[SC - Passed] Injunct The Communist Bloc

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chipoli

Chipoli

Security Councilor
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Chipoli
Discord
chipoli
sc.jpg

Injunct The Communist Bloc
Category: Injunction | Target: The Communist Bloc
Proposed by: Writinglegend, Co-authored by: PhDre | Onsite Topic​

The Security Council,

Aghast that the region of The Communist Bloc has engaged in the flippant ravaging of native communities since the establishment of their modern military,

Clarifying that among The Communist Bloc’s victims are often regions with vibrant and storied communities such as The Mystical Council, which was displaced by an occupation in 2022,

Affirming that many of these small communities The Communist Bloc marauds consists of peaceful nations that have attempted to maintain a stable, undisturbed existence,

Alarmed by The Communist Bloc’s pattern of deceiving nations in an effort to enlist them into supporting the People’s Revolutionary Air Force (PRAF) in their brutal occupations, claiming justification under a thin veneer of progressive causes to disguise their ulterior and destructive motives,

Concerned that, should The Communist Bloc be allowed to complete this structural transition, their government will be strengthened, and emboldened in their efforts to wreak havoc upon innocent communities,

Optimistic that the passage of this resolution will serve as a hindrance to The Communist Bloc’s efforts to harm peaceful, inoffensive communities across the multiverse, or otherwise undermine their attempts at stability and growth,

Hereby injuncts The Communist Bloc.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
10611
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overview
This proposal seeks to prevent The Communist Bloc from transitioning to a Frontier, due to its raiding of native and often vibrant, historical, and peaceful communities with its military. The proposal also notes that The Communist Bloc deceives nations into their military under the false cause of "progressivism". The proposal believes that preventing the Communist Bloc from transitioning to a Frontier will hinder its raiding activities and prevent its government from being further strengthened.

Recommendation
This proposal will prevent the Communist Bloc from recruiting newly-founded nations as a frontier into their military to assist in raiding operations, which destroy the basic culture and independence of many innocent regions. Without this form of increased recruitment, the Communist Bloc will not have the extra potential for new members, as 50% of newly-founded nations spawn in frontiers. The Communist Bloc is also allied with the Brotherhood of Malice, a destructive raiding region which we have experienced hostilities with recently and has wreaked havoc over countless regions. Therefore, preventing a switch to a frontier will indirectly prevent the Brotherhood of Malice from further spreading their detrimental raiding activities.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the at-vote Security Council resolution, "Injunct The Communist Bloc".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against - my understanding is that they intend to eventually switch to actually having a Governor again, not a Frontier and it seems unnecessarily petty to prevent that
 
Present. Obviously there is an interest in preventing a founderless ally of BoM from becoming a frontier or gaining an executive governor, thus making it unassailable - especially one being advanced by one of our closes allies. That said, I worry that this is an overly belligerent action. We're not formally at war with BoM, so it seems to me that even though they are effectively our enemies and TCB are allied to them, supporting a resolution that explicitly advocates for TCB's government to be overthrown sets an overly aggressive precedent. We should still support legitimate (and democratic, for what it's worth) governments of regions that we do not have the best of relations with unless we have some formal reason to attack them; I feel that openly supporting regime change in this case is a step too far for me.

Edit: I also do not like how some people are making this about anti-communism.
 
Last edited:
Chipoli:
Do you have a source for this information?
Click to expand...
They're open about it in the drafting thread and I have no reason to distrust them on this.
I'm against for two reasons. First, like LD, I see it as excessively escalatory of any conflict we have. TCB wants a founder, which will protect and stabilise them. That's (probably) going to allow them to project more power in foreign affairs, to our detriment, but with their security guaranteed they may also allow their military to atrophy. We don't know, but voting for is a surefire way to make opponents into enemies.
Second, as with all other TCB-related resolutions, the fascists and other people with disgusting and/of questionable opinions come out of the woodwork. I'm not comfortable with voting alongside the worst people to suppress an entire region, even if that region amplifies bad takes and Tankie/Tankie-adjecent opinions.
 
Attempted Socialism:
but with their security guaranteed they may also allow their military to atrophy
Click to expand...
That won't happen. They are already entrenched security-wise; look at how much influence reserves they have without influence decay limiting them. They didn't have the PRAF until 2021 (iirc).

For the record, I don't care what TCB thinks about this particularly nor should we be worried about "escalating" any conflicts with them. I just think that advocating for the overthrow of their government is a bad precedent to set as a general principle.
 
Against - my understanding is that they intend to eventually switch to actually having a Governor again, not a Frontier and it seems unnecessarily petty to prevent that
Click to expand...
What if thats just a ploy, and once they transition they will stay like that because they profit from getting so many newnations? After all they have so many nations and such a low endocap, they are more secure than most GCRs. They can just eject fascists.

I just think that advocating for the overthrow of their government is a bad precedent to set as a general principle.
Click to expand...
Is anyone advocating that? They are perfectly secure as things stand, and would remain so if the Injunction occurred. They haven't had a Founder for over 2 years.
 
Last edited:
Wait, why do we want to avoid conflict with TCB? Do people think that we are currently friendly with TCB in any way?
 
Against - my understanding is that they intend to eventually switch to actually having a Governor again, not a Frontier and it seems unnecessarily petty to prevent that
 
North East Somerset:
What if thats just a ploy, and once they transition they will stay like that because they profit from getting so many newnations? After all they have so many nations and such a low endocap, they are more secure than most GCRs. They can just eject fascists.


Is anyone advocating that? They are perfectly secure as things stand, and would remain so if the Injunction occurred. They haven't had a Founder for over 2 years.
Click to expand...

I echo these thoughts. This is not encouraging an overthrow of TCB's government. And there's a very real risk of the frontier state remaining despite what has been said. That is not a risk I am personally keen to take. BoM and its allies should not get to enjoy spawns, and we shouldn't be afraid to stand up to them. If you think there will be any love lost between us and TCB, I am not sure what version of this game you have been playing for the last year. And you have to be able to ignore the distasteful elements who are taking advantage of the vote and appreciate your own sound, reasonable concerns leading you to vote the way you are. We have to bow out or go against what we might want to do because some fascists happen to like the vote? That argument is as wimpy as some of your conflict avoidance concerns.

For
 
Comfed:
a resolution that explicitly advocates for TCB's government to be overthrown
Click to expand...
Sorry, this is an error from my misreading of the resolution. I don't know where I thought I saw this >.>
For
 
Chipoli:
I believe TNP should Abstain. It would be in our best interests to avoid causing a conflict with TCB.
Click to expand...
After Reconsideration I am now voting For. I’d rather not have TCB to be able to transition to a Frontier.
 
Pallaith:
I echo these thoughts. This is not encouraging an overthrow of TCB's government. And there's a very real risk of the frontier state remaining despite what has been said. That is not a risk I am personally keen to take. BoM and its allies should not get to enjoy spawns, and we shouldn't be afraid to stand up to them. If you think there will be any love lost between us and TCB, I am not sure what version of this game you have been playing for the last year. And you have to be able to ignore the distasteful elements who are taking advantage of the vote and appreciate your own sound, reasonable concerns leading you to vote the way you are. We have to bow out or go against what we might want to do because some fascists happen to like the vote? That argument is as wimpy as some of your conflict avoidance concerns.

For
Click to expand...
I don’t stop by here much, but I would like to note that this is more accurate. The resolution does not make TCB any more vulnerable to raids, because it’s not vulnerable to raids. It has a 700 endo delegate with over a million influence. Rather, the proposal maintains the status quo. The injunction means that absolutely nothing will change. Which, given the way TCB approaches various regions, is a fairly reasonable move.
 
For. There is nothing at risk for TCB with how strong their influence is on the WA Delegacy. A change to frontier opens the door for them to improve their influence with new spawns, and also opens the door for a reverse back with an active governor to make them 100% safe. This might be less than ideal.
 
For.

I would further note that members of TCB have expressed that they are only transitioning to Frontier as part of a larger process to secure a non-CTE Governor for the region, which poses a different threat to us than if they become a Frontier. This would have the effect of rendering TCB unraidable, which would be detrimental to our interests given their current status as one of the regions most actively engaged in destructive raiding and antagonization of Independent regions such as ourselves.
 
I will defer to the Delegate and the MoFA and vote For. This is really going to be a gameplay matter more than anything else.

As our region as a whole feel our way through the new Frontier system our views might change down the road.
 
Last edited:
Meadow:
My personal stance is Against, but I'd stay Abstain for the region as a whole.
Click to expand...
I'm changing my stance to FOR, as I've realized that changing TCB to a frontier is another way of recruiting more nations to their force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top