔ The Empire of Picairn ♔
-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-—————————-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-
We'll speak softly and carry a large Javelin.

User avatar
Phyr
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Phyr » Wed Jun 30, 2021 6:07 am

Picairn wrote:Yes, please. This needs to be the 1st or 2nd Declaration on the list of passed ones, or at least in the top 10.

It is my hope for this to be quickly submitted when the proposal type goes live.

Early feedback appreciated.

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4822
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fauxia » Wed Jun 30, 2021 6:13 am

This contravenes years of Security Council precedent, and as evidence compares innocent natives to fascist regions (just about the only group offensive liberations are used against). Not sure whether that's ignorance or bad faith, but neither is appropriate.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.
Sandaoguo wrote:GP is a den of cynics and nihilists
My opinions do not represent any NS governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), any RL governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), the CIA, the NSA, the FBI. the Freemasons, the Illuminati, Opus Dei, the Knights Templar, the Organization for the Advancement of Cultural Marxism, Opus Dei, or any other organization. Unless I say they do, in which case, there is a nonzero chance.

User avatar
Phyr
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Phyr » Wed Jun 30, 2021 6:30 am

Fauxia wrote:This contravenes years of Security Council precedent, and as evidence compares innocent natives to fascist regions (just about the only group offensive liberations are used against). Not sure whether that's ignorance or bad faith, but neither is appropriate.

Looking through the resolutions, Liberate Greece was passed because the WA did not support the founder of that region. Unclear if the intent then was to open the door to possible invasion when the founder ceased to exist. It was certainly a possible outcome though.

But the fact remains, fascists or otherwise sometimes the WA thinks aggressive tactics are OK sometimes, clearly. We should clarify this formally and recognize that raiding/invading is not any less preferable to defending.
Last edited by Phyr on Wed Jun 30, 2021 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Moonfungus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 119
Founded: Feb 24, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Moonfungus » Wed Jun 30, 2021 6:42 am

Phyr wrote: would like to use the term 'refounding' in the noting line, but not sure if it is R4 kosher.

'Refounding' is legal to use, so you're clear on that front.
The South Pacific | The Order of The Grey Wardens

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4822
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fauxia » Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:32 am

Phyr wrote:
Fauxia wrote:This contravenes years of Security Council precedent, and as evidence compares innocent natives to fascist regions (just about the only group offensive liberations are used against). Not sure whether that's ignorance or bad faith, but neither is appropriate.

Looking through the resolutions, Liberate Greece was passed because the WA did not support the founder of that region. Unclear if the intent then was to open the door to possible invasion when the founder ceased to exist. It was certainly a possible outcome though.

It's very clear if you actually read the proposal that that was not the intent, and that rather the intent was to free the region from the foreign powers of the Persian Empire, and that the WA did not support Yauna because Yauna acted in the interests of the... oh wait, raiders.

Regardless of the obviously ridiculous rhetorical strategy of bringing up a single liberation.

Phyr wrote:But the fact remains, fascists or otherwise sometimes the WA thinks aggressive tactics are OK sometimes, clearly. We should clarify this formally and recognize that raiding/invading is not any less preferable to defending.

What?

There is a very very very easy way to codify what the WA has supported for years: 1) Innocent regions deserve protection, 2) Forces that raid innocent regions act against the interests of the WA, 3) Fascist regions, which are not innocent by nature of being fascist, do not deserve defense, thus, 4) Forces that raid fascists (or other OOC bad regions) act in the interests of the WA.

There's an entire history of liberating regions to protect them from raiding, and you cherry pick the one circumstance where even defenders will raid and use that as "proof" that the WA doesn't prefer one side to the other. What utter bilge. Defending fascism is not part of the defender ideology, neither is raiding fascists unique to the raider ideology (and I'd point out, in the past, raider ideology has gotten in the way of anti-fascist raids. As I understand it, The Black Hawks until recently maintained a policy of refusing to take part in operations that defenders played a role in, including some notable anti-fascist raids.)
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.
Sandaoguo wrote:GP is a den of cynics and nihilists
My opinions do not represent any NS governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), any RL governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), the CIA, the NSA, the FBI. the Freemasons, the Illuminati, Opus Dei, the Knights Templar, the Organization for the Advancement of Cultural Marxism, Opus Dei, or any other organization. Unless I say they do, in which case, there is a nonzero chance.

User avatar
Phyr
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Phyr » Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:38 am

The Ambassador from Fauxia’s passionate opposition to neutrality of the WA is noted. I suppose we will see you on the voting floor.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 32130
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:59 pm

I can't take this seriously unless it cites the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions".

User avatar
Astrobolt
Envoy
 
Posts: 262
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astrobolt » Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:04 pm

This is a raider sympathetic proposal masquerading as a neutral one.

Phyr wrote:Noting the World Assembly Security Council has the power through Liberations to impact invasions, and has most often used this power to protect native populations from hostile invaders attempting to become the region’s founder,

Knowing that in a few circumstances the World Assembly Security Council has taken the opposite stance and made it easier for a region to be invaded,


As Fauxia has mentioned, pretty much the only time the SC has supported raiding has been when regions are fascist, OOC problematic, or raid innocent regions. By and large, the SC is against raiding, and supports regional sovereignty.

Phyr wrote:Understanding either because nations come together within their community to overcome the temporary setback, or because nations are exposed to the possibility of raiding or defending, often raids lead to a higher level of engagement and a more productive international or interregional community


This is ridiculous, raiding doesn't lead to more engagement, it leads to regional stagnation and death. Obviously, when raiders ban natives and turn regions into trophies, it drives people away from the game. Stating otherwise is just wrong.
He/Him
Ambassador to the WA: Mr. Reede Tappe
In the WA IC, despite not being in it OOC.


Note: All views expressed are solely my own, and don't represent any region, organization or group unless stated otherwise.

For a detailed list of positions, and other things of note, click here.

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Minister
 
Posts: 2139
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Daarwyrth » Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:10 pm

Noting the World Assembly Security Council has the power through Liberations to impact invasions

Wouldn't "Noting the Security Council has the power to impact invasions through Liberations"?

Recalling some nations have asserted the act of invading or raiding is immoral or wrong

A bit of a nitpick, but I think adding "that" between "Recalling" and "some nations" would make the sentence flow a bit better.

further recalling this has led

Idem. "further recalling that this has led".

Other than that, there's nothing in the proposal draft that would make me oppose this :)
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Current year: 2022 CE | Monarch: Queen Demi Maria I | Prime Minister: Dame Maria vyn Nysen | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-modern tech
List of Authored Writings | Factbook on Daarwyrth | Factbook on Queen Demi Maria I | Royal House of Zylkoven | Political Parties | Daarwyrth's WA Mission | Diplomatic Programme | Major Businesses
Played nations
  • Daarwyrth
  • Great Robertia
  • Uylensted
Who am I?
  • 26 years old male
  • Dutch with Polish roots
  • English literature major
  • Ex-religious gay leftist

User avatar
Phyr
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Phyr » Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:25 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:Wouldn't "Noting the Security Council has the power to impact invasions through Liberations"?
A bit of a nitpick, but I think adding "that" between "Recalling" and "some nations" would make the sentence flow a bit better.
Idem. "further recalling that this has led".

Other than that, there's nothing in the proposal draft that would make me oppose this :)
Switched the order of those words in Noting line, sounds the same to me either way tbh but ok.
also added those thats
Sedgistan wrote:I can't take this seriously unless it cites the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions".

I did a forum search and saw this has been in a lot of proposals, and maybe the old ruleset? Good suggestion, always fun to tie in old themes.

Can you confirm what was said here? Somehow I feel weird about it because while founding happens in game, refounding is not on any game pages and makes no sense outside of the game meta so it feels like something that would be illegal.
Astrobolt wrote:As Fauxia has mentioned, pretty much the only time the SC has supported raiding has been when regions are fascist, OOC problematic, or raid innocent regions. By and large, the SC is against raiding, and supports regional sovereignty.
FWIW, while I stand by the statement that because WA Liberations can and have been used offensively, this body is not in a position to prefer offense or defense but rather should have a firm neutral stance, I have compressed these lines into one to give less emphasis to the comparison.

Thanks everyone for assisting the noble goal of neutrality!

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 32130
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:09 am

"Refound" appears to have been used multiple times in resolutions already; it's not an issue.

User avatar
Kylia Quilor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 873
Founded: Jun 19, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Kylia Quilor » Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:01 am

Recognizing our body has an important role in the conflict between raiders (or invaders), defenders, independents, and natives which is almost as old as the body itself,


It's older than the SC. Raiding basically dates back to the granting of executive power to WADs.
Unfocused populism is just as dangerous, if not more so, to an elected government's wellbeing as creeping authoritarianism.
Queen Emeritus of Kantrias
Kylia Basilissa Regina Quilor Anacreoni

User avatar
Phyr
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Phyr » Thu Jul 01, 2021 9:37 am

Kylia Quilor wrote:
Recognizing our body has an important role in the conflict between raiders (or invaders), defenders, independents, and natives which is almost as old as the body itself,


It's older than the SC. Raiding basically dates back to the granting of executive power to WADs.

The SC’s role in raiding and defending is almost as old as the SC, as in Liberations were added very early after SC itself. Will reword or maybe just remove since it doesn’t matter so much.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6662
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:38 am

Sedgistan wrote:I can't take this seriously unless it cites the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions".


This was my thought too, hehehe. :clap:

Suffice to say, I think the SC should stand for peace, justice, & goodwill — sometimes that means picking a side in crises. Neutrality isn’t always effective in advancing these causes.
[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 TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

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

User avatar
TESDAI
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Apr 07, 2017
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby TESDAI » Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:55 am

This Declaration as written definitely feels raider sympathetic rather than neutral, but TESDAI will lean on the side of support rather than opposition. The “raider bad” rhetoric is quite old at this point, and as pointed out, moral raiding by and large exists and has a history of support in the WA.
Discord: TESDAI#3151
"I'm essentially a folkie." - Steve Earle
Augustin Alliance - Defense Officer (22AUG2020-PRESENT)
Lands End - WA Delegate (23MAR17-24JAN18 & 14JAN21-PRESENT) and Secretary of the Board (21JAN20-PRESENT)
Anteria - Prime Director (07OCT2020-PRESENT); Former Minister (01APR2020-31MAY2020) and Director of Media (01JUN2020-01AUG2020)

User avatar
Kylia Quilor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 873
Founded: Jun 19, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Kylia Quilor » Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:22 am

Even by the standards of declarations, this will mean very little. But I would love to see the SC fomally say raiding and defending are equally moral, even if it's just because of a lemming vote, so, sure, let's make it happen
Unfocused populism is just as dangerous, if not more so, to an elected government's wellbeing as creeping authoritarianism.
Queen Emeritus of Kantrias
Kylia Basilissa Regina Quilor Anacreoni

User avatar
Phyr
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Phyr » Fri Jul 02, 2021 11:25 am

TESDAI wrote:This Declaration as written definitely feels raider sympathetic rather than neutral, but TESDAI will lean on the side of support rather than opposition. The “raider bad” rhetoric is quite old at this point, and as pointed out, moral raiding by and large exists and has a history of support in the WA.

Glad to have your support. I personally think I tried to walk the middle by omitting a line regarding defenderism’s history of subverting regional sovereignty.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1550
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Sat Jul 03, 2021 6:53 am

While I am not necessarily opposed to this OOC (I'm not a huge fan of raiding OOC, but I can understand why the SC would want to be neutral to something like that from a player-perspective), I think it makes far less sense IC - raiders have always been the "bad guys"! Whether or not you think it's actually harmful is irrelevant here, because it fits perfectly in the Security Council's role as a world authority to be anti-raiding; that's why defenders have traditionally been commended, and raiders have traditionally been condemned. I think it's far more interesting if the Security Council continues to play into these stereotypes.

Of course, that's coming from a player who has light involvement, if any, in the R/D game. It just seems like it would make the game far more boring if the SC was supposed to be neutral on these things.
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Phyr
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Phyr » Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:31 pm

I made the above referenced change and submitted. Let's get our neutral on boys!

Hello Delegates!

I have written a WASC Declaration proposal (new category type) which declares the World Assembly's neutrality on regional affairs. This is a time honored tradition in the WA, and should be non-controversial.

Unfortunately, outside of the WA community we have been plagued by false statements that some groups of people are playing the game immorally or such even that such people are immoral simply because of how they identify. This is outrageous. Labels and identities are not right or wrong, but specific actions can be right or wrong. This declaration says the WA (and each of us nations) should judge ACTIONS not LABELS and while the WA may say certain ACTIONS are bad or good, it remains neutral on the question of if any specific type of person is good or bad.

This is common sense, all decent people should support. Please approve my proposal and support it at vote.

With love for all,
Phyr :)

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10737
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jul 12, 2021 9:30 pm

Inquorate. This proposal reached quorum twice in the hour before its autodeletion, at 0416 BST by The Fire Born (who unapproved at 0452 BST) and at 0431 BST by Noble Titans (who unapproved at 0442 BST). Cosnicu's approval came while the proposal still had 52 approvals, to avoid confusion.

I sent the following campaign out to all 854 WA Delegates who were not approving the Declaration at 0335 BST:
Please approve Declaration of Neutrality, by Phyr - which requires just four approvals in the next hour and a half to reach quorum. It should not be the business of the Security Council to unilaterally all-hail or viciously attack raiding or defending, in isolation, without any further context.

Thank you ever so much,
The PikaThink of Tinhampton

(Important disclaimer: I am not Phyr and this telegram has not necessarily been approved by Phyr.)

AS OF 0459 BST ON TUESDAY: Approvals: 53 out of 55 needed (Phyr, Tinhampton, Edmundian Pluto, United Lammunist Republic, Kustonia, Yafetistan, Gibraltarica, TESDAI, Republic of Blank, Gurbangulistan, Tripartite Empire, N E A C, Krezenel, Socialist Amogus, Baloo Kingdom, Pastries, Reultan, Cruciland, Qudrath, Particle, Andia Calla, Almerdonia, Cus Kazdines, Ench Table, Libonesia, The Malayan State, Owl Archipelago, Nopengie, Tostandia, San Lumen, The North Atlantic Provinces, Queen of the Ruckus, New Deathland, Krovnik, Denathor, Zombiedolphins, Communo-Slavocia, Gonzlandia, Exitio, The Islands of Europe and the Americas, Jedinsto, You Should See Me in a Crown, Bearded Dragones, Littjara, Imperial American Patriots, Camaordia, Fsdh E, Smiley Bob, SFR Philippines, Grogger Nuts, Frontier Isles, Yghrhrhr 3060, Cosnicu)
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Morover

Advertisement

Remove ads