[Complete][SC] Failed: Liberate The Black Riders

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Category: Liberation
Nominee (region): The Black Riders
Proposed by: The Kiss Master
Onsite discussion topic

The Kiss Master:
Description: The Security Council,

Recalling The Black Riders as an region dedicated to the griefing and destruction of the international community,

Realizing that since the untimely demise of the regional founder Black Riders Commander also known as General Halcones, the region has become susceptible to further greifing and long term occupation,

Distraught that since the fall of General Halcones, the region has suffered two catastrophic invasions at the hands of a multiregional force led by United German Regions, and now The Black Hawks,

Cognizant of the fact several former members of The Black Riders now affiliated with DEN, along with members of The Black Hawks infiltrated the reformed government of The Black Riders and rigged elections placing them in positions of power allowing them to effectively take full control of the region,

Fully aware that the current delegate The Ever-Wandering Souls of Harenhime also known as The Nuclear Winter Wonderlands of Ever-Wandering Souls a high ranking member of The Black Hawks has full intentions of locking this region down, thus preventing free entry into the region,

Cognizant that this Council is dedicated to the goal of preserving of inter-regional peace and goodwill,

Believing that by keeping this region open, the international community will benefit,

Hereby liberates The Black Riders.
 
A Letter from the author:

The Kiss Master:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=the_kiss_master_1436934716

Hey all. You have heard of The Black Riders right? I'm sure you have, as they have probably spammed up your RMB and killed all your embassies right? Well guess what, misfortune has finally shone upon them and we need to jump on it. When their founder was deleted, the region became susceptible. Lots of nations jumped on it, and kicked them out. Unfortunately several members of DEN (the new Black Riders) and The Black Hawks rigged the elections to put themselves sin power. Now Ever-Wandering Souls who is the delegate on a puppet wants to password the region. If they password it, they go back to raiding everyone's regions. Greta thing though is if we preempt that and liberate it before they try and password it, they CAN'T password it. This means they have to stay there with their current numbers to to even hold the regions, and with them bottled up, our regions no longer get raided. Please approve the proposal, and keep them penned in.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=the_kiss_master_1436934716

A letter from Ever-Wandering Souls:
Ever-Wandering Souls:
Esteemed Delegates of Nationstates-

It has come to my attention that you are endorsing the proposal "Liberate The Black Riders." Now, as one of the nations named within said proposal, I'm sure your first thought is that I am by no means an unbiased source to be writing to you about this, but please- hear me out.

Let's cover some background here - The Black Riders was indeed a Raider region, founded by raider, lived in by raiders, and home to a unique community. Several months ago, the founder was deleted due to rulebreaking unknown to the rest of the region, and a mob of other players moved into the region to seize control. This effort was not supported by the international community, due to it's nature as a glorified raid itself.

Now to cover the proposal:

The body states "Realizing that since the untimely demise of the regional founder Black Riders Commander also known as General Halcones, the region has become susceptible to further greifing and long term occupation."

Indeed, it has. This is exactly why the effort to secure it with a military force is so important. I have not tolerated hateful speech towards either side in the region (indeed removing some of my own support), and, you may note, have allowed those who have communicated with me or endorsed me to stay for the time being. The only nations removed have been those refusing to even acknowledge the regional rules. Also, I believe "Griefing" is spelled wrong, if anyone knows who the anonymous author is and wishes to inform them.

The proposal continues "Distraught that since the fall of General Halcones, the region has suffered two catastrophic invasions at the hands of a multiregional force led by United German Regions, and now The Black Hawks,

Cognizant of the fact several former members of The Black Riders now affiliated with DEN, along with members of The Black Hawks infiltrated the reformed government of The Black Riders and rigged elections placing them in positions of power allowing them to effectively take full control of the region."


Indeed, the region was invaded in an effort led by UGR, founder of another region. When he abruptly abandoned the region after removing many native members, it fell into a chaos picked up by Pontacium, who attempted to hand the region over to a former rider he was in communication with by abruptly resigning as well, after purging the members of UGR's government from the region. This was the point where former natives of the region, remaining there in disguise, stepped up. To say the government was "infiltrated" is unfair - we built the government from the ground, and without us the internal squabbles and lack of effort or organization would have likely prevented the government from ever becoming a reality. On the note of the "second invasion," I would propose that is a poor term - at best, we would word the effort as a "counter-invasion," an invasion of a region already under occupation. If this sounds familiar, it would be because this is essential a liberation under a different skin. Due to this fact, we've even seen some defender support in our efforts, including from the East Pacific Sovereign Army (who's at-the-time leader Xoriet openly called the effort a liberation on the RMB) and famous defender of antiquity, Drop Your Pants, who until recently was endorsing me as well.

"Fully aware that the current delegate The Ever-Wandering Souls of Harenhime also known as The Nuclear Winter Wonderlands of Ever-Wandering Souls a high ranking member of The Black Hawks has full intentions of locking this region down, thus preventing free entry into the region."

I do indeed intend to lock the region down to prevent any future invasion, as supported by those who originally founded and habituated the region.

"Cognizant that this Council is dedicated to the goal of preserving of inter-regional peace and goodwill."

If the outpouring of support as shown in the current WFE of The Black Riders is not representative of international goodwill towards the current regime, I'm not sure what is.

"Believing that by keeping this region open, the international community will benefit."

And how, exactly, will the international community benefit from this effort? There is currently no password in place, for starters, and not many people seem to be interested in coming there as is. What will "the international community" do? Raid it again like UGR did? Hold conventions there? There has already been a convention held there under the current system. There is no way that this region benefits the community as anything other than locked down memorial, as the original natives agree, and I intend to carry out.

In conclusion, I'd go so far as to say this proposal is, at heart, an incredible case of double standards. If any other region's native populace has secured their home region after an invasion, an effort to make that region open to attack by the world at large would be laughable, not near reaching queue in mere hours. The already community decided months ago, when all efforts to liberate the region under the UGR regime failed, that this region was apparently not worth liberating from any raid. I would beg of you, please do not further this double standard. Please do not set an example of liberating a native-controlled region so international forces can play with it at will. Please, take a moment, and remove support from this proposal.

Thank you for your time.

- Ever-Wandering Souls
 
I love that >list of raider and imperialist regions (oh and EPSA!) is taken as a show of international support and goodwill towards the current regime. That's just people who would've supported them anyway (EPSA excluded).

The resolution is a case of double standards, but it's a case of double standards where the fact that is double standards adds to the ironic justice of the situation. Let the raiders and griefers have a taste of their own medicine. It's very much one thing that the defenders of today are missing - and its one of the few things of TITO that I could historically support.
 
Against. The way I see it, this is a raiding tactic, not a defending tactic. Imo, the SC, as a defender body (in my understanding), shouldn't be used for what is essentially a raiding tactic disguised as a defending tactic, and therefore we should vote against. In my opinion/understanding.
 
For.

I am all in favor of some poetic fucking justice.

Edit: As an aside, I think we have very good reasons to abstain from voting on this resolution, for the same reasons we did not get involved in either the original raid on TBR, or the ensuing liberation/fortification. Voting in favor would piss off certain selections of our friends/allies, and voting against would piss off other selections. I encourage the Delegate to use his discretion on this matter, and any matter that has FA implications.
 
SillyString:
For.

I am all in favor of some poetic fucking justice.

Edit: As an aside, I think we have very good reasons to abstain from voting on this resolution, for the same reasons we did not get involved in either the original raid on TBR, or the ensuing liberation/fortification. Voting in favor would piss off certain selections of our friends/allies, and voting against would piss off other selections. I encourage the Delegate to use his discretion on this matter, and any matter that has FA implications.
I also vote For.

I also like poetic justice. I love it when this type of bad actor can get served their just desserts. Pun intended.
 
I will be voting for as well. Let TBR get raided for all I care. It's about time they receive the nails for their coffin.
 
>Double standards (irony!)
>SC hypocrisy
>Rah TBR bad Rah

I'd put my vote as "against" here, but I don't think it would matter. :)
 
Eluvatar:
flemingovia:
I vote for this resolution.

Are there arguments in favor you would care to share?
Karma.

I would not personally take part in a raid or grief. Never had. But i do not see why they should be artificially protected from it when they have been so quick to do it to others.

Also I love the attitude of raiders who pompously intone about how raiding is allowed by the game rules when THEY do it, but screech like a banshee: "Hypocrisy, squaaawk" when it is done to them.

Moar drama, please.
 
I'm very firmly against.

The irony that people are seeking to use the SC to prevent a native community securing their region is not lost on me. I don't care for either side of this conflict, but since other regions who have experienced the joys of raiding - they've had their liberations and have been rebuilt. I see no reason why TBR should not have the same.

I'm not a fan of double standards.
 
Sillystring has told me to consider her vote a vote to Abstain.

My individual vote to Abstain, I should explain more seriously, is because I think it'd be rather rude for us to oppose The East Pacific on this when it need not be a vital interest of ours.

At this time I count 5 votes for, 3 against, and 2 to abstain. As neither for nor against has a majority of the votes, I am withholding my vote at this time.

(If one wishes not to affect the result, one may vote "Present")
 
Abstain.

I'm not "up" on our region's foreign affairs, but if Sillystring is right that voting either way is going to look bad to some of our allies, and considering we have no vested interest in the region, we should probably stick with abstaining.
 
Eluvatar:
At this time I count 5 votes for, 3 against, and 2 to abstain. As neither for nor against has a majority of the votes, I am withholding my vote at this time.
That is as strange an interpretation of a voting mandate as I have ever come across. Have we ever before drawn a distinction between "present" and "abstain"?

And even allowing for that, more people want us to vote yes than to vote abstain.

Looks to me like Elu is interpreting things to allow him to do what he wants to do which, as usual, is to plot a course that upsets the fewest people.
 
flemingovia:
Eluvatar:
At this time I count 5 votes for, 3 against, and 2 to abstain. As neither for nor against has a majority of the votes, I am withholding my vote at this time.
That is as strange an interpretation of a voting mandate as I have ever come across. Have we ever before drawn a distinction between "present" and "abstain"?

And even allowing for that, more people want us to vote yes than to vote abstain.

Looks to me like Elu is interpreting things to allow him to do what he wants to do which, as usual, is to plot a course that upsets the fewest people.

Abstaining when there is not a majority for voting for or for voting against is how I've handled these votes for quite some time now.

It would not, in my view, make sense to only abstain if the plurality was for abstention, as the three outcomes are not unconnected. In effect, I'm considering those who vote For to prefer an Abstention to our voting Against and those who vote Against to prefer an Abstention to our voting For. Those who vote to Abstain of course prefer that we Abstain to our voting either way as a region.

Given a count of 5 for, 5 against, and 2 to abstain this is less relevant now, but let's examine the previous count of 5:3:2 more closely.

5 were favoring my voting in favor. 3 were favoring my voting against. 2 were favoring my abstention from voting. The 3 who favoring voting against are assumed to prefer my abstaining to my voting in favor. Therefore on the question of whether I should vote for or abstain, there are 5 who prefer I vote for and 5 who prefer I abstain -- a tie. (Between abstaining and voting against, 7 prefer I abstain and 3 prefer I vote against).

That I consider the option of abstaining to win ties is somewhat arbitrary, but it's the only tie resolution mechanism that makes sense to me.
 
The Security Council resolution "Liberate The Black Riders" was defeated 8,822 votes to 2,023.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
Back
Top