View Topic

The Security Council,

Recognizing that the region of Anarchy has existed as a community in NationStates for over 10 years,

Noting the region's historic neutrality in the war between invaders and defenders, its acceptance of nations of all backgrounds, and its laudable mission to encourage political debate and dialogue amongst its members,

Lamenting that Anarchy was invaded on February 3, 2014 by The Black Riders, a group notorious for region destruction, tag raiding and other nefarious behavior for which it was condemned twice by this Council,

Dismayed that the invasion has turned to a long-term occupation, during which natives who dared protest against the invasion had been ejected and all dissent had been suppressed,

Aware that it is a matter of time before The Black Riders' WA Delegate gains sufficient influence to lock-down the region, and painfully aware that they could unleash destruction without interference from defenders, natives, and the world at large,

Concious that natives have no hope to reclaim their region once that happens,

Noting that Security Council intervention is the only course of action that could save Anarchy from The Black Riders' rapacious assault,

Hereby Liberates Anarchy.

Co-authored by The Celestial Realm of Goddess Relief Office

Against, because a liberation would just turn Anarchy into a total warzone. And I'd personally rather it was destroyed anyway.

When considering a liberation of a region, in my personal opinion is that several factors have to be considered. For those that don't know, a liberation proposal prevents the delegate of a region from password-protecting a region. It helps defenders in that invaders can't kick out all the natives, put up a password, and then easily refound the region so they can hold it permanently, as seen when defenders intercepted a UIAF attempt to refound the  region of Slavia, a region which could not be passworded. On the other hand, it also prevents defender/native delegates from passwording the region after it's been retaken until the proposal has been repealed.

The first is whether the region is significant in any way, either because it's been around since antiquity, the name of the region is significant, or the region hosts a community of natives. In this case, Anarchy follows two of the three criteria...the name is one which a raider region would more than likely covet, especially given the region's history, and the region hosts a community of natives.

The second is whether the natives of the region support the liberation. While I personally support liberation, including pre-emptive liberations,if the native community doesn't want the proposal, it's not our place to force it upon them. Defenders defend the sovereignty of regions and their natives first and foremost. As a proposal which has various, serious effects on their region, we should not trod on those rights in a rush to defend the physical region itself. In this case, we see that the author of the resolution, YoriZ, has been in the region long enough to garner 178 influence, which is quite a long time. It would appear that this resolution has native support.

Finally, we have to look at the strategic situation...how likely is it that the region could be destroyed and refounded? That isn't such an open and shut case...the invading forces would probably need to remain in the region for several more months to outright refound it. History would indicate that the raiders will probably leave of their own accord before then. However, the invasion has probably already caused damage to the actual community, through banjection of natives, suppression of posts, and other actions that would lead to the eventual dissolution of the community, even before the region was actually lost. This is a stated goal of certain raiders, such as Mall, to break regional communities so that they're irreparably broken even if the regions can't be permanently held.

There's also the required investment from defender regions once the region's been recovered...weeks after Slavia was liberated, Wintreath and other defender regions are still supporting the region, just because the invader lead has so much influence from his time in the delegacy that we have to build influence to kick him out. The longer invader nations gather influence in Anarchy, the more support and investment will be required from defender militaries. Thus, it's to our own benefit for the region to be liberated sooner rather than later.

Of course, raiders may gleefully claim that liberations create warzones, but I don't feel this is the case, as liberation proposals can be repealed when their usefullness has ended. In some cases that hasn't happened namely because both sides feel that certain regions such as Christmas have become part of the R/D "culture", but this is an exception, not a rule. Even if it were to condemn Anarchy to the status of a warzone, the natives (through YoriZ) have indicated that they accept that they will be the targets of raids and have no interest in locking down their region...it would appear that the only party that could have an interest in locking the region would be the occupying raiders.

For these reasons, I vote for this resolution.