PASSED: Liberate belgium

[Ballotonia]

Yeah I'd much rather see thread after thread of people haggling over raids and passwords and founders than discussing things like poverty, hunger, trade or other such tomfoolery. Screw nation simulation, this is SERIOUS INTERNET BUSINESS!

But you're from Antarctica. You're going to vote against all that tomfoolery, anyway.

Correction: Antarctic Oasis

Ballotonia

[Metania]

Why are we still arguing when Belgium is already liberated?

...Seriously...

Because senseless bickering will solve the conflict between the raiders/indifferent people who hate the entire idea of the WA being able to do anything and everyone else who doesn't agree with them, obviously!

[Ardchoille]

I've just posted this response in Eras's "open immigration category" thread:

The Liberation category says this:

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

If the region has a Founder, and the Founder has imposed barriers (eg, passworded the region), the password is outside the ambit of the category. It deals only with Delegate-imposed barriers. The game mechanism hasn't been told to "see" anything but a Delegate-imposed password.

Look unto the words of the Category, my children, for all Truth is contained therein.

(If the Founder is also the Delegate, I'm guessing the game mechanism treats him as a Founder. If he is the Founder as a puppet, and the Delegate as a WA nation, I'm guessing the mechanism treats him as whichever one he's logged into when he imposes the password. However, these are guesses. I need a tech admin to make sure, so I'll go ask one.)

I haven't had a response from a Techie, nor surprisingly, since I only just posted it. Also, I haven't been sweeping Liberation proposals. It looks as if I'd better.

In the meantime, please keep the "I hate the SC" chatter down to a dull roar. It's here. Deal with it.

Those new to the WA, please note that comments on how proposals work, whether they are properly worded and whether they conform to such standards as exist is legitimate. Deal with that.

Further, note that many regular players are used to being IC, and their comments may be aimed, not at you-the-person, but at your ambassador. Also, because of the distancing afforded by the IC aspect, the WA has developed a tradition of ... vigorous ... debate, certainly more so than would be allowed on General. If you have a complaint, feel you're being targeted or flamed, or are just unsure, take it to Moderation. We'll deal with it.

EDIT: Pythagosaurus has just confirmed the guesses above. So there you have it.

[Urgench]

This has nothing to do with politics, though we remain in agreement with one another on it being appalling. I am rather worried by your complete disregard of the idea that the WA should maintain an impartiality in order to be able to justify its actions as moral though.

Why should we remain impartial? Simply put, invading sucks. It harms many more players than it helps. Most people find it annoying at the least, and horrifying at the worst. We can't ban it, but we can certainly take a great big spanner and throw it in the works.

And should.

If that ruins the game for the 10% of NS players who are juvenile delinquents and love messing up other people's lives, well, too bad. That's not a group I care much for, nor one the WA should cater to. Their actions, if legal, are still immoral and should be stopped. Period.

That's what's called a witch hunt. You may be correct, but if we set the precedent that the WA is about settling scores for one group at the expense of another then the WA no longer has any moral authority.

Considering that a lot of us are switching votes to interfere with a Mercer/Macedon counterattack, I wouldn't take that as any kind of endorsement of your position, thank you.

I never said that it did, others were calling down the authority of a minority of WA voters to justify their position not me.

[Ballotonia]

You may be correct, but if we set the precedent that the WA is about settling scores for one group at the expense of another then the WA no longer has any moral authority.

IMHO, the WA never had any moral authority. It has de-facto authority due to the gamecode, and the authority provided by the majority vote. Morality may play a role in how nations vote, but that's in regard to their individual moral convictions, it says nothing about any 'morals' belonging to the WA at large.

Ballotonia

[Urgench]

You may be correct, but if we set the precedent that the WA is about settling scores for one group at the expense of another then the WA no longer has any moral authority.

IMHO, the WA never had any moral authority. It has de-facto authority due to the gamecode, and the authority provided by the majority vote. Morality may play a role in how nations vote, but that's in regard to their individual moral convictions, it says nothing about any 'morals' belonging to the WA at large.

Ballotonia

Your confusing the idea that the WA might have morals with the notion of moral authority the two things are not the same. I'm trying to get across the idea that without impartiality the WA becomes a weapon in the hands of whoever has the power to wield it, the WA will no longer be expected to act in the interests of its entire membership and its actions will be expected to work as a powerful weapon in the hands of one group of players, hence it will no longer have any authority or a moral nature and will be widely discredited and seen as nothing more than a servant of one group's agenda, a servant with the power to seriously effect how people play the game.

[Travancore-Cochin]

Your confusing the idea that the WA might have morals with the notion of moral authority the two things are not the same. I'm trying to get across the idea that without impartiality the WA becomes a weapon in the hands of whoever has the power to wield it, the WA will no longer be expected to act in the interests of its entire membership and its actions will be expected to work as a powerful weapon in the hands of one group of players, hence it will no longer have any authority or a moral nature and will be widely discredited and seen as nothing more than a servant of one group's agenda, a servant with the power to seriously effect how people play the game.

The WA consists of nation states, dear Ambassador. These nations have the power, the knowledge and the intelligence to think and act according to their own free will. This would explain why the current resolution is headed to a pass with one of the biggest majority of votes in recent history, despite all the invader spin and your own concerns.

A. Parameswaran Nair
Ambassador from Travancore-Cochin to the World Assembly

[Urgench]

Your confusing the idea that the WA might have morals with the notion of moral authority the two things are not the same. I'm trying to get across the idea that without impartiality the WA becomes a weapon in the hands of whoever has the power to wield it, the WA will no longer be expected to act in the interests of its entire membership and its actions will be expected to work as a powerful weapon in the hands of one group of players, hence it will no longer have any authority or a moral nature and will be widely discredited and seen as nothing more than a servant of one group's agenda, a servant with the power to seriously effect how people play the game.

The WA consists of nation states, dear Ambassador. These nations have the power, the knowledge and the intelligence to think and act according to their own free will. This would explain why the current resolution is headed to a pass with one of the biggest majority of votes in recent history, despite all the invader spin and your own concerns.

A. Parameswaran Nair
Ambassador from Travancore-Cochin to the World Assembly

I'm not an Ambassador, this isn't an IC forum, unless I'm posting in Qumkent's account then your talking to me, sorry for the confusion.

In any case what you just described is an apologia for mob rule, tart it up however you like, a mob is still a mob. Oh and to be clear ONCE AGAIN, I have no problem with the passge of this resolution so quit pretending that I'm arguing against it, it's a straw man.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Yeah I'd much rather see thread after thread of people haggling over raids and passwords and founders than discussing things like poverty, hunger, trade or other such tomfoolery. Screw nation simulation, this is SERIOUS INTERNET BUSINESS!

But you're from Antarctica. You're going to vote against all that tomfoolery, anyway.

Correction: Antarctic Oasis

Ballotonia

I think he knows that, and if I didn't see fit to correct him why should you?

[Travancore-Cochin]

OOC

I'm not an Ambassador, this isn't an IC forum, unless I'm posting in Qumkent's account then your talking to me, sorry for the confusion.

Really? Last time I checked, nothing said "this is an OOC forum" either. But since you want my posts to address "you", I'll comply.

In any case what you just described is an apologia for mob rule, tart it up however you like, a mob is still a mob.

I see. So you're anti-WA. Not just anti-SC or anti-Liberation.
*magically understands all your previous posts*

Oh and to be clear ONCE AGAIN, I have no problem with the passge of this resolution so quit pretending that I'm arguing against it, it's a straw man.

I, or rather, my nation's Ambassador to the WA, "pretended" that you were arguing against the current resolution? This is new to me.

[Urgench]

Really? Last time I checked, nothing said "this is an OOC forum" either. But since you want my posts to address "you", I'll comply.

I don't mind how you address me I just didnt want you to be under any illusions, I was trying to be helpful.

I see. So you're anti-WA. Not just anti-SC or anti-Liberation.
*magically understands all your previous posts*

Clearly you don't get what I'm trying to say at all, but don't let me stop you jumping to conclusions. I'm merely pointing out that the WA shouldn't be used to allow specific mobs to control how the game is played. GA resolutions do not effect how the game is played and have no OOC effects whatsoever, in my ideal world they probably would be subject to the validation of a proper qualified majority also, but as it is things like Liberation really need to be held to a proper standard of democracy because they aren't rp'd in effect, they are direct manipulations of how players interact with the game.

I, or rather, my nation's Ambassador to the WA, "pretended" that you were arguing against the current resolution? This is new to me.

the current resolution is headed to a pass with one of the biggest majority of votes in recent history, despite all the invader spin and your own concerns.

The underlined portions rather suggest that your Ambassador was under the impression that my expressed concerns were intended to try to convince someone to vote against this bill. They weren't.

[Naivetry]

Urgench, might I have your response to this perspective? viewtopic.php?p=318903#p318903

[Inflatable Gandalfs]

Correction: Antarctic Oasis

Ballotonia

I think he knows that, and if I didn't see fit to correct him why should you?

Don't you get it? Antarctica is the important gameplay region; AO is an insignificant, pissant little region not important to anybody - at least, not anybody who matters. Ballot just wanted to set the record straight.

[Urgench]

Urgench, might I have your response to this perspective? viewtopic.php?p=318903#p318903

I'm aware that any group may need to propagandise itself in order to be able to justify its existence, defining the out-group as immoral, evil, or untermensch and the in-group as righteous, pure and justified.

The WA should not be expected to respect and mor eimportantly act on such propaganda.

I do think that the WA might have a role to play in leveling playing fields ( though I think it would be fairer if this was done by the game rules ), but thus far both C&Cs and Liberation have shown themselves liable to be abused and used to coerce and alienate player groups.

I frankly find the idea that the WA might be used to facilitate and empower campaigns to alienate and coerce player groups very worrying, today Nazi Europe and Macedon, tomorrow who knows ?

Oh and the mythical divine intelligence of the GP gerrymander does not fill me with any confidence that the WA isn't about to become the enabler of noxious player prejudice.

[Travancore-Cochin]

OOC

Clearly you don't get what I'm trying to say at all, but don't let me stop you jumping to conclusions. I'm merely pointing out that the WA shouldn't be used to allow specific mobs to control how the game is played. GA resolutions do not effect how the game is played and have no OOC effects whatsoever, in my ideal world they probably would be subject to the validation of a proper qualified majority also, but as it is things like Liberation really need to be held to a proper standard of democracy because they aren't rp'd in effect, they are direct manipulations of how players interact with the game.

Mobs who control the game? Let's take the current proposal as an example. There are currently 4,717 votes in favour, with barely an hour of voting remaining. That's not a mob, by any chance. That's a downright mass of people - nearly half the total number of WA nations. I won't say that every Liberation resolution in the future would command similar voting figures. If recent GA proposals are any indication, you can expect the number of people agreeing with the final outcome of the vote to be somewhere around 3,000 - 3,500. Again, that is not a mob. Certainly not in my eyes.

Neither will I ever believe that 3,000-4,000 nations can be "defender zombies" - controlled by defenders and voting for them mindlessly. These nations have all the power to think and make decisions independently. There's nothing wrong with the standard of democracy here.

The underlined portions rather suggest that your Ambassador was under the impression that my expressed concerns were intended to try to convince someone to vote against this bill. They weren't.

I admit I was wrong here. They do suggest my Ambassador was under such an impression. I apologize.

[Urgench]

Mobs who control the game? Let's take the current proposal as an example. There are currently 4,717 votes in favour, with barely an hour of voting remaining. That's not a mob, by any chance. That's a downright mass of people - nearly half the total number of WA nations. I won't say that every Liberation resolution in the future would command similar voting figures. If recent GA proposals are any indication, you can expect the number of people agreeing with the final outcome of the vote to be somewhere around 3,000 - 3,500. Again, that is not a mob. Certainly not in my eyes.

Neither will I ever believe that 3,000-4,000 nations can be "defender zombies" - controlled by defenders and voting for them mindlessly. These nations have all the power to think and make decisions independently. There's nothing wrong with the standard of democracy here.

Oh so then GPers don't control voting blocs that will prevent the passage of malicious Liberations then ? interesting.

In any event, in a situation in which the consequences of a vote have direct control over how players interact with the game, anything which isn't a qualified majority of the WA membership is absolutely a mob in my eyes. "Nearly half of the total number of WA nations" isn't a democratic or representative majority, it's one especially large minority using it's quantity of votes to force it's will upon the rest of the membership.

[Urgench]

Correction: Antarctic Oasis

Ballotonia

I think he knows that, and if I didn't see fit to correct him why should you?

Don't you get it? Antarctica is the important gameplay region; AO is an insignificant, pissant little region not important to anybody - at least, not anybody who matters. Ballot just wanted to set the record straight.

Damn straight!

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Correction: Antarctic Oasis

Ballotonia

I think he knows that, and if I didn't see fit to correct him why should you?

Don't you get it? Antarctica is the important gameplay region; AO is an insignificant, pissant little region not important to anybody - at least, not anybody who matters. Ballot just wanted to set the record straight.

But AO is bigger than Antarctica...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The Security Council resolution Liberate belgium was passed 4,715 votes to 676: an 87.5% majority(!).

SARAH HARPER: Duly noted in the records.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

The Security Council resolution Liberate belgium was passed 4,715 votes to 676.

Wheeeee!

Also: "3 minutes ago: Belgium was liberateed by Security Council Resolution # 4.

Liberateed?

[The Sedge]

Also, the password is very definitely still in place. Does anyone know when its gets removed?

EDIT: Its not actually in place, but it still has the icon for it being passworded.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Also, the password is very definitely still in place. Does anyone know when its gets removed?

EDIT: Its not actually in place, but it still has the icon for it being passworded.

Maybe that's because it was liberateed rather than liberated?

[Todd McCloud]

Also, the password is very definitely still in place. Does anyone know when its gets removed?

EDIT: Its not actually in place, but it still has the icon for it being passworded.

That's what I'm wondering...

Also, I did like the misspelling. I think it's purposefully done to make our days better.


EDIT: Password doesn't work. One can move in, the password is still in place, and the password just doesn't work. So while there *is* a password, there isn't one. If that makes sense.