Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism

Of course, if the signatories of this treaty REALLY wanted it to have teeth and make nazi trolls think again they would add a clause like:

"Any player who is identified as belonging to a Nazi region shall be immediately and permanently IP banned (if possible) from all signatories' forums. Details of IP addresses shall be shared between signatory regions and shall be used to enforce this ban as widely as possible."
 
Taking the Delegate's motion as being an objection to the vote, and seeing two further objections, I cancel the scheduled vote. I will say, however, that it seems to me that a similar result, in terms of there being a lengthier debate, could have been achieved by the Delegate delaying his original motion to vote.
 
This is the one time I will weigh in properly on an issue and I agree with Flem on the IP bans, make the penalties much more severe and it has my support. Nazism and Fascism have to be eradicated no matter the cost. That's all I have to, and will, say.
 
I would add that forums regularly share information allowing the preemptive banning of stalkers, sexual predators and forum crashers. This would be an extension of that.

Could we ban all the nazis? No. Could we get enough to make others take pause? maybe. Either way, it is more than tokenism.
 
If there is one thing I have learned on the Internet, that is "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS."

If there is one thing I have learned in real life, that is "IGNORE BULLIES; DON'T AMUSE THEM."

This isn't World War II. We aren't fighting for the fate of the entire world.

This treaty will certainly sharply decrease NS Nazism, but it will also fan the flames enough so that what is left will be more tenacious than ever, and with tenacity and Nazism in the same place one has a breeding ground for at the very least somewhat bona fide Nazis.

Now amplify that to include 36 regions and then make the entire anti-Nazi effort so unnecessarily coordinated to the point where Nazi regions have to be registered in an organized manner, and you have an against vote from me.
 
Strongly against.

If I can see region like the invaders, communist bloc, and some other raiders signing this.

I support whats eyes had already said.
 
I feel obliged to note that "ignore bullies" is not actually terribly useful advice; there are plenty of them who will, in fact, escalate if they are ignored so that you cannot ignore them anymore.

flemingovia:
I would add that forums regularly share information allowing the preemptive banning of stalkers, sexual predators and forum crashers. This would be an extension of that.
Click to expand...

I see no reason why TNP cannot begin exactly this kind of initiative - I'm sure many of our allies who signed this treaty will be interested. We don't have to formalize it in this or any document for it to become policy.
 
Syrixia:
flemingovia:
We don't have to formalize it in this or any document for it to become policy.
Click to expand...


That could be said about this entire treaty.
Click to expand...
:lol: :agree:
Click to expand...
Except that it can't.

We mustered a force of eighty four different updaters from eighteen different regions. We added at around twenty more pilers to bring that total over at least one hundred participants on the very first mission and with many of them participating in a couple of other missions to go alongside the raid against The NSIA. Regions actively put aside not just their differences but their wars to participate in a joint military operation together for the largest military operation in over two years (with 84 updaters, I believe we topped even Anne Frank). To accompany these feats was the third successful offensive liberation in NS history, a repeal that is currently up nine to one in voting, thirty six individual regions ranging from a wide variety of backgrounds and spheres coming together for a single cause, and a conference that included over two hundred attendees. I haven't been around for too long but I can't think of many times when any of that has happened and I'm certain it hasn't happened in the two years that I've been playing.

We did discuss having shared bans across signatories but there are some regions with heavily regulated citizenship requirements and the fear was that it would conflict too heavily to bring us anything but harm in the various ratification processes. Instead, we decided to omit it with the potential for it to be added at a later date by way of amendment. After adding over five hundred words to the treaty over almost two weeks of time, I was confident that we could do what we needed to (diplomatic and military isolation) without having to impose too heavily on internal governance.

I also want to address the idea that this is tokenism. It's not and it's a bit insulting to imply otherwise is a bit insulting. Over the course of a month, I've heard implications that I'm doing this for politics, that I want to make this about Europeia, and been insulted more times than I can count so I'll make it clear that I'm doing this because I'm tired of seeing an ideology that destroyed my family being glorified in a game I enjoy. With this treaty, we set up a couple of key points of opposition: Security Council cooperation, military and diplomatic isolation, public denouncement, and large scale military cooperation. With these and a large base of signatories, we ensure that no gameplay region will ever work with Nazis as they'll lose the cooperation of major gameplay regions, we create WA cooperation on a scale that is not currently seen in NS, isolate them from any non-collaborator with denouncement, and neuter their military capabilities while bringing more military cooperation than any previous coalition.

Strongly against.

If I can see region like the invaders, communist bloc, and some other raiders signing this.

I support whats eyes had already said.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Raiders and TCB are welcome to sign this treaty. It doesn't make TNP their ally or signify any agreement on anything outside of Nazism. The entire point of the treaty is to put aside our gameplay differences to oppose an ideology that transcends our in-character gameplay traits.

I feel obliged to note that "ignore bullies" is not actually terribly useful advice; there are plenty of them who will, in fact, escalate if they are ignored so that you cannot ignore them anymore.
Click to expand...

This is the main point that I wanted to make. National Socialism, or Nazism, is an ideology that has existed for eighty years. It's led to the slaughter of millions and the marginalization of many more over eight decades. It's not going to go away simply because we ignore it and comparing it to a 12 year old bully is... naive. For every story like that, there are two or more about the bully that got punched in the mouth by someone that got tired of being pushed around and never bullied anyone again.

The NS community has been saying "let's just leave them alone" for over a decade. It's time to stop saying that they'll just go away if we ignore them and instead band together to make a statement that the community we've all built won't just sit idly by while they spread hate. I'm tired of seeing a group that hates me and others like me for being a Jew being allowed to do what they want because people are too afraid to oppose them in case that they'll get angry. Screw that. What about when we get angry? What about when we say that enough is enough? There are far more of us than there are of them and we don't have to sit around and pretend like they can do any real damage other than run their mouths against us.
 
This is the main point that I wanted to make. National Socialism, or Nazism, is an ideology that has existed for eighty years. It's led to the slaughter of millions and the marginalization of many more over eight decades.
Click to expand...
I know what Nazism is. But I also know that the ideology of Nazism has nothing to do with the NS players who unite themselves in NE and similar regions. Those players will never tell you that all Jews are inferior in a serious political discussion. They're not nazis. You're confusing two things here: nazis and nazi-trolls.

It's not going to go away simply because we ignore it and comparing it to a 12 year old bully is... naive. For every story like that, there are two or more about the bully that got punched in the mouth by someone that got tired of being pushed around and never bullied anyone again.
Click to expand...
It's important to realise that a bully is one person. If you punch him in the mouth there's indeed a chance he'll stop. But the nazis are a community in NS (my comparison indeed doesn't really work here). You can punch a bunch and that might work, but it won't stop the other 90% who is not affected by the punch. Plus, there's a constant accretion of new trolls who are not aware of the punches their predecessors endured. So no, this is not exactly the same.

The NS community has been saying "let's just leave them alone" for over a decade.
Click to expand...
...but has the community also actually been leaving them alone? I'm quite new to NS so correct me if I'm wrong, but in my perception, nazism has always been opposed and fought against. I mean, it's not like CAIN is the first try ever to get rid of nazism (although it's probably the most impressive one).

It's time to stop saying that they'll just go away if we ignore them and instead band together to make a statement that the community we've all built won't just sit idly by while they spread hate. I'm tired of seeing a group that hates me and others like me for being a Jew being allowed to do what they want because people are too afraid to oppose them in case that they'll get angry.
Click to expand...
If you say I and people like me are afraid to oppose them, you completely missed the point. In my post about the bully I said his classmates didn't oppose him because they simply didn't care. This has nothing to do with your actions being lead by fear. It actually is about letting your (very understandable) anger, resentment and hatred slide. It's about letting go.
 
I know what Nazism is. But I also know that the ideology of Nazism has nothing to do with the NS players who unite themselves in NE and similar regions. Those players will never tell you that all Jews are inferior in a serious political discussion. They're not nazis. You're confusing two things here: nazis and nazi-trolls.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. If you take a look at a region like The NSIA, that went founderless and was being actively protected by Nazi Europa, actively pushed for "the survival, expansion and advancement of the White Race through the promotion of National Socialism, White Nationalism, Pan-Aryanism and many other worthy ideologies" while Nazi Europa's namesake was created by through and through Nazis. There are almost certainly Nazis in the regions we seek to oppose and you can almost certainly see discussions of racist policies in these regions.

...but has the community also actually been leaving them alone? I'm quite new to NS so correct me if I'm wrong, but in my perception, nazism has always been opposed and fought against. I mean, it's not like CAIN is the first try ever to get rid of nazism (although it's probably the most impressive one).
Click to expand...

Nazis are never going to get left alone. Nor should they. TNP signing this treaty isn't going to perpetuate their trolling or their beliefs because it is too significant of an ideology to simply go away. The only difference is that the region will be pulling the wool over its eyes and being hopelessly optimistic. They're not going to go away by pretending they're not there, that has been proved far too much bother here and in the real world. So maybe it is time to join a large group of other regions in a coalition that does good and builds nothing but good cooperation between regions of all spheres.

If you say I and people like me are afraid to oppose them, you completely missed the point. In my post about the bully I said his classmates didn't oppose him because they simply didn't care. This has nothing to do with your actions being lead by fear. It actually is about letting your (very understandable) anger, resentment and hatred slide. It's about letting go.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking of the people that are afraid that this will make them better. That is fear. Not opposing them because you don't care is apathy. Neither is something any region should aspire to.
 
I like your arguments, Brunhilde.

Quick question for the Speaker: How many motions to vote would be needed to put this to a vote, and can I still move for a vote after objecting, with the objection still in place, or would that not matter since the objection already happened? I want to be sure people consider this ready to move for a vote, and I want to get the ball rolling with the first of many motions.

I move for a vote, with the understanding that more motions would be necessary for this to move to a vote.
 
Darcania:
I like your arguments, Brunhilde.

Quick question for the Speaker: How many motions to vote would be needed to put this to a vote, and can I still move for a vote after objecting, with the objection still in place, or would that not matter since the objection already happened? I want to be sure people consider this ready to move for a vote, and I want to get the ball rolling with the first of many motions.

I move for a vote, with the understanding that more motions would be necessary for this to move to a vote.
Click to expand...
With the objection, an ordinary motion to vote cannot be accepted, as I cannot make the decision to schedule a vote. For clarity, yourself and the Delegate, who are both supporting moving to vote and were both objectors, can withdraw your objections and move to vote; I can't quite tell, from this post, whether you intend to do so, if you do could you clarify that?

Otherwise, a motion for immediate vote can be made and will be successful with the support of eight members (including the Delegate). I can't tell from the post whether this is intended either, could you clarify if that is the case?
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
With the objection, an ordinary motion to vote cannot be accepted, as I cannot make the decision to schedule a vote. For clarity, yourself and the Delegate, who are both supporting moving to vote and were both objectors, can withdraw your objections and move to vote; I can't quite tell, from this post, whether you intend to do so, if you do could you clarify that?

Otherwise, a motion for immediate vote can be made and will be successful with the support of eight members (including the Delegate). I can't tell from the post whether this is intended either, could you clarify if that is the case?
Click to expand...
I thought you'd need enough motions to supersede the three objections, one third of quorum, or did that change since the BoR bill? And nothing in RA law talked about withdrawing objections, so I didn't know if one could withdraw an objection. Therefore, I assumed I could be one of those within the one third of quorum to supersede the objections, and thus moved for a vote.

Since it seems I can't object and then move for a vote, I will not do anything and leave my objection. Since Plembobria withdrew his objection and moved for a vote, though, it would seem it wouldn't matter, as there are now two objections (not enough) and the OP moved for a vote.
 
Brunhilde:
Except that it can't.

We mustered a force of eighty four different updaters from eighteen different regions. We added at around twenty more pilers to bring that total over at least one hundred participants on the very first mission and with many of them participating in a couple of other missions to go alongside the raid against The NSIA. Regions actively put aside not just their differences but their wars to participate in a joint military operation together for the largest military operation in over two years (with 84 updaters, I believe we topped even Anne Frank). To accompany these feats was the third successful offensive liberation in NS history, a repeal that is currently up nine to one in voting, thirty six individual regions ranging from a wide variety of backgrounds and spheres coming together for a single cause, and a conference that included over two hundred attendees. I haven't been around for too long but I can't think of many times when any of that has happened and I'm certain it hasn't happened in the two years that I've been playing.

We did discuss having shared bans across signatories but there are some regions with heavily regulated citizenship requirements and the fear was that it would conflict too heavily to bring us anything but harm in the various ratification processes. Instead, we decided to omit it with the potential for it to be added at a later date by way of amendment. After adding over five hundred words to the treaty over almost two weeks of time, I was confident that we could do what we needed to (diplomatic and military isolation) without having to impose too heavily on internal governance.

I also want to address the idea that this is tokenism. It's not and it's a bit insulting to imply otherwise is a bit insulting. Over the course of a month, I've heard implications that I'm doing this for politics, that I want to make this about Europeia, and been insulted more times than I can count so I'll make it clear that I'm doing this because I'm tired of seeing an ideology that destroyed my family being glorified in a game I enjoy. With this treaty, we set up a couple of key points of opposition: Security Council cooperation, military and diplomatic isolation, public denouncement, and large scale military cooperation. With these and a large base of signatories, we ensure that no gameplay region will ever work with Nazis as they'll lose the cooperation of major gameplay regions, we create WA cooperation on a scale that is not currently seen in NS, isolate them from any non-collaborator with denouncement, and neuter their military capabilities while bringing more military cooperation than any previous coalition.

This is the main point that I wanted to make. National Socialism, or Nazism, is an ideology that has existed for eighty years. It's led to the slaughter of millions and the marginalization of many more over eight decades. It's not going to go away simply because we ignore it and comparing it to a 12 year old bully is... naive. For every story like that, there are two or more about the bully that got punched in the mouth by someone that got tired of being pushed around and never bullied anyone again.

The NS community has been saying "let's just leave them alone" for over a decade. It's time to stop saying that they'll just go away if we ignore them and instead band together to make a statement that the community we've all built won't just sit idly by while they spread hate. I'm tired of seeing a group that hates me and others like me for being a Jew being allowed to do what they want because people are too afraid to oppose them in case that they'll get angry. Screw that. What about when we get angry? What about when we say that enough is enough? There are far more of us than there are of them and we don't have to sit around and pretend like they can do any real damage other than run their mouths against us.
Click to expand...
I see.

NOTE- Gtg to bed; I'll post more on this tomorrow (by editing this post)
 
Cadmus:
How many more motions do we need before we finally get a vote on this already? :P
Click to expand...
It would seem we're set, since we don't have enough objections and the OP moved. I don't know how the whole thing works after Zyvet's post when I thought I did >.>
 
plembobria:
I withdraw my objection and move for a vote.
Click to expand...

Noted. The objection being withdrawn, I schedule a vote on the proposal to begin in two days (04.11.2016).

Jacksonville:
I will second the motion of Delegate Plembobria
Click to expand...
Praetor:
I will third, fourth or fifth the nomination to vote. Whichever one is needed if any...
Click to expand...

There is no need for seconds in relation to proceedings on treaties, except for motions for an immediate vote, which, as far as I can tell, there has not been.

Darcania:
Zyvetskistaahn:
With the objection, an ordinary motion to vote cannot be accepted, as I cannot make the decision to schedule a vote. For clarity, yourself and the Delegate, who are both supporting moving to vote and were both objectors, can withdraw your objections and move to vote; I can't quite tell, from this post, whether you intend to do so, if you do could you clarify that?

Otherwise, a motion for immediate vote can be made and will be successful with the support of eight members (including the Delegate). I can't tell from the post whether this is intended either, could you clarify if that is the case?
Click to expand...
I thought you'd need enough motions to supersede the three objections, one third of quorum, or did that change since the BoR bill? And nothing in RA law talked about withdrawing objections, so I didn't know if one could withdraw an objection. Therefore, I assumed I could be one of those within the one third of quorum to supersede the objections, and thus moved for a vote.

Since it seems I can't object and then move for a vote, I will not do anything and leave my objection. Since Plembobria withdrew his objection and moved for a vote, though, it would seem it wouldn't matter, as there are now two objections (not enough) and the OP moved for a vote.
Click to expand...

To overcome objections, one needs to make a motion for an immediate vote, which does require one third of quorum (at this time, one third of quorum is eight). For legislative proposals and treaties, one could also modify a proposal and make a new motion on the modified proposal, however, that has not been done here.

Objections can be withdrawn.

You could have been one of those making a motion for an immediate vote, despite having objected, however, it was not clear to me that you were doing so. Hence my asking for clarification.
 
Oh, sorry, I didn't know I had to specifically move for an immediate vote, I thought just moving implied overcoming the objections. The others were just copying my lead at that point, I believe, since it's rare for there to be three objections and I said that people would have to move to overcome the objections.

I will keep my objection, though, in case someone else wants to also object to bring the total up to three again. If that does happen, I'll know what to actually do. Sorry for the confusion.
 
I also support this document. Nothing is perfect but given the circumstances surrounding this conference and the huge endeavour that has already occurred, I hope it is the first step to giving the Nazi-aligned groups a good thumping.
 
Brunhilde:

I would edit the post I made above as promised but I believe that this deserves its own post. Read and you'll see why.

It was the night after I had decided to vote Against. I thought I was done with the matter. Then it happened.

I had a talk with my stepdad after he punished my little brother for having an attitude. We discovered why from my little sister- he's being bullied. He's being pushed, put down, and humiliated by one of his classmates and nothing is being done about it, since his mother, who has obviously divorced my stepdad, is not keen to tell him these things.

I was so angry, and I cared for my poor brother. My stepdad said that if the bully does not stop, that my brother should stand up. If that didn't work, he should tell the teacher. And if the teacher couldn't do anything, my stepdad said that my brother should beat the ever living shit out of that kid and that my stepdad would take care of the school's reactions to it.

This morning, that made me think. I had certainly agreed with what my dad said that night. And, infact, in a way this philosophy appears here too. NS formed coalitions like ANTIFA to stop the Nazis and they're still there. The Mods were told about the Nazis and they rekt the Greater German Reich but NS Nazis are still there.

Now comes the third step. Let's beat the ever living shit out of these bullies, with the power of 36 regions.
 
Just to be clear to everyone, since it was my mistake that led to this confusion:

No further motions are required to bring the treaty to a vote. It is already scheduled to be voted on on the 4th.

Since there are only two objections to the scheduling of the vote on the table right now, the only action one needs to take is to either debate the treaty further or object to the vote with the phrase "I object to the Speaker's decision to schedule the vote".

If that does happen within the next two days, you can overcome the objections by saying "I move for an immediate vote".

The important thing is, however, that no further motions to vote are necessary, as there are not enough objections and the original poster has already moved for a vote. Apologies again for causing this confusion.
 
I'm not sure that an objection to the speaker's decision to schedule a vote that was made before the speaker decided to schedule a vote can be considered in force. :P

THIS IS ALL VERY SILLY.
 
I TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS SILLY, SILLYSTRING.

As such, since no more debate's going on here and it's just debate on what happens when three people object, I suppose I will not object to this scheduling of the vote, since my previous objection is, as SillyString said, not valid for this scheduling. If, for whatever reason, it is still valid, I withdraw my objection.

I look forward to the vote.
 
flemingovia:
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.
Click to expand...
Most eloquently put, Flemingovia. I agree 100%.


Also, there are two definitions in this treaty I do not like at all for a very obvious reason:

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.
Click to expand...

This is potentially dangerous mainly because it gives CAIN the single authority to define a region as a "Nazi Region" or a "Nazi Collaborator". This cedes too much authority to one region in making a determination.

It would be better to simply ignore Nazi regions and their allies and stomp them into the dirt if they cause trouble. Otherwise, such a treaty as this one up for a vote only gives credibility to Nazi regions and is almost a formal recognition of their legitimacy as regions. It will not erase their existence and it will not stop them from functioning.

The best way to deal with "Nazi" regions and their allies is to simply not lend them credibility at all and smash them if they pull any garbage.

As such, I tend to not want to vote for this at all or simply abstain for the above stated reasons.
 
Romanoffia:
This is potentially dangerous mainly because it gives CAIN the single authority to define a region as a "Nazi Region" or a "Nazi Collaborator". This cedes too much authority to one region in making a determination.

It would be better to simply ignore Nazi regions and their allies and stomp them into the dirt if they cause trouble. Otherwise, such a treaty as this one up for a vote only gives credibility to Nazi regions and is almost a formal recognition of their legitimacy as regions. It will not erase their existence and it will not stop them from functioning.

The best way to deal with "Nazi" regions and their allies is to simply not lend them credibility at all and smash them if they pull any garbage.

As such, I tend to not want to vote for this at all or simply abstain for the above stated reasons.
Click to expand...
What? No.

The process for defining Nazi Regions and Nazi Collaborators is described multiple times in the treaty. It requires a 66% Majority vote of all signatories, allowing the Coalition's very different signatories to act as a balance to each other. At the current time, that would require 10 of the 15 listed signatories from the post provided to agree. That number will only grow as more signatories join. The only exception to that rule is listing the on-site embassies and military partners of Nazi Regions as Collaborators as a way to isolate them.

As for the second part, you can't have the best of both worlds. You can't ignore them and "stomp them into the dirt." You have to pick one or the other.

This treaty gives no legitimacy to a Nazi Region. It does not validate their cause or confirm their beliefs are true. That's nonsense. What it does is isolate them diplomatically, leave them vulnerable through the security council, leave them friendless, and punish their weakness with military action like what we saw in The NSIA, the Alliance of Justice, and in Bunicken. It will, in every way that makes a region functional outside of their own region, leave them nonfunctional.

The idea that we are going to make them disappear by ignoring them is nonsense. Closing your eyes does not make the world's garbage disappear. We should not aspire to be three monkeys who look the other way and act like we're not responsible for what happens while we're closed off to it.

Flem, I am a Jew. My grandmother was the sole surviving member of her immediate family. I was blessed with looking just like her and her twin sister. I haven't seen her in years because she looks at me and sees the sibling she lost. My other grandparents wouldn't live in a home without three exits and places to hide until the day they died. I've been attacked, insulted, and harassed for my ethnicity. I know all too well how raw the ideology I want to fight has made people.

To me, this project is about making this community somewhere that that sacrifice won't be spat on. It might be a few webpages held by a couple of trolls, but there are far too many of us here that have spent years playing this game and hours trying to build our communities to say that fighting Nazism here doesn't matter. It's not rallies in the streets or counter protests. It's not shutting down their hate filled websites. What it is, though, is protecting what is ours. It's doing what we can, where we can, to make a part of our lives that we have devoted years to better. This is about making this community something I could show to my family without dragging them through that loss.
 
I've decided to vote Aye on this proposal. Normally I would vote Nay, since I would believe that this treaty would legitimize the fringe group every community has, and only spread their message further, but the fact is, the site rules on NS already do all that, by legitimizing their belief as a proper political ideology (fueled by ignorance) and allowing them to spread their beliefs all they want on the site, since somehow this entirely racist/xenophobic/what-have-you ideology does not break their rules.

Fine, then. If mods won't do anything, we will, through whatever means we have.
 
While I do have some serious reservations about this, including some that have been mentioned in this thread. I will be tentatively supporting it but don't count me among its fans or supporters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top