[Complete]Liberate Illuminati

Sil Dorsett

Sil Dorsett

The Belt Collector
-
-
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
sil_dorsett
Discord
sildorsett
Category: Liberation
Nominee: Illuminati
Proposed by: Cormactopia Prime
Onsite Topic

The Security Council:

Observing that The Black Hawks, supported by a coalition of invader and imperialist forces, have invaded and occupied the region Illuminati, capitalizing upon the region's unpopularity in the hope that the interregional community will ignore their destructive aims;

Acknowledging that Illuminati has a troubled history, and that regional natives as well as foreign governments have legitimate grievances against its displaced regional government;

Conceding that intervention against the displaced regional government of Illuminati may be appropriate if requested by a significant portion of the native population, including natives forced from the region by said government;

Asserting that it would be preferable for such an intervention to be undertaken by a coalition reputable enough to be trusted with restoring native government after the intervention has concluded, rather than being conducted by invaders aiming to add Illuminati to their list of conquests and deprive its natives of democratic self-government, and perhaps prevent natives from returning to the region;

Declaring that it would be contrary to the mission statement of this Security Council to give tacit approval to the conquest of any region by invaders condemned by this very institution, except under the most grave and compelling circumstances, a litmus test this invasion and occupation does not pass;

Hereby Liberates Illuminati.
Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[wavote=the_north_pacific,sc]2017_03_05_liberate_illuminati[/wavote]
[wavote=world,sc]2017_03_05_liberate_illuminati[/wavote]
 
This is an unusual liberation proposal, as there appear to be two separate groups of natives contesting whether a liberation of Illuminati is necessary. A majority of the natives who have expressed an opinion, including the former founder, are against the liberation. Not only that, they have also expressed opinions supporting the occupation by The Black Hawks, as well as supporting The Black Hawks' stated intent of refounding the region. On the other hand, a smaller group of natives want the liberation to move forward so they can attempt to end the occupation. Even though there is a divide, judging from the publicly-expressed opinions, the conclusion we draw is that a majority of the native population oppose the liberation.

It is worth pointing out that even the liberation proposal itself acknowledges that an intervention (a raid) in Illuminati may be warranted if supported by the native population. The proposal additionally contends that The Black Hawks should be removed, so that a different raid can be conducted by a ""more reputable group"". As explained above, a majority of natives indeed support such a raid and are content with the current one carried out by The Black Hawks. So, effectively, the liberation proposal asks us not only to disregard the natives of Illuminati, but, absurdly, to do so that we can have someone else raid Illuminati.

The complicated internal conflicts and the absurdity of the resolution text make this situation far from clear. What is currently clear, though, is that most natives simply do not want this liberation to pass.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote against this resolution.
 
Just fyi, this isn't up next. Liberate South Pacific will come first because it was submitted first.

[border=#000,1,solid][bgcolor=#090]SD: My mistake. Thanks.[/bgcolor][/border]
 
I encourage all voting parties to take a look at the forum thread on the matter - in short, both the player that founded the region and multiple (oft at odds) factions of the region have spoken there against the resolution. The native support is entirely shaky at *best* with the two most recent delegates being the only examples I know of, at least one of whom has been there only aproximately as long as our sleeper has. Far older and more prominent members have expressed a lack of support for this resolution. Their own words would do their comments better justice, so again, I encourage you to read the thread. Thanks!
 
Ever-Wandering Souls:
I encourage all voting parties to take a look at the forum thread on the matter - in short, both the player that founded the region and multiple (oft at odds) factions of the region have spoken there against the resolution. The native support is entirely shaky at *best* with the two most recent delegates being the only examples I know of, at least one of whom has been there only aproximately as long as our sleeper has. Far older and more prominent members have expressed a lack of support for this resolution. Their own words would do their comments better justice, so again, I encourage you to read the thread. Thanks!
Click to expand...
And yet by Souls' own admission in this post, there are natives who don't want their region destroyed and would like to keep residing there. So the question, to me, is: Shouldn't they be given priority over the "natives" who want the region destroyed and no longer want to reside there? Those folks can go reside somewhere else regardless of whether the region is destroyed; the natives who want to continue residing there won't be able to do so if the region is destroyed. It's a bit like the Judgment of Solomon, really. You don't give the baby to the person who is okay with cutting it in half; you give it to the person who isn't.

Whether there are two natives or twenty who don't want their region destroyed, if you don't believe in letting raiders destroy regions when there are natives around and active who want to keep it, or just don't believe in letting raiders destroy regions in general, then this liberation resolution is pretty open and shut.
 
Just to be sure...
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
 
Aren't we against griefing? If we aren't, somebody needs to say something, because it's assumed we are against griefing.

The above is wrong. Regardless, For
 
It is very odd to see so many people against this resolution when historically TNP has been against griefing.
 
St George:
It is very odd to see so many people against this resolution when historically TNP has been against griefing.
Click to expand...
In the brave new world in which the NPA also attempted an invasion of Belgium the other day, anything is possible.

But yeah, I don't understand why either TNP or Europeia, both of which claim to be against griefing, are voting to support griefing in Illuminati. Why not just pile in and endorse The Black Hawks as well? There is very little difference.
 
It does seem to be a rather gaping hole in the NPAF Doctrine that TNP can enable a grief in this way. I'm not in a position to legislate on the issue, but if I could, I would.
 
For the benefit of noobs such as myself, could someone explain why people take such exception to the Illuminati?
 
Mall:
It seems to be the case that no one likes the region *shrugs*
Click to expand...
(Probably biased) Tl;dr - they've pissed a lot of people in other regions,, have long had an internal faction war, got their own founder deleted as part of said internal squabbling, and a majority of factions including several that hate each other are all against this lib (which also suggests future intervention for a faction of their choice). Some of those factions are even actively giving the military action there their blessing and supporting it! I'd like to think many regions are looking at this and shrugging, figuring why should they and the SC get involved with picking sides in this.

Edit: quoted wrong person, can't figure out how to fix it on mobile, oops
 
Ever-Wandering Souls:
Mall:
It seems to be the case that no one likes the region *shrugs*
Click to expand...
(Probably biased) Tl;dr - they've pissed a lot of people in other regions,, have long had an internal faction war, got their own founder deleted as part of said internal squabbling, and a majority of factions including several that hate each other are all against this lib (which also suggests future intervention for a faction of their choice). Some of those factions are even actively giving the military action there their blessing and supporting it! I'd like to think many regions are looking at this and shrugging, figuring why should they and the SC get involved with picking sides in this.

Edit: quoted wrong person, can't figure out how to fix it on mobile, oops
Click to expand...
The Security Council wouldn't be picking sides between natives; that will be up to the natives to figure out when your invasion ends, unless some other force intervenes on behalf of one of their factions, which is unlikely.

The Security Council is picking between natives and you, and letting you grief a region for edgy funsies should never be the choice over giving it back to natives who still want it. It's not complicated. You want to grief a region, and no one should vote to let you do that. The North Pacific should be better than this.
 
Caligula:
For the benefit of noobs such as myself, could someone explain why people take such exception to the Illuminati?
Click to expand...
I have the same doubt , but I'll keep reading
 
Edu Villad:
Caligula:
For the benefit of noobs such as myself, could someone explain why people take such exception to the Illuminati?
Click to expand...
I have the same doubt , but I'll keep reading
Click to expand...
I'll try and provide a slightly less biased PoV, though I do still recommend reading the thread itself. Here is what the government of the independent region of Europeia, one not involved in this military action, telegrammed their members following discussion on their forums:

This is an unusual liberation proposal, as there appear to be two separate groups of natives contesting whether a liberation of Illuminati is necessary. A majority of the natives who have expressed an opinion, including the former founder, are against the liberation. Not only that, they have also expressed opinions supporting the occupation by The Black Hawks, as well as supporting The Black Hawks' stated intent of refounding the region. On the other hand, a smaller group of natives want the liberation to move forward so they can attempt to end the occupation. Even though there is a divide, judging from the publicly-expressed opinions, the conclusion we draw is that a majority of the native population oppose the liberation.

It is worth pointing out that even the liberation proposal itself acknowledges that an intervention (a raid) in Illuminati may be warranted, if supported by the native population. The proposal additionally contends that The Black Hawks should be removed, so that a different raid can be conducted by a "more reputable group". As explained above, a majority of natives indeed support such a raid and are content with the current one carried out by The Black Hawks. So, effectively, the liberation proposal asks us not only to disregard the natives of Illuminati, but, absurdly, to do this so that we can have someone else raid Illuminati.

The complicated internal conflicts and the absurdity of the resolution text make this situation far from clear. What is currently clear, though, is that most natives simply do not want this liberation to pass.

Given this, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against the resolution.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that's a bit better of a gameplay-knowledgeable third party summary for you.
 
Cormac:
But yeah, I don't understand why either TNP or Europeia, both of which claim to be against griefing, are voting to support griefing in Illuminati
Click to expand...
We aren't against griefing. If we are, you got a lot of people to talk to.
 
Mystery Player:
Cormac:
But yeah, I don't understand why either TNP or Europeia, both of which claim to be against griefing, are voting to support griefing in Illuminati
Click to expand...
We aren't against griefing. If we are, you got a lot of people to talk to.
Click to expand...
Who is this "we" of which you speak? If you mean TNP. let me refer you to the legal code which specifically states:
3. The NPAF must follow all of the following criteria on every mission in foreign regions, except against designated enemy regions:
a. Minimize collateral damage;
b. Respect the culture of the region and the wishes of the natives;
c. Minimize threat to The North Pacific and allies;
d. Restore region to its original state before leaving;
e. Contact the most recent native delegate when acting proactively;
Click to expand...
The law is in place to reflect our deeply rooted concern for communities which are damaged by griefing. Anyone who thinks TNP should support griefing could use a little history lesson. The traumatic events we were subjected to have made an indelible imprint on the consciousness of this region. Griefing a community means they will lose people, and those who survive will have a struggle rebuilding. I didn't like it when it happened here, so I have a great deal of empathy for other communities who find themselves in similar circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top