NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Liberate Eastern Europe

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

[PASSED] Liberate Eastern Europe

Postby Topid » Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:38 pm

ImageLiberate Eastern Europe

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

Category: Liberation | Nominee (region): Eastern Europe | Proposed by: Topid

The World Assembly,

Observing Eastern Europe, a founderless region which has been the victim of numerous raids throughout its history,

Impressed that the natives of Eastern Europe are attempting to secure their region by refounding it,

Upset that the current delegate of Eastern Europe, Czech Mate, and the previous delegate, Romani Romania, have now taken control of the refounding effort,

Recognizing that both recent delegates Romani Romania and Czech Mate have ejected natives from behind a hidden password and are working for an unidentified non-native group,

Outraged that numerous nations are known to have been ejected from the region by either Czech Mate or Romani Romania,

Further outraged that the oppressors have severed the connection between the region and the region’s legitimate forums,

Noting that Flobos, a long-time native and former delegate of Eastern Europe, states that Czech Mate is a former member of Eastern Europe from years past attempting to exact revenge upon the region,

Fearing that, without intervention, the region's destruction is imminent because no new nations may enter the region and because almost every nation not aligned with the region's destroyers has been removed,

Affirming that the natives of the region support a liberation,

Asserting that Flobos and other natives deserve a region where they have the ability to control its fate themselves,

Hereby liberates the region of Eastern Europe.

Co-Author: Sedgistan


In speaking to natives over the last couple days I've come across a couple in need of stating:
Modravia:
I've been a member of Eastern Europe since 2004 and was on the offsite RP forum until it died. It seems this person has also hacked that one too. I signed on once, despite not doing anything for the past month, and finding my nation ejected for no real reason. That's about it.

Flobos:
Hey! Looking forward to working with you. If you go to http://z4.invisionfree.com/Eastern_Euro ... st=0&#last and realize that check is "he who must not be named" it becomes clear that he's an old member who believes he somehow deserves to control this region and wants vengeance against it. Kind of pathetic, really.
Last edited by Sedgistan on Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:11 am, edited 7 times in total.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Kalibarr
Minister
 
Posts: 2241
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Kalibarr » Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:38 am

Can we get a link to the hacked forum?

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:48 am

I have no idea what he was referencing when he said that, I feel it is possible he didn't mean hacked as you and I think of it. Either way, that is more area for a condemnation as opposed to a liberation. (I included that telegram to show how he was ejected for 'no real reason', not the hacking part.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:17 am

The forum linked to in the WFE is the original Eastern Europe forum, but it has been dis-used for a few years now. One of the raiders seems to have been involved with Eastern Europe several years ago (but had a falling out with its members), and has hacked the root admin account on that forum, deleting its contents and posting a thread "in which he rants about his victory against some unknown assailant" (Flobos' words).

I think there was a more recent Eastern Europe forum (the legitimate one, referenced in the proposal), but I can't find a link to it.

This might need to be confirmed by Flobos. If I'm wrong about there being a more recent forum, the clause in the proposal could be changed to mention the hacking/erasing.
Last edited by Sedgistan on Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Flobos
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Mar 13, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Flobos » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:43 am

Hello all.

Here's the forum link as requested: http://z4.invisionfree.com/Eastern_European_HQ

It is in fact the original Eastern Europe forum. The person behind the nation currently called Czech Mate seems to have been one of its founders, however somehow fell into disfavor and ended up getting banned after he banned two other administrators. Since he seems to have the root password, he was able to come back (possibly simply because the ban expired), and has deleted all posts except for two that are mainly where I draw this narrative from.

I believe the other resolution is only meant to weaken this one. The nation that submitted the proposal, Vojvodina is still endorsing Czech and has not replied to any telegrams from me.

I believe Czech is currently gathering up influence so he could kick Novobrinsk and myself, but again, I have no concrete evidence.

I know that having no clear evidence to whom is behind this makes trusting me difficult, however, the mere fact that this guy waited 7.5 (according to a telegram he sent me) years to take revenge should be an indicator of how bat shit insane he/she is.

User avatar
Blue Wolf II
Attaché
 
Posts: 91
Founded: Sep 13, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Blue Wolf II » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:08 am

Topid wrote:Recognizing that both recent delegates Romani Romania and Czech Mate have ejected natives from behind a hidden password and are working for an unidentified raider group


Oh really? And what actual proof do you have of this? Seems a bit vague and ominous to me which excellent for someone trying to fear monger to gather support but not so good for those who like to see evidence to support such claims.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:40 am

Blue Wolf II wrote:Oh really? And what actual proof do you have of this? Seems a bit vague and ominous to me which excellent for someone trying to fear monger to gather support but not so good for those who like to see evidence to support such claims.

An organised group of non-natives who come into a region and grief it. Fits the definition fairly well.

User avatar
Darkesia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 738
Founded: Mar 01, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Darkesia » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:01 am

You mean the FRA?
Blackbird wrote:Francoism is to fascism as Marxism is to peanut butter.

Greater Moldavi wrote:If I didn't say things like that then I wouldn't be...well me.

User avatar
A mean old man
Senator
 
Posts: 4306
Founded: Jun 27, 2008
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby A mean old man » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:02 am

Topid, please take a look at this proposal's thread in TSC's forums.
A: SC#16 - Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"
A: SC#26 - Commend The Joint Systems Alliance
A: SC#30 - Commend 10000 Islands
A: SC#37 - Condemn NAZI EUROPE
A: SC#38 - Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"
A: GA#149 - On Expiration Dates
C: SC#58 - Repeal "Commend Sedgistan"
A: SC#62 - Repeal "Condemn Swarmlandia"
C: SC#63 - Commend Ballotonia
A: SC#65 - Condemn Punk Reloaded
C: GA#163 - Repeal "Law of the Sea"
A: SC#72 - Repeal "Commend Mikeswill"
C: SC#74 - Condemn Lone Wolves United
C: SC#76 - Repeal "Condemn Thatcherton"
A: SC#81 - Repeal "Condemn Anthony Delasanta"
C: SC#83 - Condemn Automagfreek
C: SC#84 - Repeal "Liberate Islam"
C: SC#111 - Commend Krulltopia

User avatar
Blue Wolf II
Attaché
 
Posts: 91
Founded: Sep 13, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Blue Wolf II » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:04 am

The situation is clearly more complex than Sedge or Topid makes it seem. These "invaders" are being led by a native of the region, regardless of how old he is. In fact it appears one of these natives is the former founder of Eastern Europe. The lack of a name to link this "unidentified raider group" brings a fair amount of doubt as to if this an actual invasion or simply an internal dispute within Eastern Europe that is in no way involved with the Crasher/Defender game archetype.

Let me also note that in almost every case of an invasion or an attempted refounding the Crasher group behind the efforts have plastered their name just about everywhere that it can be put all over the region. Yet, we see a total lack of this. I'm convinced this is an inter-regional problem that the Security Council has no right to get involved with.
Last edited by Blue Wolf II on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:10 am

Blue Wolf II wrote:Let me also note that in almost every case of an invasion or an attempted refounding the Crasher group behind the efforts have plastered their name just about everywhere that it can be put all over the region. Yet, we see a total lack of this. I'm convinced this is an inter-regional problem that the Security Council has no right to get involved with.

Hahahahaha. This is an regional problem? Nations coming from outside the region to establish a delegate that has been gone from the region for years?

Yes, in the past every raider group has plastered their name all over the WFE... And what has that got them recently? Liberation resolutions and colonies snatched out from under them and given back to natives. I think, what we are seeing here, is evidence that raiders learn.

Now, if you will excuse me, AMOM just ripped my spine out over grammar issues, so I have extensive surgery and editing ahead. :p
Last edited by Topid on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Blue Wolf II
Attaché
 
Posts: 91
Founded: Sep 13, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Blue Wolf II » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:12 am

That theory you have there seems to be based upon quite a lot of speculation. If that is the case than this is the first recorded example we have of it.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:15 am

Fearing that without intervention the regions doom is imminent because no new nations may enter the region and almost every nation not aligned with the region destroyers have been removed,


The use of the word, "doom", to me, implies scaremongering. Be very clear about the fate of the region, here's a clause I wrote for "Liberate Greece":

Expecting that, without action by the World Assembly, Greece will become another prized possession of the Persian Empire, much like Ctesiphon, Greek Empire, Parthia, Hayk, Aria and Media -- all of which lack the desirable qualities of a region: activity, access and amenities,


Or alternatively, "Liberate Feudal Japan" (the only clause I wrote in it):

DISAPPOINTED that the region's current occupiers have left the region to rot and degrade into a mockery of its former self - with no indication of any community activity surviving the decay;





Affirming that the loyal natives of the region support a liberation,


I'm sorry, the adjective there implies that that there are natives who don't support the liberation? So why should they be implicitly categorized into the non-loyal group? And who are these loyals to ? The region? What does it mean to be 'loyal to a region'? Two people can be patriotic and have very different interpretations of how a nation should be run.. possibly one native doesn't feel Security Council intervention is necessary, is that opinion enough to classify him as "not loyal"? You haven't explained the native opposition to a liberation clear enough for me to make a informed judgment on if I can discount their opinion or not -- just questioning their loyalty for their opposition to a liberation, isn't good it enough -- it's an ad hominem attack.




Asserting Flobos and other natives deserve a region where they will not be ejected, and where they have the ability to control its fate themselves,


Hhhm, I think we agree in principle.

However, regional sovereignty facilitates the opportunity for those natives to be ejected by a native delegate, I think it would be more clear to focus on the principle of regional sovereignty: it is inappropriate for a foreign force to coerce the termination of a region, and thusly threaten the regional sovereignty of the native community. (Sometimes defender groups help natives refound, but they do it with the intention of protecting regional sovereignty).

Essentially the principle is "Thou shall not threaten regional sovereignty", and refounding the region without the intention of restoring power to the natives, is breaking that principle.

Blue Wolf II wrote:
Topid wrote:Recognizing that both recent delegates Romani Romania and Czech Mate have ejected natives from behind a hidden password and are working for an unidentified raider group


Oh really? And what actual proof do you have of this? Seems a bit vague and ominous to me which excellent for someone trying to fear monger to gather support but not so good for those who like to see evidence to support such claims.


Wolf does have a point, a raider is by definition, an invader that supports raider unity. Although that definition, culturally has changed quite a bit, because few new generations of self-identified "raiders" rarely follow raider unity. We've never actually defined the term, "raider" to my knowledge, we've only defined "native". So I think it is more clearer to say that they are non-natives, with the intention of furthering the goals and aims of an unidentified foreign force.
Last edited by Unibot on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:18 am

Blue Wolf II wrote:That theory you have there seems to be based upon quite a lot of speculation. If that is the case than this is the first recorded example we have of it.

I wouldn't go as far as to say this is the first recorded example of a raider learning... Though I am having trouble coming up with a previous example. :p

I'm not going to accept a long-gone native and a bunch of outsiders to appear suddenly and have the right to utterly destroy the community. There wouldn't be a founderless region safe.
EDIT: @Unibot
Doom can be changed to destruction but there is no telling if CM even intends to refound, or just leave it with his nation the only nation remaining, so we don't know the fate. We only know it is bad.

The non-loyal native referenced is CM. I wouldn't consider him a native but for those who do, he is unquestioningly unloyal by trying to demolish the reigon.

Non-natives works for my purposes just as well as raider.

I'll remove the ejected part, I left it in from an earlier draft unnecessarily.
Last edited by Topid on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Flobos
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Mar 13, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Flobos » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:21 am

Blue Wolf II wrote:The situation is clearly more complex than Sedge or Topid makes it seem. These "invaders" are being led by a native of the region, regardless of how old he is. In fact it appears one of these natives is the former founder of Eastern Europe. The lack of a name to link this "unidentified raider group" brings a fair amount of doubt as to if this an actual invasion or simply an internal dispute within Eastern Europe that is in no way involved with the Crasher/Defender game archetype.

I'd almost be inclined to agree, however, the current delegate is not the founder of the region, nor was involved in the founding. Most of the nations that support him are very recent arrivals to the region and refuse to even discuss why they are doing what they are. The current delegate also attempted to get myself and the other actively defending nation, Novobrinsk to leave under the guise of wanting to refound the region, since he is unable to eject us due to our fairly large influence.

Let me also note that in almost every case of an invasion or an attempted refounding the Crasher group behind the efforts have plastered their name just about everywhere that it can be put all over the region. Yet, we see a total lack of this. I'm convinced this is an inter-regional problem that the Security Council has no right to get involved with.

Yet, if you check the regional forums, you will note that the current regional flag, which was also Czech Mate's flag, is plastered all over there as well. You are not dealing with an idiot here, simply a man hellbent on taking revenge on nations that have been gone for over a year.

User avatar
A mean old man
Senator
 
Posts: 4306
Founded: Jun 27, 2008
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby A mean old man » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:25 am

Unibot wrote:
Affirming that the loyal natives of the region support a liberation,


I'm sorry, the adjective there implies that that there are natives who don't support the liberation? So why should they be implicitly categorized into the non-loyal group? And who are these loyals to ? The region? What does it mean to be 'loyal to a region'? Two people can be patriotic and have very different interpretations of how a nation should be run.. possibly one native doesn't feel Security Council intervention is necessary, is that opinion enough to classify him as "not loyal"? You haven't explained the native opposition to a liberation clear enough for me to make a informed judgment on if I can discount their opinion or not -- just questioning their loyalty for their opposition to a liberation, isn't good it enough -- it's an ad hominem attack.


As I am responsible for the addition of "loyal" to that clause, I will explain the reasoning behind my doing so. As the current usurper delegate "Czech Mate" can, in certain ways, be considered a "native" of the region, he is not necessarily a "loyal" native of the region. By "loyal," I mean a member dedicated to the well-being of the region, and if you look at Czech Mate with this idea in mind, he does not fall under the classification of "loyal."

So yes, those natives of EE who are interested in the region's well-being are supporting the liberation. Those "natives" who are only seeking to demolish their former home do not.
A: SC#16 - Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"
A: SC#26 - Commend The Joint Systems Alliance
A: SC#30 - Commend 10000 Islands
A: SC#37 - Condemn NAZI EUROPE
A: SC#38 - Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"
A: GA#149 - On Expiration Dates
C: SC#58 - Repeal "Commend Sedgistan"
A: SC#62 - Repeal "Condemn Swarmlandia"
C: SC#63 - Commend Ballotonia
A: SC#65 - Condemn Punk Reloaded
C: GA#163 - Repeal "Law of the Sea"
A: SC#72 - Repeal "Commend Mikeswill"
C: SC#74 - Condemn Lone Wolves United
C: SC#76 - Repeal "Condemn Thatcherton"
A: SC#81 - Repeal "Condemn Anthony Delasanta"
C: SC#83 - Condemn Automagfreek
C: SC#84 - Repeal "Liberate Islam"
C: SC#111 - Commend Krulltopia

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:30 am

Blue Wolf II wrote:The situation is clearly more complex than Sedge or Topid makes it seem. These "invaders" are being led by a native of the region, regardless of how old he is.


No, he isn't a native by definition when he aims to further the interests of a foreign force. Time in the region means diddlely squat.

Let me also note that in almost every case of an invasion or an attempted refounding the Crasher group behind the efforts have plastered their name just about everywhere that it can be put all over the region. Yet, we see a total lack of this. I'm convinced this is an inter-regional problem that the Security Council has no right to get involved with.


The definition of a Crasher group is not self-aggrandizing, although you'd think it is. Perhaps they're just a sly group like Sanford (or Salford?) was.




As I am responsible for the addition of "loyal" to that clause, I will explain the reasoning behind my doing so. As the current usurper delegate "Czech Mate" can, in certain ways, be considered a "native" of the region, he is not necessarily a "loyal" native of the region. By "loyal," I mean a member dedicated to the well-being of the region, and if you look at Czech Mate with this idea in mind, he does not fall under the classification of "loyal."


See my above message to Wolf, there is no such thing -- other than perhaps, subjective interpretation -- of a "loyal native". What you're describing is the difference between a native and non-native. End of story.
Last edited by Unibot on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:30 am

Unibot wrote:Wolf does have a point, a raider is by definition, an invader that supports raider unity. Although that definition, culturally has changed quite a bit, because few new generations of self-identified "raiders" rarely follow raider unity. We've never actually defined the term, "raider" to my knowledge, we've only defined "native".

I wasn't aware of a difference in definition between the terms 'raider' and invader' - they've generally been used interchangeably, and I've never come across anyone else claiming that 'raiders' are required to support raider unity.

Darkesia wrote:You mean the FRA?

If you want a debate about the FRA, they have a thread in the Gameplay forum - it seems rather off-topic for a debate on Liberate Eastern Europe.
Last edited by Sedgistan on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:32 am

Sedgistan wrote:
Unibot wrote:Wolf does have a point, a raider is by definition, an invader that supports raider unity. Although that definition, culturally has changed quite a bit, because few new generations of self-identified "raiders" rarely follow raider unity. We've never actually defined the term, "raider" to my knowledge, we've only defined "native".

I wasn't aware of a difference in definition between the terms 'raider' and invader' - they've generally been used interchangeably, and I've never come across anyone else claiming that 'raiders' are required to support raider unity.


Usually the older raiders barked at me when I used the term interchangeably in my first SC proposals. But my point still stands, "raider" has never been defined, "native" has.. non-native is a much more clearer use of diction.

User avatar
A mean old man
Senator
 
Posts: 4306
Founded: Jun 27, 2008
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby A mean old man » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:36 am

Unibot wrote:No, he isn't a native by definition when he aims to further the interests of a foreign force. Time in the region means diddlely squat.


Where's the unofficial definition written down, again?
A: SC#16 - Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"
A: SC#26 - Commend The Joint Systems Alliance
A: SC#30 - Commend 10000 Islands
A: SC#37 - Condemn NAZI EUROPE
A: SC#38 - Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"
A: GA#149 - On Expiration Dates
C: SC#58 - Repeal "Commend Sedgistan"
A: SC#62 - Repeal "Condemn Swarmlandia"
C: SC#63 - Commend Ballotonia
A: SC#65 - Condemn Punk Reloaded
C: GA#163 - Repeal "Law of the Sea"
A: SC#72 - Repeal "Commend Mikeswill"
C: SC#74 - Condemn Lone Wolves United
C: SC#76 - Repeal "Condemn Thatcherton"
A: SC#81 - Repeal "Condemn Anthony Delasanta"
C: SC#83 - Condemn Automagfreek
C: SC#84 - Repeal "Liberate Islam"
C: SC#111 - Commend Krulltopia

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:55 am

A mean old man wrote:
Unibot wrote:No, he isn't a native by definition when he aims to further the interests of a foreign force. Time in the region means diddlely squat.


Where's the unofficial definition written down, again?


Liberate LotL.

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:56 am

Using that definition he would not be a native, that's why I don't think he is a native. Not everyone will accept that definition though, I really don't see a problem adding loyal.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:01 am

Topid wrote:Using that definition he would not be a native, that's why I don't think he is a native. Not everyone will accept that definition though, I really don't see a problem adding loyal.


"Loyal" suggests (1) that he is still a native, (2) that non-loyal natives don't support liberations, which isn't necessarily wrong but needs to be explained why in this case. The latter will take several clauses to explain, when you could just refer to him as a non-native due to his current participation with a foreign invasion force.
Last edited by Unibot on Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Blue Wolf II
Attaché
 
Posts: 91
Founded: Sep 13, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Blue Wolf II » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:17 am

Just a minute now, foreign invasion force? There is still no proof of that what-so-ever.

User avatar
Militant Chauvinism
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Oct 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Militant Chauvinism » Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:30 pm

Umm, did else anyone notice that Czech Mate has 5 endorsements in a region of 8 members? So that means there are precisely 2 nations that oppose him. Unless the rest were already ejected, but nobody has listed the banned nations, so there may have been only one or two of these, if actually any at all. Names, please?

Flobos said that CM was a founder of the region and admin on the forum for 6 years, and the draft proposal seemed to imply that two different native factions are trying to re-found the region, but can't agree between each other who will do it. But the majority of natives (if they are natives) seem to be supporting CM's faction. So what this looks like to me is that Flobos is upset because his faction lost out, and he is now turning to outside forces to overturn an internal decision. I could see supporting a Condemnation Proposal listing the other faction's grievances, but liberation just seems inappropriate unless these other allegations can be proven.
Last edited by Militant Chauvinism on Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads