Criminal Regions and Organisations Act

[Southern Bellz]

He was sitting delegate of the region when he declared TSP his enemy. Does a delegate now magically not represent a region?


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Kris Kringle]

Let's get something clear Unibot. Just because you think it's a matter of morality to defend regions, even from the region you're supposed to be loyal to, it doesn't mean that all defenders should subscribe to your kind of morality. Some might just defend for fun, because NationStates is after all, you know, a game. Also, if you have such a massive conflict of interest then you shouldn't be a citizen of this or some other region. Nobody says stop posting on the forum or having a nation in the region, but if you can't be a loyal citizen, then it isn't fair to us or to you to remain a citizen.

[Sandaoguo]

I think it's wrong to say that TSP citizens cannot oppose the military missions of the NSA. Not everybody is a member of the NSA. Not everybody agrees with military operations in general. The NSA is a largely independent body, so it stands to reason that people can disagree with the decisions being made by the MOA in which they had no input and over which they have no control. TSP is a democracy. One may be loyal without supporting the NSA.


The issue here is that Unibot wants the law to allow defenders to defend against the NSA. That is, to me, a reasonable request. After all, TSP expects the Assembly to allow the NSA to do whatever is within TSP's "interests," so too must the Assembly allow individual citizens to exercise that very principle. Additionally, this is a demand we make of almost all of our partners and allies, so it is reasonable for our own citizens to make the demand as well.



The problem I see here is that you guys are going to try to come up with a single word that embodies both principles of not "sabotaging" the NSA and allowing citizens to exercise their own personal independence. Instead of doing that, you should just include a sub clause stating something to the effect of allowing citizens to engage with the NSA on the opposite side of the field, in a similar manner as what happens with our allies.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unibot]

Let's get something clear Unibot. Just because you think it's a matter of morality to defend regions, even from the region you're supposed to be loyal to, it doesn't mean that all defenders should subscribe to your kind of morality. Some might just defend for fun, because NationStates is after all, you know, a game. Also, if you have such a massive conflict of interest then you shouldn't be a citizen of this or some other region. Nobody says stop posting on the forum or having a nation in the region, but if you can't be a loyal citizen, then it isn't fair to us or to you to remain a citizen.

 

Wait, so we should only be a neutral region for defenders who defend for "fun" -- but defenders, who under the traditional sense, defend because it is the right thing to do, should not be accommodated at all by the state and otherwise disenfranchised for opposing the actions of NSA abroad? 

 

God, that's fantastically clever neutral discursive framing. "We're home to invaders and defenders, but only when the difference between those two is purely a cosmetic choice on the part of the participants".

[Southern Bellz]

How is defending a region who's delegate threatened TSP the right thing?


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Kris Kringle]

That...has nothing to do with what I said. I said that:

1. Not every defender has your same morality, and some of them just defend for fun.
   
2. If you feel such a big conflict of interest with the NSA's activities, then the logical option, though not one you have to take, is to renounce your citizenship, because it's not fair to TSP or to you.
   

Don't twist my words.

[Unibot]

How is defending a region who's delegate threatened TSP the right thing?


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

He wasn't the delegate: Hawkswind was. Topid took the delegacy to withdraw the password - he was a member of the region and a very passive one at that. He had only joined to help recruit for them - because they were often the target of invasions. Like a defender adopting a region to help out. 

[Southern Bellz]

He was the delegate when he made the threats, not when the region was invaded.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Kris Kringle]

Alright guys. This thread isn't about why we helped the raid of St. Aba... This is about the prohibited regions proposal. Keep it in topic.

[Unibot]

That...has nothing to do with what I said. I said that:

1. Not every defender has your same morality, and some of them just defend for fun.
   
2. If you feel such a big conflict of interest with the NSA's activities, then the logical option, though not one you have to take, is to renounce your citizenship, because it's not fair to TSP or to you.
   

Don't twist my words.

 

Nonsense, I will not join NSA - that doesn't mean I can't be a citizen of TSP. I think our military very poorly represents our region abroad,  but it would only help reinforce that if anyone who disagrees with the actions of the military is disenfranchised (a selection effect which would only encourage more of those same actions, because its former opposition would no longer be present). 

[Sandaoguo]

If you feel such a big conflict of interest with the NSA's activities, then the logical option, though not one you have to take, is to renounce your citizenship, because it's not fair to TSP or to you.

With all due respect Kris, this isn't helpful. If TSP is going to continue to play both sides of coin, we are going to need to learn how to accommodate everybody, not just those who like playing both sides. Telling somebody the answer to having a conflicting opinion of the NSA's missions is to renounce citizenship is wrong and works directly against the goal of fostering a community that allows a broad range of opinions and stances of military gameplay.


Unibot has brought up a fair issue, one that has and will continue to come into play if we want a more active NSA. Instead of attacking him as a "moralist" and telling him that there's no room for his ilk in TSP, we need to address the issue and stop focusing on the person brining it up.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kris Kringle]

For once please keep this thread in topic. If any of you thinks it's a fair issue then start a new thread.

[Sandaoguo]

For once please keep this thread in topic. If any of you thinks it's a fair issue then start a new thread.

The issue Unibot brought up about citizens defending against the NSA is directly related to a clause in this bill. I agree that we need to not focus on St Abbadon, but people also need to stop resorting to attacking the source instead of addressing the issue.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Belschaft]

No one is saying that citizens cannot oppose or disagree with the military operations of TSP, and argue for a different course of action. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that they will refrain from actively working against our military and foreign policy by fighting the NSA. And it is fair to state that those who do such are disloyal.

 

I will be putting up a new draft, re-titled 'Prohibited Regions and Organisations Act', tomorrow. It will not contain language providing legitimacy to Unibot actively work against this region, which is what he wants. If anyone has suggestions that aren't absurd or to the benefit of foreign interests, please put them forward.

[Unibot]

 

No one is saying that citizens cannot oppose or disagree with the military operations of TSP, and argue for a different course of action. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that they will refrain from actively working against our military and foreign policy by fighting the NSA. And it is fair to state that those who do such are disloyal.

 

 

Ultimately, I believe the actions of the NSA is what is most disloyal to TSP -- their conduct abroad betrays every value that the region once recognized. 

 

Furthermore, I do not think this bill is the bill to enact such an important distinction of law. We have always allowed citizens to defend against NSA before, under our region's old recognition of neutrality; moving towards an invader stance, where defenders are not allowed to defend against our region's raids - should be accepted by citizens in a clear piece of legislation intended to that effect. Not a sidenote of a bill, where it is not necessary and where they may or may not be held to account, depending on the political ramifications involved and whether they also want to ban everyone in the RA that shares membership with that same defender or invader army. 

[Belschaft]

Except this legislation says nothing about the topic; it does nothing to prevent citizens from opposing the NSA. The only way this could even become an issue is if a particular group consistently did such, and was thus deemed hostile. Article 9 does not change the status quo; you are the one demanding such, with your insistence on language legitimizing such action. Whether or not citizens should fight against this region is irrelevant to the matter, though I believe the answer to the question is obvious.

[Southern Bellz]

Because Unibot was so arrogant to accuse me in giant red text as being a liar, and unlike him I have actual proof to back up my claims, I would like to present to the assembly my claims and clear my name to such a hogwash accuasation:

 

On February 5th I sent out orders for an invasion attempt of Nazi Europe.  The same day Topid also leaked the orders and when I asked him for clarification, he spoke in riddles declaring The South Pacific his enemy.  Let it also be noted that Unibot cheered the leaks.  http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic....0&start=50  It's all there.

 

On February 5th Topid was also delegate of St Abbaddon (36 days ago).  

 

http://www.nationstates.net/page=region_...t_abbaddon

 

 

If he didn't want his words to speak for his region, he shouldn't have tried to bully other regions as the sitting delegate.  The NSA will not tolerate threats against The South Pacific, especially when we are in position to act against them.

[Sandaoguo]

No one is saying that citizens cannot oppose or disagree with the military operations of TSP, and argue for a different course of action. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that they will refrain from actively working against our military and foreign policy by fighting the NSA. And it is fair to state that those who do such are disloyal.

 

You're ignoring the nature of the game, Belschaft. It's not so black and white, and as one of the most dedicated supporters of the Independence cause, I'm surprised you don't realize this. We cannot, as a region, adopt a position of both raiding and defending, then turn around and tell citizens that they aren't allowed to raid or defend. It is too easy to paint this issue as being loyal or disloyal, or attacking TSP. But let's cut the crap. The number of people who want to raid and defend are few and far between. There are many people who will only do one or the other, whether or not they are "moralists." Those people will not join the NSA, so long as it requires people to do both. Instead, they are going to go the UDL, Spritus, the FRA, the UIAF, TBR, the Brotherhood of Malice, etc. That's the reason those groups are larger and more numerous than groups that play both sides.

 

We cannot on the one hand drive people to those groups, then on the other say they can't go head to head with the NSA while in those groups. All that will do is drive people from the region, which will stunt not only our growth in numbers, but our growth in ideas. From where you sit, I imagine it's hard to see the negative side effects of your position. The region is, after all, squarely where you want it, and you don't want it to change. But stagnation kills, and restricting the activity of our own citizens -- activity we drive them to do thanks to our refusal to pick a side -- is a quick way to stagnation.

 

Furthermore, you and others are exaggerating the impact of TSP citizens countering the NSA in other organizations, by using grandiose language of disloyalty. Frankly, it's good practice for the NSA to go against competitive groups. Not every successful defense against an NSA raid is a declaration of war. Not every thwarted liberation is an attack on TSP. This is, after all, a game. It is one thing for citizens of TSP to help a group that's at war with TSP or that is purposefully undermining TSP at every direction. It's unreasonable and naive, however, to lump all competitive activity into the most serious and grievous attacks on our region.

[Unibot]

Because Unibot was so arrogant to accuse me in giant red text as being a liar, and unlike him I have actual proof to back up my claims, I would like to present to the assembly my claims and clear my name to such a hogwash accuasation:

 

On February 5th I sent out orders for an invasion attempt of Nazi Europe.  The same day Topid also leaked the orders and when I asked him for clarification, he spoke in riddles declaring The South Pacific his enemy.  Let it also be noted that Unibot cheered the leaks.  http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic....0&start=50  It's all there.

 

On February 5th Topid was also delegate of St Abbaddon (36 days ago).  

 

http://www.nationstates.net/page=region_...t_abbaddon

 

 

If he didn't want his words to speak for his region, he shouldn't have tried to bully other regions as the sitting delegate.  The NSA will not tolerate threats against The South Pacific, especially when we are in position to act against them.

 

 

1. At no point did Topid call The South Pacific his enemy. He said, "As the saying goes, the sock puppet of my enemy is just the hand of my enemy in a warm and fuzzy wrapping."

 

You said, "I didn't know you considered The South Pacific your enemy, but noted."

 

He denied that he had called The South Pacific his enemy: "TSP was the sock, not the hand". 

 

2. You are glossing over the fact that Topid was only delegate for 2 days - interrupting an inactive delegate's reign of 255 days, to remove the region's password.

 

Topid had little involvement in St Abbaddon and St Abbaddon did not consider him a delegate.  Topid was furious that you would attack St Abbaddon to get back at "him" -- players who had played the game since 2002 were going to leave the game over that invasion, because of some tangentially related bullshit spun by you. 

 

From his address to The South Pacific:

 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">"Please join me in my call that any player who wants to be left alone, and has done absolutely nothing to anyone, should not be targeted for something they had no control over. "

<p style="margin-left:40px;"> 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">"They've seen been ejecting nations who did nothing to them, all of this, because they are mad at me for something I said. And that delegate who has been in the region since 2002, answering issues regularly, told me he now wants to leave the game because of the harassment."

<p style="margin-left:40px;"> 

You attacked people who had nothing to do with anything - despite your claims that Topid was "bullying TSP", you were the one who was bullying and I'm glad Topid called you out on it. To see you weasel around the facts now is all the more upsetting.

[tsunamy]

I rarely do this, but -- speaking as an admin -- I think this discussion is no longer fruitful. We're at a standstill where all we're doing is lobbing insulting posts at each other.

 

Someone explain what still needs to be hashed out or let's end this incessant debate.

[Sandaoguo]

I rarely do this, but -- speaking as an admin -- I think this discussion is no longer fruitful. We're at a standstill where all we're doing is lobbing insulting posts at each other.

 

Someone explain what still needs to be hashed out or let's end this incessant debate.

 

Just ignore the St. Abbaddon stuff and you'll easily see what still needs to be hashed out. I don't understand what's so difficult about just ignoring a threadjack and, instead of just complaining, actually trying to get the topic back on track. Telling people to stop threadjacking doesn't work. Just as the NS mods.

 

There is a serious discussion going on about whether or not this region will allow its citizens who don't work with the NSA to go head to head with the NSA in other organizations. There are more posts about this issue than about who was delegate of St Abbaddon and what they said and when they said it. Just let the small threadjacks play themselves out, because the bigger discussion is still happening. The only people paying attention to the SB-Unibot threadjack are SB and Unibot!

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tsunamy" data-cid="120312" data-time="1394755210">
<div>
I rarely do this, but -- speaking as an admin -- I think this discussion is no longer fruitful. We're at a standstill where all we're doing is lobbing insulting posts at each other.

 

Someone explain what still needs to be hashed out or let's end this incessant debate.

 

Just ignore the St. Abbaddon stuff and you'll easily see what still needs to be hashed out. I don't understand what's so difficult about just ignoring a threadjack and, instead of just complaining, actually trying to get the topic back on track. Telling people to stop threadjacking doesn't work. Just as the NS mods.

 

There is a serious discussion going on about whether or not this region will allow its citizens who don't work with the NSA to go head to head with the NSA in other organizations. There are more posts about this issue than about who was delegate of St Abbaddon and what they said and when they said it. Just let the small threadjacks play themselves out, because the bigger discussion is still happening. The only people paying attention to the SB-Unibot threadjack are SB and Unibot!

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

No -- I'm not playing this game.

 

There isn't anything productive being discussed in this thread, by SB and Uni or by you and Bels. And, in case you missed it, you're the only four still posting here.

 

However, you are correct that decrying threadjacking -- as Kris and I already did -- isn't useful as a administrative tool. So, I'm locking this thread. Start a new one if this really needs to be discussed.