World Assembly News #3

World Assembly News
From the Europeian Broadcasting Corporation, one of Europeia’s premier Media groups.
Keeping Europeians and the world informed since 2009.​

---

---

Nay - They Raid!


Defenders Call For A Nay

World Assembly proposal "Renewable Research Commitment" was presented by Europeia's Delegate Vinage and received the required number of approvals from fellow Delegates in less than 12 hours. Now the real critique begins on the content of the proposal by other World Assembly members. However, much to the surprise of this writer, a defender and citizen of the Rejected Realms has called for a Nay vote on this resolution not because of its content but due to the politics of Euroepai by issuing this statement:

While we would normally simply abstain from voting on an empty resolution like this one, it has come to our attention that this was proposed by the Delegate of a region that has been complicit in seizing the Delegacies of other regions by force, against the will of the nations usually located in the regions in question. As we wish to discourage regions from venturing on such underhanded ways of gaining voting strength in the World Assembly, we will be voting against this quorate proposal once it officially becomes a resolution.

The above comments can easily be interpreted as a rallying call for other World Assembly nations to vote nay simply because the region of Europeia is involved in raiding. The above comments also come with no actual basis as it is rare to even see a 'Point' actually vote or approve World Assembly resolutions and often don't even have a large number of Endorsements that would make a difference - let alone a difference enough to warrant calling for others to vote nay on it.

Are we starting to see the battle-lines not only drawn over the control of regions but now in World Assembly resolutions?

Authored By Vinage

 

[Rach]

That's petty and classless. It's something I'd expect out of a new defender, not an older one who should try to set the example in maturity. It never ceases to amaze me how seriously these guys take their power games.

 

[PASD]

I didn't expect anything less.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

That's petty and classless. It's something I'd expect out of a new defender, not an older one who should try to set the example in maturity. It never ceases to amaze me how seriously these guys take their power games.

Agreed.

 

[Jahka]

While I see why you're upset because you but a lot of effort into your Resolution and Goobergunchia is against it for what you feel are petty reasons, this article reminds me of something I'd see on Fox News.

Defenders did not call for a nay vote. One defender from a recently raided region called for a nay vote because he associates Europeia with raid of his home region. It's certainly not some defender wide cause as implied by the captions.

However, it begs the question... why is it when you disrupt his in-game region it doesn't hurt anyone and you're just having fun, but when he votes against your resolution he's being "petty and classless?"

Perhaps it amazes him how serious you guys take your WA resolutions? He prolly felt that raiders showing up in his home region and seizing total control of the region by stealing the delegacy from a popularly elected delegate was fairly petty and trite.



I'm voting aye, though. And knowing how the WA works this will defiantly pass. So, good job on that note.

 

[hyanygo]

I have to agree with Jahka here.

On a related note, if Europeia is going to fall within the camp of "It's a game ... jeez, stop being so whiny" and associated reactions to defenders, Europeia better damn well follow what it preaches. Otherwise sooner or later we're going to end up with accusations of being hypocritical (which we are to be honest).

 

[Vinage Vinage]

I'd have to disagree with you both and wonder if you've missed the main point of the article - to address this being first instance I've seen of someone coming out publicly to reject a Proposal not on the grounds of its content but because we partake in a part of the game someone else disagrees with.

So are we being whiny? No.... more concerned that our World Assembly resolution is being branded as negative on the grounds of our Navy policies.

 

[Henry]

I'd have to disagree with you both and wonder if you've missed the main point of the article - to address this being first instance I've seen of someone coming out publicly to reject a Proposal not on the grounds of its content but because we partake in a part of the game someone else disagrees with.

So are we being whiny? No.... more concerned that our World Assembly resolution is being branded as negative on the grounds of our Navy policies.

Chill, Gengis. I would agree with you if it was more than one or two people. Give it time and gauge the responses. Even then, it will probably be best not to say anything because then you'll get caught up arguing little petty points instead of what you should be, which will jeopardize your bill.

Speaking words of wisdom; let it be.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I'd have to disagree with you both and wonder if you've missed the main point of the article - to address this being first instance I've seen of someone coming out publicly to reject a Proposal not on the grounds of its content but because we partake in a part of the game someone else disagrees with.

So are we being whiny? No.... more concerned that our World Assembly resolution is being branded as negative on the grounds of our Navy policies.

^ This

Also, Hy and Jakha, complaining is okay. Both sides are allowed to complain, game or not. We are complaining about that guy's choice and arguement. But there were no ad hominem attacks on him, just disagreement with and attack on his choice.

Where as the 'only a game' arguement brought up in the context of raiding v. defending comes up in terms of when one side or the other starts going in for ad hominem, and breaking game rules, RL laws, saying things like their opponent belongs in 'Real life prison', crashing forums, etc. Or when defenders start going on and on and on about some higher moral duty and purpose in defending and how they're just plain better human beings and so on and so on and so on. Its a game. Your actions in a game, provided you follow the rules, etc, etc, don't make you a terrible human being, and they don't make you an exemplar of human virtue, which is what Unibot and his faction of the defender world would have you believe they are.

I've no problem with defenders complaining or disliking what we raiders do do. But we have the right to complain about their complaint and be unhappy when they go against a GA resolution soley on the grounds of the ERN's raider stance. They still have the right to do it.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

@Goobergunchia

If one wishes to vote against this proposal on the grounds of my regions Foreign and Military policy then so be it but, one would hope, that those factors did not play a part of your reasoning process on an aye/nay vote in the World Assembly.

Don't worry Henry, I half know what I'm doing

 

[Henry]

What I meant to say is that by drawing attention to the person yourself, you give them more credit than they're due. The conversation about your proposal was on a professional level up until that point and his points were petty and trite and completely not in line with everyone else responding, which means it was a minority and immature opinion. You did yourself no favors by responding to it and it would have been better had you ignored it completely.

That's the last I will say on the matter, though. If you feel the need to respond to such things, then it's your priority to do so and I won't stop you.

 

[Henry]

I, however, couldn't resist adding some henryism to it, lol.

 

[Jahka]

I'd have to disagree with you both and wonder if you've missed the main point of the article - to address this being first instance I've seen of someone coming out publicly to reject a Proposal not on the grounds of its content but because we partake in a part of the game someone else disagrees with.

So are we being whiny? No.... more concerned that our World Assembly resolution is being branded as negative on the grounds of our Navy policies.

My original response to your post is that you sensationalized the issue. I don't particularly blame you, because frankly one guy who doesn't like Europeia voting against its resolution is not that big of a story.

The last two paragraphs of my post were more addressed to your last sentence and Rachael's post.


-----------------------------

Your actions in a game, provided you follow the rules, etc, etc, don't make you a terrible human being, and they don't make you an exemplar of human virtue, which is what Unibot and his faction of the defender world would have you believe they are.

But apparently your actions can have you labelled petty and classless?

 

[Kylia Quilor]

-----------------------------

Your actions in a game, provided you follow the rules, etc, etc, don't make you a terrible human being, and they don't make you an exemplar of human virtue, which is what Unibot and his faction of the defender world would have you believe they are.

But apparently your actions can have you labelled petty and classless?

Yea.

I'm okay with Defenders calling Raiding that. That's mild language. So if a Defender does something I think petty and classless, of course I'll call them that.

 

[Rach]

I look at it in terms of separation. What does raiding and defending have to do with the Grand Assembly? Nothing. It affects WA Nations not regions, the latter can be dealt with via the Security Council.

It's like being fierce competitors in the Ministry of Culture and then opposing the other persons plans in Interior because of your different Cultural stances. While it may be his way of playing, I am glad that most people are willing to vote based on merits of the proposal rather than personal grudges which is what this boils down to.

We criticize our Senators if they vote based on personal grudges (example: the confirmation of a justice last term) rather than the merits of the proposal. Shouldn't we hold this person to the same standards? Not only that, he's been around the block. This isn't a new person. I think that he should be called out for voting based on personal grudges. In my opinion, to do what he did is petty and classless. Unsportsmanlike. It is discouraging to people like myself who have always wanted to get involved in the GA to see that.

It takes away from the real issues that are meant to be dealt with at the General Assembly. Want to discuss raiding and defending? Do it in the Security Council or Gameplay.

 

[Jahka]

-----------------------------

Your actions in a game, provided you follow the rules, etc, etc, don't make you a terrible human being, and they don't make you an exemplar of human virtue, which is what Unibot and his faction of the defender world would have you believe they are.

But apparently your actions can have you labelled petty and classless?

Yea.

I'm okay with Defenders calling Raiding that. That's mild language. So if a Defender does something I think petty and classless, of course I'll call them that.

Well, you do understand the idea of defender morality is all in-game?

raiding v. defending comes up in terms of when one side or the other starts going in for ad hominem, and breaking game rules, RL laws, saying things like their opponent belongs in 'Real life prison', crashing forums, etc. Or when defenders start going on and on and on about some higher moral duty and purpose in defending and how they're just plain better human beings and so on and so on and so on. Its a game. Your actions in a game, provided you follow the rules, etc, etc, don't make you a terrible human being, and they don't make you an exemplar of human virtue, which is what Unibot and his faction of the defender world would have you believe they are.

Please stop with your ridiculous strawmen. I know Unibot, I know what is actually said about raiding in the UDL. And it's not that invaders deserve to go to "real life prison" or that "break game rules." Nor is the destruction of a forum ever condoned, ever. The UDL does claim that they follow a more moral code of in-game law, that's where it ends. Feel free to disagree with that, but you don't need to make up stuff.

 

[Rach]

Goobers arguments are becoming increasingly non-sensical.

I love how this thread starts out with actual lengthy discussion when the proposal was being drafted, by people actually concerned with the WA and everything that comes with, and has since dissolved to single-line or single-paragraph replies from people who never bothered to participate in the discussion of the bill when it was still in the drafting stage and who obviously do not care as much about the WA or what it has going on.

I say 'obviously' because these are the same people bringing up such petty points as raider/defender orientation on such a thing as Renewable Energy; the same people that ignore the discussion stage of proposals where their input really matters; the same people who vote 'no' against every proposal that enters the WA solely on the principle that the WA is inherently flawed, instead of trying to fix the problem in a constructive manner by getting involved in discussions and drafting their own resolutions.

We suggest that junior ambassadors learn their history before casting aspersions on the motivations of their senior colleagues.

We frankly felt this proposal to be beneath our consideration at drafting stage. As stated earlier, it is feel-good fluff that will likely pass but not actually accomplish anything. We have much better uses of our time than to discuss such a trivial proposal, especially one that was rushed to submission with scant time for prior discussion. Frankly, it would be difficult to improve without drawing complaints from the micromanagement crowd, and we are loathe to suggest that an ambassador completely redirect their resolution to focus on a perhaps more worthy topic (e.g. some kind of transnational renewable research agenda).

And quite frankly, we believe that the potential for a proposal to be eased to a vote, by first securing the Delegacies of regions that may otherwise be hostile to said proposal and then having such Delegacies supporting it, is a matter completely worthy of our attention as intelligent ambassadors. While we prefer to cast our vote on policy grounds, on a resolution as pathetically toothless as this one we reserve the right to take into account other factors.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Sponsor, H. Res. #22
Sponsor, S.C. Res. #4

So, you're calling out Henry for not knowing history while making assumptions that, based on history are non-sensical at best, malicious at worst. While the practice of taking delegacies for the sake of GA/SC affairs may seem probable to you, given the UDL's practice of securing regions for events such as Unibots commendation... such actions are beneath our own region (as evidenced by the fact that we do vote on applicable policy, rather than personal grudges).

Would it make more sense to raid regions for the sake of WA Delegate approvals or would it make more sense to just simply create said regions? The latter resulting in more secure holdings for this purpose (as defenders would know, having done just that for commend Unibot) that are also far easy to create. Hence, the latter option makes more sense. Given Europeia's policy against having colonies and the like (preferring to focus energies on the improvement of the region), this "potential" that you believe as a possibility is doubly non-sensical.

The Rt. Hon. Rachel Anumia
Grand Admiral and Senator of Europeia,
The Land of Peace, Freedom and Equality

 

[Kylia Quilor]

It was 'beneath him'. Mabye if he'd entered the thread, he could have produced a proposal that was better written, to his taste.

The man's an asshole.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

While it is all well and good for Europeian ambassadors to insist that they do not seize other Delegacies for the purposes of altering World Assembly votes, the fact remains that seizing a Delegacy automatically alters a World Assembly vote by its very nature, notwithstanding intent. The records-keeping function of a region's Delegacy [OOC: the Gameplay side] and the voting function of Delegacies are fundamentally intertwined. (Indeed, the large against vote recorded by the occupying delegate of Belgium, which was supported by Europeian forces, early in the other chamber's "Commend Unibot" vote demonstrates this effect very well.)

Furthermore, the doctrine of "invader unity" suggests that while Europeian nations may not themselves intend to manipulate World Assembly, they would support the efforts of other groups that would seize the Delegacies of regions that they are not usually affiliated with for that purpose. Such groups have existed before; they may well exist again.

However, this is a side issue. We would in fact vote on policy grounds if the resolution had any measurable policy impact. Sadly, it does not. I have been informed by our Joint Committee on the World Assembly that should this pass, there will be no need for an Implementation Act, for the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic is already in compliance. Nor do we believe there will be any real impact on other member states. With nothing of substance to vote upon, how else would the ambassador from Sweet Dawn suggest we determine our vote? I am long past the stage where I gain a pleasant glow of satisfaction from voting for a resolution that shares my policy goals but does nothing effective to achieve their ends.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[OOC: You're talking to my WA Ambassador, not my Gameplay persona nor my OOC self. Lord Evif is a good deal more stubborn than I am. As such I've reparsed your comments in a way that make sense from an (admittedly loose) IC perspective.]

Guess Europeia should look to take Delegate spots in a raid ONLY when there are no World Assembly votes at large because, you know, those 5 votes make a huge-huge difference at the end of the day! <_<

I find the latter, OOC comment, bizarre as it was himself who brought up the issue first of all! Yet, when called out on it, goes 'Oh its an OOC issue - deal with it OOCly' which is nonsensical. Really Admiral Rachel hit this issue on the head earlier by asking what does Navy policies have to do with General Assembly matters? They don't reward anyone or does the thought of a 'raider region' having a say in the GA strike a fear?