- TNP Nation
- Veniyerris
- Discord
- BMWSurfer#1965
[Draft] Offensive Liberation Analysis
- Thread starter BMWSurfer
- Start date
- Pronouns
- he/him
- TNP Nation
- El_Fiji_Grande
- Discord
- El Fiji Grande (#3446)
The year is 2012. London is hosting the summer Olympics, Gangnam Style has quickly become the most popular video on YouTube, and Disney has bought Lucasfilm. The world is just starting to pull out of the biggest economic recession in history and more than 3 million nations have been created on NationStates. Pasargad is the delegate of The North Pacific, with 250 endorsements. In October, a proposal submitted to the Security Council Liberations Board will go to vote. The proposal is “Liberate Nazi Europe, written by Cormac Stark. It will ultimately fail, but would set a precedent that would still be relevant more than six years later.
This proposal was the first serious attempt at what we call an “offensive liberation.” These liberations had been proposed before, but this was the first one to go through the entire drafting process and be submitted to the Security Council. Now, more than six years later, this type of liberation continues to be hotly debated.
All of the proposals I based this article on were found in the WA Archives section of the forum, meaning they all went to vote at some point. A link to a google sheet has been provided at the end of this article, which contains all the data I used for this article.
To understand offensive liberations, we first have to understand what a liberation is. Simply put: “A Liberation Resolution overrides any Delegate password in the nominated region, allowing other nations to enter freely. (It doesn't restrict the Delegate's ability to eject, ban, or do anything else; nor does it affect regions with Founders.) This allows the World Assembly to further its aims of bringing freedom and justice to the world, or grossly overstep its moral authority, depending on your perspective.”
Liberations were introduced in 2009, and have been largely used to liberate regions that have been invaded. Occasionally, liberations are also used to open a historical region that has a password. There are also offensive liberations, which are typically used to punish a region.
Sixty-eight percent of liberations that reach the voting floor pass.
While offensive liberations are seen as a major issue in the WA, very few of them are actually put into effect. Only about thirty percent of voted upon liberations are offensive, and of those only forty percent pass. In light of this, Cormac Stark would seem to be correct in saying:
“I don't think the Security Council is likely to liberate regions for the purpose of opening them for invasion arbitrarily or lightly -- in fact, I'm not sure it will even do so in this case. But I do think in rare circumstances in which a region is a menace to the interregional community, as NAZI EUROPE and its allies certainly have been, the Security Council should take action to allow other regions to respond with the use of force. It would be difficult for NAZI EUROPE and allies to invade and grief other regions if they're having to constantly worry about defending NAZI EUROPE.”
In looking at offensive liberations over time, we discover that this was even more true before 2018, where there were only two offensive liberations passed out of ten that made it to vote. In 2018 alone, there were five offensive liberations that reached the voting floor and four of those passed. This fact is shown in our graph below.
The cause of this becomes obvious once we look at which liberations were passed before and after 2018. The offensive liberations that were voted upon in 2018 were all to condemn fascist or authoritarian regions, whereas only two voted upon offensive liberations were to condemn these groups. Arguments against fascism are much harder to challenge than arguments about gameplay styles. Any argument against fascism based offensive liberations must conclude that the offensive liberation will make things worse, not better. Two of the more prevalent arguments are found below:
• Founders will be more careful to stay active,
• These Liberations increase activity in the target regions, defeating the original purpose
of offensive liberations.
There is simply not enough data to confirm the first argument, as only one target region has had their founder cease to exist (CTE) so far. This founder CTE’d approximately 500 days after the liberation was passed and if that becomes the trend, we can’t expect to see another CTE until late this year. For this reason, this argument is best left alone until we can collect more data.
For our second argument, we do actually have data. We will look at three examples from passed offensive liberations: Nazi Europe, Kaiserreich, and Nazi Europa.
Nazi Europe
Nazi Europe had three main liberation attempts that made quorum: one in October 2012, one in November 2012, and one in March 2013. We see that the regional population plummeted during the first two liberations, and resurged during the last liberation. The first two proposals don’t seem to have had an effect on the decline, but the last proposal would seem to be the reason the resurgence happened. However, it is hard to know whether this was due to the liberation as the liberation itself was submitted after the resurgence started (in early January 2013).
Kaiserreich
Kaiserreich was liberated in March of 2018 and we see that at that time there is a little population bump before sinking down again in approximately August. Clearly there is a population jump, but looking at the raw data it is only by 5-10 people. For a region like Kaiserreich, this is background noise and could be attributed to a number of other factors.
Nazi Europa
Nazi Europa was liberated in late March of 2018 and we see a decent bump in the population at that time. However, that gain was quickly erased and the population has been declining ever since.
From these graphs we see that while there is usually a notable impact on the population of a liberated region, overall trends will always prevail over the long term. This argument, therefore, cannot overcome the previous argument that fascists should be stopped.
There are two other arguments I would like to cover before the end, because they apply to non-fascist offensive liberations as well. First, that liberations aren’t intended to be used offensively, and second, that liberations will become less powerful as a result of using them offensively.
To examine the original intentions of liberations we can go back to the news announcement which said: “A Liberation Resolution overrides any Delegate password in the nominated region, allowing other nations to enter freely. (It doesn't restrict the Delegate's ability to eject, ban, or do anything else; nor does it affect regions with Founders.) This allows the World Assembly to further its aims of bringing freedom and justice to the world, or grossly overstep its moral authority, depending on your perspective.”
As we see the only intention here was to bring “freedom and justice to the world,” which can include using liberations offensively. However, there is much disagreement about whether they should be used this way.
The second argument - that liberations lose their power when used offensively - has merit based on how condemnations became sought after by certain regions over time. It is obviously very hard to predict whether this will happen, but it is worth noting that liberations are very different from condemnations. The difference is that condemnations only add a badge to a regional page, whereas liberations have a very real effect on the regions they target.
I will keep my conclusion brief and simple. An offensive liberation is a liberation which is passed to punish a region or its ideology. Until 2018, only twenty percent of offensive liberations passed. By the end of 2018, that number jumped to forty percent. 2018 also marked the beginning of the fascist-focused offensive liberations. Because of limited long-term data, very few arguments can be made for or against these liberations. I won’t make a formal recommendation about how to vote on these liberations, but I invite you to read through my data and look for other sources of data to create an informed opinion.
Data found at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WAhS23wPS_0truC-cCVY95GEbU07SCoV3avrwwFCrXQ/edit?usp=sharing
This proposal was the first serious attempt at what we call an “offensive liberation.” These liberations had been proposed before, but this was the first one to go through the entire drafting process and be submitted to the Security Council. Now, more than six years later, this type of liberation continues to be hotly debated.
All of the proposals I based this article on were found in the WA Archives section of the forum, meaning they all went to vote at some point. A link to a google sheet has been provided at the end of this article, which contains all the data I used for this article.
To understand offensive liberations, we first have to understand what a liberation is. Simply put: “A Liberation Resolution overrides any Delegate password in the nominated region, allowing other nations to enter freely. (It doesn't restrict the Delegate's ability to eject, ban, or do anything else; nor does it affect regions with Founders.) This allows the World Assembly to further its aims of bringing freedom and justice to the world, or grossly overstep its moral authority, depending on your perspective.”
Liberations were introduced in 2009, and have been largely used to liberate regions that have been invaded. Occasionally, liberations are also used to open a historical region that has a password. There are also offensive liberations, which are typically used to punish a region.
Sixty-eight percent of liberations that reach the voting floor pass.
While offensive liberations are seen as a major issue in the WA, very few of them are actually put into effect. Only about thirty percent of voted upon liberations are offensive, and of those only forty percent pass. In light of this, Cormac Stark would seem to be correct in saying:
“I don't think the Security Council is likely to liberate regions for the purpose of opening them for invasion arbitrarily or lightly -- in fact, I'm not sure it will even do so in this case. But I do think in rare circumstances in which a region is a menace to the interregional community, as NAZI EUROPE and its allies certainly have been, the Security Council should take action to allow other regions to respond with the use of force. It would be difficult for NAZI EUROPE and allies to invade and grief other regions if they're having to constantly worry about defending NAZI EUROPE.”
In looking at offensive liberations over time, we discover that this was even more true before 2018, where there were only two offensive liberations passed out of ten that made it to vote. In 2018 alone, there were five offensive liberations that reached the voting floor and four of those passed. This fact is shown in our graph below.
The cause of this becomes obvious once we look at which liberations were passed before and after 2018. The offensive liberations that were voted upon in 2018 were all to condemn fascist or authoritarian regions, whereas only two voted upon offensive liberations were to condemn these groups. Arguments against fascism are much harder to challenge than arguments about gameplay styles. Any argument against fascism based offensive liberations must conclude that the offensive liberation will make things worse, not better. Two of the more prevalent arguments are found below:
• Founders will be more careful to stay active,
• These Liberations increase activity in the target regions, defeating the original purpose
of offensive liberations.
There is simply not enough data to confirm the first argument, as only one target region has had their founder cease to exist (CTE) so far. This founder CTE’d approximately 500 days after the liberation was passed and if that becomes the trend, we can’t expect to see another CTE until late this year. For this reason, this argument is best left alone until we can collect more data.
For our second argument, we do actually have data. We will look at three examples from passed offensive liberations: Nazi Europe, Kaiserreich, and Nazi Europa.
Nazi Europe
Nazi Europe had three main liberation attempts that made quorum: one in October 2012, one in November 2012, and one in March 2013. We see that the regional population plummeted during the first two liberations, and resurged during the last liberation. The first two proposals don’t seem to have had an effect on the decline, but the last proposal would seem to be the reason the resurgence happened. However, it is hard to know whether this was due to the liberation as the liberation itself was submitted after the resurgence started (in early January 2013).
Kaiserreich
Kaiserreich was liberated in March of 2018 and we see that at that time there is a little population bump before sinking down again in approximately August. Clearly there is a population jump, but looking at the raw data it is only by 5-10 people. For a region like Kaiserreich, this is background noise and could be attributed to a number of other factors.
Nazi Europa
Nazi Europa was liberated in late March of 2018 and we see a decent bump in the population at that time. However, that gain was quickly erased and the population has been declining ever since.
From these graphs we see that while there is usually a notable impact on the population of a liberated region, overall trends will always prevail over the long term. This argument, therefore, cannot overcome the previous argument that fascists should be stopped.
There are two other arguments I would like to cover before the end, because they apply to non-fascist offensive liberations as well. First, that liberations aren’t intended to be used offensively, and second, that liberations will become less powerful as a result of using them offensively.
To examine the original intentions of liberations we can go back to the news announcement which said: “A Liberation Resolution overrides any Delegate password in the nominated region, allowing other nations to enter freely. (It doesn't restrict the Delegate's ability to eject, ban, or do anything else; nor does it affect regions with Founders.) This allows the World Assembly to further its aims of bringing freedom and justice to the world, or grossly overstep its moral authority, depending on your perspective.”
As we see the only intention here was to bring “freedom and justice to the world,” which can include using liberations offensively. However, there is much disagreement about whether they should be used this way.
The second argument - that liberations lose their power when used offensively - has merit based on how condemnations became sought after by certain regions over time. It is obviously very hard to predict whether this will happen, but it is worth noting that liberations are very different from condemnations. The difference is that condemnations only add a badge to a regional page, whereas liberations have a very real effect on the regions they target.
I will keep my conclusion brief and simple. An offensive liberation is a liberation which is passed to punish a region or its ideology. Until 2018, only twenty percent of offensive liberations passed. By the end of 2018, that number jumped to forty percent. 2018 also marked the beginning of the fascist-focused offensive liberations. Because of limited long-term data, very few arguments can be made for or against these liberations. I won’t make a formal recommendation about how to vote on these liberations, but I invite you to read through my data and look for other sources of data to create an informed opinion.
Data found at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WAhS23wPS_0truC-cCVY95GEbU07SCoV3avrwwFCrXQ/edit?usp=sharing
- Pronouns
- he/him
- TNP Nation
- El_Fiji_Grande
- Discord
- El Fiji Grande (#3446)
Disclaimer: All data used for this article is based on past proposals found in the WA Archives section of the forum, meaning they all went to vote at some point. It does not include any proposals that failed to reach quorum. A link to a google sheet has been provided at the end of this article, which contains all the data I used for this article. I invite you to read through my data and look for other sources of data to create an informed opinion.
Offensive Liberations have been hotly debated from the moment they were introduced. The first of these proposals to make it to quorum, “Liberate Nazi Europe,” by Cormac Stark, would shake the WA SC to its core, and while it ultimately failed, set a precedent that continues to be relevant more than six years later.
“I don't think the Security Council is likely to liberate regions for the purpose of opening them for invasion arbitrarily or lightly -- in fact, I'm not sure it will even do so in this case. But I do think in rare circumstances in which a region is a menace to the interregional community, as NAZI EUROPE and its allies certainly have been, the Security Council should take action to allow other regions to respond with the use of force. It would be difficult for NAZI EUROPE and allies to invade and grief other regions if they're having to constantly worry about defending NAZI EUROPE.”
~Cormac Stark, 2012
While offensive liberations are seen as a major issue in the WA, very few of them are actually put into effect. Only about 30% of all liberations that make it to quorum are offensive in nature, and of those, only 40% pass. Overall, that means that just over 10% of offensive liberations pass, compared to 68% of all liberations.
In looking at offensive liberations over time, we discover that this was even more true in the years before 2018, during which only two offensive liberations passed out of the ten that made it to vote. In 2018 alone, there were five offensive liberations that reached the voting floor and four of those passed. This fact is shown in the graph below.
The cause of this trend becomes clear once we look at which liberations were passed before and after 2018. All five offensive liberations proposed in 2018 targeted fascist or authoritarian regions. Arguments against fascism are much harder to challenge than arguments about gameplay styles. Any argument against an offensive liberation that targets a fascist region must conclude that the offensive liberation will make things worse, not better. Three of the most prevalent arguments are:
(i) Liberations were never intended to be used in this way
(ii) Founders will be more careful to stay active
(iii) These Liberations increase activity in the target regions, defeating the original purpose
of offensive liberations.
Opponents of this variety of liberation will argue that liberations were never intended to be used in this way. This may be true, but when first introduced, liberations were described as being proposals that “...allow the World Assembly to further its aims of bringing freedom and justice to the world.” An open interpretation of this clause could easily include offensive liberations, even if this style of liberation only arose later as an unforeseen consequence.
There is simply not enough data to confirm the first argument, as only one target region has had their founder cease to exist (CTE) so far. This founder CTE’d approximately 500 days after the liberation was passed and if that becomes the trend, we can’t expect to see another CTE until late this year. For this reason, this argument is best left alone until we can collect more data.
For the third argument, that offensive liberations increase activity in target regions, there is data to be analyzed. Three examples from successfully passed offensive liberations have been selected: Nazi Europe, Kaiserreich, and Nazi Europa.
Nazi Europe
Nazi Europe was condemned in July 2009, though this was repealed in December 2010. Nazi Europe also had three main liberation attempts that made quorum: one in October 2012, one in November 2012, and one in March 2013, the last of which passed. We see that the condemnation in 2009 caused the regional population to surge, more than doubling. Following the repeal of the condemnation, the Nazi Europe’s population settled back to about the same level it had had prior to the start of this process. Later, the regional population plummeted during the first two liberations attempts, but resurged during the final effort, which succeeded. In the days following the liberation, a joint military liberation was held, and nations flooded the region. This effort led to the ultimate decline of the region, with a refounding conducted to preserve this piece of NS history.
Kaiserreich
Kaiserreich was liberated in March of 2018 and we see that at that time there is a little population bump before sinking down again in approximately August. Clearly there is a population jump, but looking at the raw data it is only by 5-10 people. For a region like Kaiserreich, this is background noise and could be attributed to a number of other factors. In the year following the liberation, the regional population has slowly declined, but only time will tell if this will have a lasting effect on the region.
Nazi Europa
Nazi Europa was liberated in late March of 2018 and while there is a decent bump in the population at that time, that gain was quickly erased and the population has been in decline ever since.
Cormac echoed his 2012 statement in response to a request for comment, stating: “I don't think offensive liberations are inherently either positive or negative, it just depends on what one does with them. I do think we've seen offensive liberations used in positive ways in the past -- against NAZI EUROPE, to be sure, as well as some other regions. So I don't regret being one of the people who pioneered that tactic. It does seem they're being overused now by certain authors, but on the other hand those authors haven't had much success passing unwarranted offensive liberations. At the end of the day, I think WA voters can be trusted to responsibly decide when an offensive liberation is warranted and when it isn't, and I think offensive liberation remains an important tool. It would be as much of a mistake to take a kneejerk stance against all offensive liberations as it would be to pass offensive liberations that are unwarranted. We should take a middle ground approach and use them only when warranted.”
It seems that condemnations have a much more magnified effect on increasing a region’s visibility by vastly increasing the regional population. However, while this is evidenced by the results in Nazi Europe, further evidence does not exist to match this profile. This brings validity to arguments that condemnations only serve to reward regions for their poor behavior. Not only do they become a badge of honor such regions, the notoriety the publicity brings can actually provide a large boost to a region’s population. Offensive liberations, on the other hand, have a far less-significant impact on regional populations, and after a small short-term increase tend over the long term to result in the decline of a region’s population. As such, offensive liberations are more effective when combatting other regions on NS.
Data found at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WAhS23wPS_0truC-cCVY95GEbU07SCoV3avrwwFCrXQ/edit?usp=sharing
Offensive Liberations have been hotly debated from the moment they were introduced. The first of these proposals to make it to quorum, “Liberate Nazi Europe,” by Cormac Stark, would shake the WA SC to its core, and while it ultimately failed, set a precedent that continues to be relevant more than six years later.
“I don't think the Security Council is likely to liberate regions for the purpose of opening them for invasion arbitrarily or lightly -- in fact, I'm not sure it will even do so in this case. But I do think in rare circumstances in which a region is a menace to the interregional community, as NAZI EUROPE and its allies certainly have been, the Security Council should take action to allow other regions to respond with the use of force. It would be difficult for NAZI EUROPE and allies to invade and grief other regions if they're having to constantly worry about defending NAZI EUROPE.”
~Cormac Stark, 2012
While offensive liberations are seen as a major issue in the WA, very few of them are actually put into effect. Only about 30% of all liberations that make it to quorum are offensive in nature, and of those, only 40% pass. Overall, that means that just over 10% of offensive liberations pass, compared to 68% of all liberations.
In looking at offensive liberations over time, we discover that this was even more true in the years before 2018, during which only two offensive liberations passed out of the ten that made it to vote. In 2018 alone, there were five offensive liberations that reached the voting floor and four of those passed. This fact is shown in the graph below.
The cause of this trend becomes clear once we look at which liberations were passed before and after 2018. All five offensive liberations proposed in 2018 targeted fascist or authoritarian regions. Arguments against fascism are much harder to challenge than arguments about gameplay styles. Any argument against an offensive liberation that targets a fascist region must conclude that the offensive liberation will make things worse, not better. Three of the most prevalent arguments are:
(i) Liberations were never intended to be used in this way
(ii) Founders will be more careful to stay active
(iii) These Liberations increase activity in the target regions, defeating the original purpose
of offensive liberations.
Opponents of this variety of liberation will argue that liberations were never intended to be used in this way. This may be true, but when first introduced, liberations were described as being proposals that “...allow the World Assembly to further its aims of bringing freedom and justice to the world.” An open interpretation of this clause could easily include offensive liberations, even if this style of liberation only arose later as an unforeseen consequence.
There is simply not enough data to confirm the first argument, as only one target region has had their founder cease to exist (CTE) so far. This founder CTE’d approximately 500 days after the liberation was passed and if that becomes the trend, we can’t expect to see another CTE until late this year. For this reason, this argument is best left alone until we can collect more data.
For the third argument, that offensive liberations increase activity in target regions, there is data to be analyzed. Three examples from successfully passed offensive liberations have been selected: Nazi Europe, Kaiserreich, and Nazi Europa.
Nazi Europe
Nazi Europe was condemned in July 2009, though this was repealed in December 2010. Nazi Europe also had three main liberation attempts that made quorum: one in October 2012, one in November 2012, and one in March 2013, the last of which passed. We see that the condemnation in 2009 caused the regional population to surge, more than doubling. Following the repeal of the condemnation, the Nazi Europe’s population settled back to about the same level it had had prior to the start of this process. Later, the regional population plummeted during the first two liberations attempts, but resurged during the final effort, which succeeded. In the days following the liberation, a joint military liberation was held, and nations flooded the region. This effort led to the ultimate decline of the region, with a refounding conducted to preserve this piece of NS history.
Kaiserreich was liberated in March of 2018 and we see that at that time there is a little population bump before sinking down again in approximately August. Clearly there is a population jump, but looking at the raw data it is only by 5-10 people. For a region like Kaiserreich, this is background noise and could be attributed to a number of other factors. In the year following the liberation, the regional population has slowly declined, but only time will tell if this will have a lasting effect on the region.
Nazi Europa was liberated in late March of 2018 and while there is a decent bump in the population at that time, that gain was quickly erased and the population has been in decline ever since.
Cormac echoed his 2012 statement in response to a request for comment, stating: “I don't think offensive liberations are inherently either positive or negative, it just depends on what one does with them. I do think we've seen offensive liberations used in positive ways in the past -- against NAZI EUROPE, to be sure, as well as some other regions. So I don't regret being one of the people who pioneered that tactic. It does seem they're being overused now by certain authors, but on the other hand those authors haven't had much success passing unwarranted offensive liberations. At the end of the day, I think WA voters can be trusted to responsibly decide when an offensive liberation is warranted and when it isn't, and I think offensive liberation remains an important tool. It would be as much of a mistake to take a kneejerk stance against all offensive liberations as it would be to pass offensive liberations that are unwarranted. We should take a middle ground approach and use them only when warranted.”
It seems that condemnations have a much more magnified effect on increasing a region’s visibility by vastly increasing the regional population. However, while this is evidenced by the results in Nazi Europe, further evidence does not exist to match this profile. This brings validity to arguments that condemnations only serve to reward regions for their poor behavior. Not only do they become a badge of honor such regions, the notoriety the publicity brings can actually provide a large boost to a region’s population. Offensive liberations, on the other hand, have a far less-significant impact on regional populations, and after a small short-term increase tend over the long term to result in the decline of a region’s population. As such, offensive liberations are more effective when combatting other regions on NS.
Data found at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WAhS23wPS_0truC-cCVY95GEbU07SCoV3avrwwFCrXQ/edit?usp=sharing