Region Debates High Court Activity

[HEM]

​

E-News Network - "Region Debates High Court Activity"
Written by HEM Tiberius

Over the last few days the region has been engulfed within debates regarding the extended absence of Chief Justice Onderkelkia. Once reviled and largely isolated from the greater Europeian community Onderkelkia was nominated to the high court as an associate justice by President Sopo in September of last year. Perhaps remarkably to his strong fans today, that nomination failed to meet the approval of the Senate.

Onderkelkia was renominated only a few weeks later after the resignation of Speaker Oliver and his nomination was finally confirmed. After serving on the court a vacancy of the Chief Justice seat occurred, with many quietly lobbying for Associate Justice Onderkelkia to bid for the seat within the Halls of Justice. He did so, and won.

While the Europeian Courts have recently been under historical inactivity, Onderkelkia has made his mark on several judgements and has been lauded for his thoroughness and dedication to the law. Starting in late October now, however, Onderkelkia has been fully absent from the forum. Many activity advocates are starting to call for his removal.

Opponents of removal cite the lethargic movement of the court and the high dedication of Onderkelkia. Historically though, Europeia has rarely been this kind to politicians. Presidents Pez201, Neohabighorst, and eventually even Lexus were all urged to resign due to non-daily activity. Historically, Senators could often be removed for failing to comment on three threads. Activity has long been an expectation and staple in the Europeian community.

So far, most of those opposed to the removal of Justice Onderkelkia have failed to state whether they would apply their loose activity standards to other offices. However, the court risks losing a prominent figure on the court if Onderkelkia does not return (or if he is dismayed to return and find himself fired).

After the retirement of Abbey Anumia, Hyanygo, and Anumia himself, only a few legal scholars remain active in Europeia. Fewer remain eager to take court positions. Only time will tell how the people will ask their representatives to act -- and how this will impact the region.

Are You A Native?

As if there was nothing else to debate about.

A small and peaceful looking thread about natives has turned into a multi-character brawl over the military policy of Europeia and the role of invading in Nationstates. Then, it turned into debates between select parties regarding the actions of United Defender League founder -- Unibot -- and what roles his organization may have played in influencing feeder regions.

"It's all a little odd," ENN commentator Jay Leno says, "You have the classic allegations from Rachel Anumia -- who seems to be an ambulance chaser against the UDL -- but very weak rebuts from those who seem to be sympathetic toward Unibot. It's like, she's throwing up a wall of evidence, to which nobody responds anything but farting noises."

"You hear all these references to 'bully' and 'schoolyard' bully, and I think, are we really pretending that far?" Princeton Professor Paul Krugman says, "The UDL is known for being one of the rudest and most egocentric organizations ever, saying horrible things about invaders and people who invade on the NS forum and beyond -- and now they are labeling someone a 'bully' for bringing up some perhaps repetitive -- but bizarre -- political events that could be malicious? I find that odd, and I don't think it's a battle they can win."

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I, personally, do not apply the standards of activity I do to the High Court and Onder in particular, that I would to other offices, because of the low-activity (generally) nature of the High Court.

 

[PhDre]

Then, it turned into debates between select parties regarding the actions of United Defender League founder -- Unibot -- and what roles his organization may have played in influencing feeder regions.

I think that side argument is nothing but a distraction from the issue at hand - that tag raiding does nothing to benefit Europeia in the short or long term, yet we continue to tag raid for the sake of doing it. I'm just glad that Europeia doesn't participate in more destructive forms of raiding / hope that moving forward we'll be more willing to recognize that there is a place for standing with natives against more aggressive forms of raiding.

 

[Jahka]

Then, it turned into debates between select parties regarding the actions of United Defender League founder -- Unibot -- and what roles his organization may have played in influencing feeder regions.

I think that side argument is nothing but a distraction from the issue at hand - that tag raiding does nothing to benefit Europeia in the short or long term, yet we continue to tag raid for the sake of doing it. I'm just glad that Europeia doesn't participate in more destructive forms of raiding / hope that moving forward we'll be more willing to recognize that there is a place for standing with natives against more aggressive forms of raiding.

It certainly derailed the thread. That's why she brought it up.

 

[Rach]

Then, it turned into debates between select parties regarding the actions of United Defender League founder -- Unibot -- and what roles his organization may have played in influencing feeder regions.

I think that side argument is nothing but a distraction from the issue at hand - that tag raiding does nothing to benefit Europeia in the short or long term, yet we continue to tag raid for the sake of doing it. I'm just glad that Europeia doesn't participate in more destructive forms of raiding / hope that moving forward we'll be more willing to recognize that there is a place for standing with natives against more aggressive forms of raiding.

I simply stated why Europeia prefers and should continue to prefer raiding to defending and that defenders don't respect native rights when they do things like rig elections (Bel of the UDL for example). I'm not sure why UDLers react with such violent disagreement when they don't disagree with the facts.

 

[PhDre]

I simply stated why Europeia prefers and should continue to prefer raiding to defending

No you didn't state that at all. There are non-bullshit defenders. The idea that just because some defenders act a certain way, Europeia should continue to prefer raiding, is bizarre. You could point to win-at-all-cost raiders and say "look at their willingness to engage with Nazi regions and their glee and enjoyment in griefing regions, Europeia should prefer defender rather than that" but that'd be equally egregious. You're attempting to lump together defenders - "Honesty. Integrity. We don't give bullshit moral reasons when we seek power in politics." That's how Europeia engages with the world? We don't give "bullshit" moral reasons when we interact with the NS world at large? This is false. 1 2 3
45 (More examples of bullshit moralist arguments being thrown around by silly Europeian Presidents)

---

In terms of whether raiders in general fly a moral flag (because all raiders can be painted with a broad brush according to your comment here) - I think Europeia certainly tries to do so. Do we not remember the discussion surrouding the creation of your'Broad Foreign Policy,' and the contention that founderless regions unable to protect themselves from raids are not sovereign and therefore not protected by the Broad Foreign Policy? I distincly recall that being an argument that Skizzy brought forward in that discussion. Ultimately, you haven't provided anything significant as to why Europeia should continue to raid, besides the argument that you don't like how the UDL plays (and is a hypocrite in regard to) the moral high ground. And I'm not saying that Europeia needs to play the way that the UDL plays, or interact with other regions the way the UDL does.

---

It certainly derailed the thread. That's why she brought it up.

I will say that I'm pretty damn dissapointed by the false options presented - the idea that some see the choice as either Europeia remaining an honest integrity-filled raider or converting into a false moralist UDL-supporting defender is strange. I'm not sure that's honestly how others see this issue, but framing the choice that way certainly makes it easier to argue for the status quo.

 

[Rach]

When I say bullshit morals, I mean in the sense of stating a false moral reason when the real reason is power. So when I say that Europeia doesn't engage in bullshit morals, I say that Europeia is not two-faced about its intentions which is not true for many defender orgs.

Yet, in Balder we have more than proven that their words stating such are simply bullshit.

So PhDre, while I applaud the fact that you wish to argue with me over my views on how Europeia should stand by its guns. I would politely request that you not misuse what I say to construe your bizarre arguments founded on misquoting.

 

[PhDre]

I just think that you are (intentionally or not) presenting a distorted choice to Europeians. We don't have to follow in the footsteps of the UDL, and I'm not saying we should. Going farther to protect native rights, regional sovereignty, and recognizing that raiding does Europeia little to no good doesn't require us to destroy our values. We don't have to follow in the footsteps of the UDL. In fact, the UDL's moral high ground is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and can only serve as a warning to Europeia as to the consequences of failing to stand by the moral standards that have guided Europeian Presidents for years.

Edit: Also, I'm sorry you object to my interpretation of your phrase 'bullshit morals.' It's just hard when you don't clearly define your ideas in an argument. If you want people to take your arguments seriously and respond to your points... perhaps you should work on your communication skills?

 

[Rach]

You're so vengeful on a personal level

 

[North East Somerset]

I think the PhDre-Rachel argument has dragged on long enough. Let me put the facts straight. The point is, Europeia is a democracy. If the majority of people vote for a Government that wants to stop raiding, then we will stop. But I don't think most people buy into the applicability of defender morality, ie. they don't see anything wrong with what we do.

Europeia has been engaging in raiding military activities (amongst reinforcing allied raids, and legitimate governments - thus defending) since it's existence. Look back at the military archives, here, we've been engaging in this kind of military actions for over 5 years.

Why should we change our stance based on a minority of citizens who are overwhelmingly members of defender organisations, usually the UDL nowadays, but historically the FRA. The majority of Europeians don't buy into the morality argument. Why should we change? Why should we say, we've been doing something "immoral" for our entire history, and now we should stop. I don't believe we've been doing anything immoral. I think we should continue to do what we've always done, with an emphasis on geopolitically relevant engagements to support allies, and defend legitimate governments. But I'll also defend our right to invade random founderless regions like we have done for our entire history, in order to train our military and for fun.

We don't need to justify this, because we aren't in the pocket of the major defender organisations. In fact, the raiding serves as a valuable indicator of our independence from them, which is crucial for our success. Look at all the regions which have sold out to defender organisations. Look how successful they were. They're all dead. Their top members all left to pursue political glory at the top level. An independent Europeia is a healthy Europeia, and an Europeia that will last for future generations to enjoy and participate in. We can defend too by all means, but we shouldn't block ourselves from either defending or raiding, on the wishes of external forces - and thats ultimately what this is all about. The majority of non-aligned Europeians do not want to ban us from raiding or defending activities, and I don't believe they ever will. Long may Europeia remain independent - and long may we do what we want. Because if we don't do that, we're on the path to subjugation by either defender or raider interests, and that always leads to ruin. We are one of the greatest regions in Nationstates, because we engage in gameplay, but we do it for ourselves, not for others*.

*Sidenote - we could become wholly defender orientated for ourselves, or we could become wholly raider orientated for ourselves. But we'd need a comprehensive exclusive anti-democratic doctrine to resist outside influence (aka. TITO) to survive as an independent entity. Now I believe that our democracy (equality) is as important as our independence (freedom), and indeed justice (peace) in Europeia, so I wouldn't want to sacrifice one for the other, and thats why our current strategy which balances these issues is the right strategy for the future.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I just think that you are (intentionally or not) presenting a distorted choice to Europeians. We don't have to follow in the footsteps of the UDL, and I'm not saying we should. Going farther to protect native rights, regional sovereignty, and recognizing that raiding does Europeia little to no good doesn't require us to destroy our values. We don't have to follow in the footsteps of the UDL. In fact, the UDL's moral high ground is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and can only serve as a warning to Europeia as to the consequences of failing to stand by the moral standards that have guided Europeian Presidents for years.

Edit: Also, I'm sorry you object to my interpretation of your phrase 'bullshit morals.' It's just hard when you don't clearly define your ideas in an argument. If you want people to take your arguments seriously and respond to your points... perhaps you should work on your communication skills?

Natives don't have rights, and founderless regions lack sovreignty by the very fact of their founderlessness. And the ability to project power with a well trained military is and always will be a good thing for a region to be able to do, including Europeia.

 

[Rach]

This article I think has what is generating activity currently wrong

 

[hyanygo]

I agree with HEM sentiments on Onder's activity and the next steps to take (perhaps unsurprisingly).

 

[Jahka]

I think the PhDre-Rachel argument has dragged on long enough. Let me put the facts straight. The point is, Europeia is a democracy. If the majority of people vote for a Government that wants to stop raiding, then we will stop. But I don't think most people buy into the applicability of defender morality, ie. they don't see anything wrong with what we do.

Europeia has been engaging in raiding military activities (amongst reinforcing allied raids, and legitimate governments - thus defending) since it's existence. Look back at the military archives, here, we've been engaging in this kind of military actions for over 5 years.

Why should we change our stance based on a minority of citizens who are overwhelmingly members of defender organisations, usually the UDL nowadays, but historically the FRA. The majority of Europeians don't buy into the morality argument. Why should we change? Why should we say, we've been doing something "immoral" for our entire history, and now we should stop. I don't believe we've been doing anything immoral. I think we should continue to do what we've always done, with an emphasis on geopolitically relevant engagements to support allies, and defend legitimate governments. But I'll also defend our right to invade random founderless regions like we have done for our entire history, in order to train our military and for fun.

We don't need to justify this, because we aren't in the pocket of the major defender organisations. In fact, the raiding serves as a valuable indicator of our independence from them, which is crucial for our success. Look at all the regions which have sold out to defender organisations. Look how successful they were. They're all dead. Their top members all left to pursue political glory at the top level. An independent Europeia is a healthy Europeia, and an Europeia that will last for future generations to enjoy and participate in. We can defend too by all means, but we shouldn't block ourselves from either defending or raiding, on the wishes of external forces - and thats ultimately what this is all about. The majority of non-aligned Europeians do not want to ban us from raiding or defending activities, and I don't believe they ever will. Long may Europeia remain independent - and long may we do what we want. Because if we don't do that, we're on the path to subjugation by either defender or raider interests, and that always leads to ruin. We are one of the greatest regions in Nationstates, because we engage in gameplay, but we do it for ourselves, not for others*. 

*Sidenote - we could become wholly defender orientated for ourselves, or we could become wholly raider orientated for ourselves. But we'd need a comprehensive exclusive anti-democratic doctrine to resist outside influence (aka. TITO) to survive as an independent entity. Now I believe that our democracy (equality) is as important as our independence (freedom), and indeed justice (peace) in Europeia, so I wouldn't want to sacrifice one for the other, and thats why our current strategy which balances these issues is the right strategy for the future.

I think I agree with you on your main points. Europeia should remain democratic and independent. I do not, however, see the conflict between being defenderism and democracy. There's been plenty of regions that are both democratic and defenders...

Nor do I think that the majority disagree with defender "morality". Most people recognize that raiding harms a region (though the severity of this harm is quite contested) for the sake of the raider's alleged gain. To that, raiders usually retort either:

1. "Causing in-game harm doesn't matter because it's a game."

Very few defenders are trying to claim that raiders are bad people in real life. Those that do are fools. We're talking about the in-game morality here, so claiming that NS is a game does not answer the issues about raiding being in-game immoral. If we recognize that raiding is way for us to have fun at the expense of others, then we aren't denying that raiding is in-game immoral. Now, can we choose to embrace being the in-game bad guys without issue? Yes, I just feel that as a land of freedom, peace, and equality... we should want to be the good guys.

Or

2. *some example of defender hypocrisy*

Ok. So when defenders pursue their interests in a manner that harms others its wrong? How can that be immoral if an in-game morality does not exist? It's hypocrisy over hypocrisy.

--

Basically I'm arguing that people do in fact recognize the existence of an in-game moral code and location of raiding on the immoral side of it.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

NES's arguement is that a pure one side or the other region, would have to, one some level, exclude Raiders or Defenders. TNI doesn't have/allow defenders in the region, which creates a much less diverse foreign affairs discussion, though it does allow for some very good regional consensus on Foreign affairs. Mainly, the only major debate in TNI in FA, as far as I've ever been able to tell, is Colonies.

If Europeia went pure Defender, we couldn't let raiders in, or risk a turn to the other side by democracy.

 

[Jahka]

NES's arguement is that a pure one side or the other region, would have to, one some level, exclude Raiders or Defenders. TNI doesn't have/allow defenders in the region, which creates a much less diverse foreign affairs discussion, though it does allow for some very good regional consensus on Foreign affairs. Mainly, the only major debate in TNI in FA, as far as I've ever been able to tell, is Colonies.

If Europeia went pure Defender, we couldn't let raiders in, or risk a turn to the other side by democracy.

TNI may value being raider more than being a democracy. Europeia does not. We have to be willing to accept that if the majority view of the region shifted then the policy would shift with it. That's kinda the point of valuing democracy.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Closing off immigration is not opposition to democracy.

And because we let raiders and defenders in, we are not pure one way or the other, which is the point.

 

[Jahka]

Closing off immigration is not opposition to democracy.

NES called the measures "anti-democratic doctrine," and I agree with him. It's clearly undemocratic. And I don't believe he was talking about closing off immigration but rather suggesting that laws limiting the ability of raiders/defenders (whichever) to gain office would be needed in order to become "wholly oriented."

Clearly such measures would be unneeded. Look at Europeia. Despite being full of "non-aligned" citizens and remaining "independent," Europeia has never defended on any noteworthy scale. I'd say we are quite fully oriented to raiding without being anti-democratic. It's not unreasonable to think that we could be oriented in a similar fashion to defending. Regardless, this is just a tangent to the main issue.

I really don't know why NES said this speech. No one was advocating in favor Europeia losing her independence or against democracy. There's no outside forces at work here. It's not some UDL conspiracy like he suggests. I'm not in the UDL. PhDre isn't; I believe. The only channel anyone is pursuing is one of discussion in the hopes that it'll take heart in a few citizens and move us closer to our Europeian values of peace, freedom, and equality.

 

[Rach]

NES's arguement is that a pure one side or the other region, would have to, one some level, exclude Raiders or Defenders. TNI doesn't have/allow defenders in the region, which creates a much less diverse foreign affairs discussion, though it does allow for some very good regional consensus on Foreign affairs. Mainly, the only major debate in TNI in FA, as far as I've ever been able to tell, is Colonies.

If Europeia went pure Defender, we couldn't let raiders in, or risk a turn to the other side by democracy.

TNI may value being raider more than being a democracy. Europeia does not. We have to be willing to accept that if the majority view of the region shifted then the policy would shift with it. That's kinda the point of valuing democracy.

Well to be fair, how well do you know TNI?