Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
Following the CAIN conference, the following treaty has been drafted, and I am submitting it to the RA for ratification.

Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism (CAIN)

We, the undersigned governments; mindful of the impact Nazism has on the community we all share, devoted to combating scientific racism, appalled by the glorification of Nazi Germany, determined to overcome gameplay differences, and committed to making the NationStates community more accessible; do hereby establish and join the Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism, herein referred to as "CAIN", and agree to recognize and adhere to this Treaty and the commitments set forth within.

1. Definitions

Nazism: The ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state, as well as other far-right groups. In the context of NationStates, it is an ideology that glorifies National Socialism or Nazi Germany and/or actively practices Nazi beliefs such as antisemitism, pseudo-scientific racism, racial hygiene, slaughter for living space, genocide, eugenics, persecution of LGBT, etc.

Nazi Region: A region recognized by CAIN as a region that practices, or has practiced, Nazism.

Nazi Collaborator: A region recognized by CAIN as a region that assists in furthering the agenda of, and/or shares core beliefs with, Nazism and/or Nazi Regions.

Signatories: The regions and organizations that sign this treaty.

On-Site Embassy: An embassy created through NationStates.

Off-Site Embassy: An embassy created on the off-site forum of a signatory region.

Inter-regional Agreement: Any Treaty, Accord, Pact, or Agreement with another region recognized by a signatory's government as legally binding.

Military Assistance: In the context of NationStates, military assistance shall be described as participation in raiding, defending, assisting in delegate transfers, or any other military action that benefits another region.

2. Membership Administration

(a) Signatories shall not maintain off-site or on-site embassies with Nazi Regions.

(b) Signatories shall not enter into inter-regional agreements with Nazi Regions.

(c) In order to be recognized as a signatory, regions must ratify this treaty in concordance with their internal laws. Once ratified, regions must send a legal representative to signify their acceptance of this treaty within the sub-forum of the Europeian off-site forum where the original treaty will be maintained for all signatories.

(d) Any signatory may nominate a region that meets the definition, as described by this Treaty, to be a Nazi Region. Such nominations must be approved by a vote of two-thirds of signatories before being officially designated as such by CAIN.

(e) Any signatory may nominate a region that aids in spreading the beliefs of Nazism to be considered a Nazi Collaborator. Such nominations must be approved by a vote of two-thirds of signatories before being officially designated as such by CAIN.

(f) Any region may be removed from the officially designated list of Nazi Regions by a vote of three-fourths of signatories.

(g) Any region which voluntarily participates in a military operation alongside, or possesses an on-site embassy with, a Nazi Region shall be officially designated as Nazi Collaborators.

(h) Any region officially designated as a Nazi Collaborator shall be subjected to the same clauses as Nazi Regions with the exception of Section 2(g).

(i) Europeia shall maintain a list of all officially designated Nazi Regions alongside the original CAIN treaty.

(j) No region designated as a Nazi Region may join CAIN as a signatory.

(k) Any signatory may be removed as a signatory by a vote of three-fourths of remaining signatories.

(l) The highest executive authority of a signatory region, or an internally selected representative, will be recognized as that signatory's voting member for the votes mentioned in this treaty.

(m) All votes mentioned in this treaty shall be announced one week in advance of the voting process, and shall last five days.

(n) In order for the voting process to take place, a simple majority of signatories must indicate their presence. Any signatory which is not present during the voting process will have their vote counted as an abstention.

(o) The votes mentioned in this treaty shall take place on the off-site forum of Europeia in a sub-forum contained next to the original treaty. This sub-forum will be restricted to legal representatives of signatories.

3. Functions

(a) Signatories shall not provide military assistance to any region officially designated as a Nazi Region.

(b) Signatories shall append a document to the treaty, which may be amended by a motion supported by a majority of signatories. Within this document will be listed a number of Standardized Responses which signatories are encouraged but not required to use in the intended circumstances.

(c) The circumstances for which a standardized response shall be listed will include, but not be limited to, the following:
(i) A Nazi Region acting militarily against a signatory,
(ii) A Nazi Region participating within a military operation of a non-Nazi Region, and
(iii) A Signatory acting militarily against a Nazi Region.

(d) Signatories commit to working together, when consistent with internal policy, to oppose Nazi Regions through military means. This commitment includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Invading Nazi holdings,
(ii) Liberating regions raided by Nazi Regions, and
(iii) Defending against raids involving Nazi Regions.

(e) Signatories commit to working together, when consistent with internal policy, to oppose Nazi Regions through Security Council means. This commitment includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Opposing commendation proposals of Nazi regions and players,
(ii) Cooperation on condemnation proposals of Nazi regions and players,
(iii) Supporting defensive liberation proposals for regions raided by Nazis, and
(iv) Supporting offensive liberation proposals against Nazi Regions.

(f) The signatories of this treaty shall maintain a thread on the Gameplay section of the NationStates forums in which standardized responses shall be posted. For the sake of transparency, the original treaty shall serve as the first post in this thread.

4. General Provisions

(a) Signatories recognize that signing this treaty does not make them allies of the other signatories.

(b) Signatories recognize that signing this treaty does not signify political, diplomatic, or gameplay agreement with their fellow signatories except on the subject of Nazism and Nazi Regions.

(c) This treaty is considered legally binding upon a signatory's completion of the requirements described in Section 2(c).

(d) Should a region wish to resign as a signatory of CAIN, they may do so by going through the process of repealing this treaty in concordance with their internal laws and disseminating a public notice of its repeal. Such notices must be released in a way that reaches a majority of signatories.

(e) Any region wishing to join as a signatory of CAIN after the initial conference on this treaty may do so by receiving sponsorship from two signatories. Sponsored regions will then be voted on by all signatories. Should they receive a simple majority of the vote, regions must complete the requirements described elsewhere in this treaty.

(f) This treaty may be amended by a vote of three-fourths of signatories. Such amendments must then be ratified by the signatories before being considered binding. Amendments will be announced in the CAIN Gameplay thread, after which signatories have two weeks to decide whether they wish to ratify the amendment or not. If no progress has been made on the ratification process after those two weeks the region will no longer be considered a signatory.

(g) Any signatory may opt-out of ratifying amendments to CAIN. After doing so, they will no longer be considered a signatory.

(h) Any signatory which misses two votes consecutively will have their signatory status suspended until such time that they request to be returned to active status. During this suspension, they will not be counted as a signatory for clauses mentioned in this treaty.
Click to expand...
 
I strongly support this treaty.

A large number of regions with varied interests have come together after much deliberation to produce this document. Regardless of whether we are raiders or defenders, leftists or conservatives, I think most players recognize that the acceptance of Nazi regions hinders people's ability to be themselves and tarnishes the reputation of the entire Nationstates community.

Given the wide variety of groups involved, the negotiations for this treaty were fraught with difficulty. There were many times where I thought the effort was in doubt. Yet here we are, with a solid document before us.

Let's ratify this treaty and prove to the world that the international community can set aside differences and align against a force which threatens the well-being of the game.
 
Full support. These dangerous times require decisive action, we can't keep taking it for granted that this ideology is a small and isolated sect and let it spread in the shadows.
 
For the sake of those of us not aware of this conference, can you provide a list of who else participated? I am curious.
 
I strongly urge the Regional Assembly to give this proposal the attention it duly deserves.

Nazism is a serious issue in NS. This treaty works towards combatting it.

There were a wide variety of signatories at this conference representing the most powerful regions in Nationstates. Should the vast majority of them ratify the treaty it will make it extremely unattractive for regions to support Nazism.

I hope that The North Pacific will take this opportunity to stand against Nazism.

The regions that participated and their representatives are:

The Internationale: Caelapes (Misley), Proletaire
The North Pacific: Plembobria, Praetor
Lone Wolves United: Dream Killers
Equilism: Isaris, Westwind
Grand Central: Ikania
Albion: Cadmus, Seven Deaths
HYDRA Command: Tom
The Order of the Grey Wardens: Benevolent Thomas, Olevsky
The Red Fleet: Jesso, Timchi
The West Pacific: Big Bad Badger, Mediobogdum
Balder: Rach, Zander
Osiris: Cormac, Adytus
Europeia: Writinglegend
Kingdom of Alexandria: Lord Ravenclaw, Khronion
Wintreath: Wintermoot
North Korea: Kazirstan
Lazarus: Funkadelia
The Communist Bloc: Branden Schirpke, M.M. (Nebula)
The Land of Kings and Emperors: OnderKelkia
The South Pacific: Glen-Rhodes, Sam111
The Leftist Assembly: Tuva SSR
Arda en' Estel: Aynia
The Democratic Union of Republics: The Republic of Agregate
The Kingdom of Great Britain: George Mountbatten VI
The Allied States: Pepe Draken
Yggdrasil: Brad Conley, Wordiness
The Universal Allegiance: Lollerland
Taijitu: Eluvatar
Equinox: Asylum, Terrabuena
Renegade Islands Alliance: Scepez
United Kingdom: Misael G. Bartlet
Hearth of Hestia: Yuno
The Rejected Realms: Libetarian Republics
The East Pacific: Todd McCloud
The Invaders: Knot
Antifa/MT Army: Vippertooth33
 
This one really seems like a no-brainer. Nazism is indefensible and with the passing of this treaty, it will become even more so. I fully support.
 
Syrixia:
Support. Such a large coalition will near-(if not totally) eradicate the NSzis. (My name for NS nazis)
Click to expand...
Nah.

(Most) Nazis in NationStates are trolls; it's not like they're all skinheads in RL or something. When you try to fight them - be it by condemning them, raiding them, shunning them, or hosting an enormous conference against them - you feed them.

The only best response is to starve the trolls of attention.
 
While I'm against nazis,in RL and everywhere else and I support this coalition,after a second thought I have to agree with what Eyes said.
 
That's a very fast move to Formal Debate.

If we had suggestions to amend the text, would they be considered by the delegate and/or presented to the other parties to the treaty? Or is this to be considered the final form, with no amendments permitted?
 
Eyes that do not Lie:
Nah.

(Most) Nazis in NationStates are trolls; it's not like they're all skinheads in RL or something. When you try to fight them - be it by condemning them, raiding them, shunning them, or hosting an enormous conference against them - you feed them.

The only best response is to starve the trolls of attention.
Click to expand...

I used to agree with this, but it is a fact that these trolls are themselves feeding this ideology by waving its banner. The few among them (if indeed it is a few) who truly believe this still benefit from the all the people riding along. If we tolerate their presence we will, like it or not, normalize and legitimize their behavior, we will acknowledge it as a valid form of expression. Too often the tongue-in-cheek and ironic allegiance to this crap gives way to acceptance and even soft embracing of its principles. It poisons the minds of people over time, it introduces them to a way of thinking that they become accustomed to, and they change as a result. We have seen this outside of this game, it's pernicious and it's spreading because of thinking like this, that if we marginalize them and ignore them they will lose interest and it will shrink into nothingness. It won't, it hasn't, and the time has come to put a stop to it.

Freedom of speech means we do have to put up with some awful stuff. However, it goes both ways. We also have a right to speak out against it. Their marches can be matched by our own. It takes on a different form in this game, so we simply do it the best way we can within the confines of NS. They're going to be awful and continue preaching their hate seriously or in jest whether we take action or not, and just as I would not oppose a condemnation because people "want a badge," I would not tie my hands behind my back because some trolls will feel some satisfaction at causing a stir. There's a stir because we're putting our foots down and taking a stand that is worth taking. If you don't believe that eliminating this scourge from wherever it is found is a fight worth having, then don't engage in the fight. If you do, I don't see how you could seriously believe that we will accomplish anything by continuing to look the other way.
 
SillyString:
That's a very fast move to Formal Debate.

If we had suggestions to amend the text, would they be considered by the delegate and/or presented to the other parties to the treaty? Or is this to be considered the final form, with no amendments permitted?
Click to expand...
It is considered to be the final form. The hosts of the conference felt it would take too long to consider all the amendments proffered by the various regional legislatures, of which there are many.
 
Is this a "take it or leave it" proposal, because there are one or two phrases I think need editing, and one clause that might cause us trouble down the line.
 
flemingovia:
Is this a "take it or leave it" proposal, because there are one or two phrases I think need editing, and one clause that might cause us trouble down the line.
Click to expand...
This treaty was deliberated by 36 regions for over a month. This is the eighth and final draft to come out of the negotiations. This is the document which has been presented for ratification. The treaty includes procedures to amend it at a later date.

Are these concerns dire enough to back out of the treaty? What are they?
 
I anticipate that this Treaty will be ratified here. I also think that is a great shame. As someone for whom the organisation of neo-Nazis is an actual concern that has had an actual impact on me, this is not a positive thing in any way.

My opinions regarding Nazism in NS are well-known, I believe. It's a problem for Admin to deal with. I do not need to fight Nazis on an online game to know that I do what is required of me, as a decent person, to fight the spread of Nazism. There are enough issues with RL Nazis for me not to want to "fight" them in an online game. Indeed, relegating the fight against Nazism to in-game actions such as "invasions" or "defences" of online webpages, just as we do in this game with any other group. This is on such a different level to this game, that conflating the two to such a degree is frankly insulting. When it brings food to the plate of Holocaust survivors, or breaks-up meetings of the far-right, or ensures the arrest of people responsible for Holocaust-denying material, call me.

Even if I somehow accept that reducing the incidence of Nazism on NS is feasible through this treaty, it has to be recognised that conflict in NS has traditionally caused an increase, not decrease, in activity. Don't give them a war to fight, and they may well be choked of the air they need.
 
Pallaith:
I used to agree with this, but it is a fact that these trolls are themselves feeding this ideology by waving its banner. The few among them (if indeed it is a few) who truly believe this still benefit from the all the people riding along. If we tolerate their presence we will, like it or not, normalize and legitimize their behavior, we will acknowledge it as a valid form of expression. Too often the tongue-in-cheek and ironic allegiance to this crap gives way to acceptance and even soft embracing of its principles. It poisons the minds of people over time, it introduces them to a way of thinking that they become accustomed to, and they change as a result. We have seen this outside of this game, it's pernicious and it's spreading because of thinking like this, that if we marginalize them and ignore them they will lose interest and it will shrink into nothingness. It won't, it hasn't, and the time has come to put a stop to it.

Freedom of speech means we do have to put up with some awful stuff. However, it goes both ways. We also have a right to speak out against it. Their marches can be matched by our own. It takes on a different form in this game, so we simply do it the best way we can within the confines of NS. They're going to be awful and continue preaching their hate seriously or in jest whether we take action or not, and just as I would not oppose a condemnation because people "want a badge," I would not tie my hands behind my back because some trolls will feel some satisfaction at causing a stir. There's a stir because we're putting our foots down and taking a stand that is worth taking. If you don't believe that eliminating this scourge from wherever it is found is a fight worth having, then don't engage in the fight. If you do, I don't see how you could seriously believe that we will accomplish anything by continuing to look the other way.
Click to expand...
When I was in school (age 11-12), there was this kid who was always bullying someone. It didn't really matter who, he just selected the most shy/most autistic/fattest/ugliest kid. In this case, it was an autistic boy with a officious and overprotective mother. When this boy got angry, his face turned red and he started throwing anything that was at hand. The bully obviously had a few kids who followed him and laughed at his jokes. Eventually, they also started bullying the autistic kid. As the situation got worse the teacher felt the need to intervene. She gave lessons about anti-bullying, she organized a conversation between the bully, his victim and both their parents, and she activated an impressive anti-bullying protocol. Did any of the efforts of our teacher helped to stop the bully? Of course it didn't. The bully continued on being his own sickening self. As long as his 'friends' kept following him, and his victim threw pencils and books furiously every now and then, the bully was perfectly fine: he got all the attention he wanted.

As the years were passing by, the bully, and so his classmates, got older. The bully continued on bullying. But his classmates started losing interest in his silly mockings and never-ending childish naggings, and they stopped laughing at his jokes; they simply stopped caring. Everyone outgrew this strict popularity-hiearchy that characterizes younger classes so much. So what happened? The bully stopped bullying - because it just wasn't sufficient to upkeep his popularity and circle of 'friends'. And his years-long victim, who happened and happens to be my best friend, didn't have go to school in fear and anxiety everyday, anymore.
 
I belong to a generation where the memories of WW2 are very raw. I lost an uncle in the fighting, and one grandparent in the blitz. When i grew up in London, there were still piles of rubble where houses had been bombed out. At he bottom of my garden was an air raid shelter.

I have also been left wing for most of my life, a member of the Anti Nazi League and so on. I hate fascism in real life, and regard those who go nazi-themed in Nationstates to be beyond contempt. I really, really wish that when Maxx set the game up he had done more than ban the swastika.

However, having read the comments above, i am swayed in favour of voting against this. it gives Nazi regions and supporters more oxygen of publicity than they deserve, and a prominence that is not warranted.

I regret that NS lacks the ideological battles it once had, but this is not the way to do it. It sort of trivialises the memory of people like my uncle for us to piss around in a game with official sounding anti-nazi treaties.

Sorry, but it is just how i feel in my heart.
 
I refuse to take Nazis seriously.

On NS I'm a defender except when it comes to Nazi regions, which I want to see raided and destroyed, and loved the old days of the GGR when we made so much fun out of their kinky leader. Now, this treaty makes them look like the final boss of the internet.

I might vote for this proposal, in fact I will probably do, but I'd like it much more if it included some lulzy clause, like they're targeted for being losers or something of the sort.

(This reminds me of my first warning ever on NS, for calling a Nazi recruiter a f*ckface (sic) on the RMB lol)
 
I'm against this, for the reasons stated above by those who are more articulate than I am. If this passes, I'll certainly still bash Nazis as an NPA member, but as a Citizen, I do not want to see this treaty passed.
 
I have full support for this. Nazism in real life destroyed so much, we do not need it to destroy our game today or destroy anything else. But, like many others, i do not think they deserve so much publicity. They do not deserve it. So while i have support, i might abstain from the vote.
 
SillyString:
Can anyone provide a concrete example of a distinction between a Nazi Region and a Nazi Collaborator?
Click to expand...
A region which assists a Nazi Region militarily or possesses an on-site embassy with them. Aside from that, a region which promotes antisemitism, pseudo-scientific racism, racial hygiene, slaughter for living space, genocide, eugenics, persecution of LGBT, etc. Without being an actual Nazi.
 
flemingovia:
Three days for the RA to digest and debate a major treaty? Really?
Click to expand...
We've had more than three days thus far. However, I do agree a vote should be postponed.

I move to postpone the vote.
 
Hmm... unless I'm reading it wrong, I don't see anything in RA procedure that says that the proposer solely asking to postpone the vote would delay it, except by the clause "8. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion."

Just in case, I object to the Speaker's decision to schedule the vote.
 
Rules of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific:
Section 1. Proposals

3. If, before a vote on a proposal begins, at least three citizens object to the decision of the Speaker to schedule it, the Speaker must cancel the scheduled vote.
Click to expand...
I object to the vote being held at this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top