View Topic

Liberate St Abbaddon
A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region.

Category: Liberation

Nominee (region): St Abbaddon

Proposed by: Yurope

The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING the region of St Abbaddon as among the oldest of all regions,

RESPECTING that the region has a long and storied history,

BELIEVING that the community of St Abbaddon is worthy of preservation,

FURTHER BELIEVING that the armed forces of the The Brotherhood of Malice, Osiris, Balder, The North Pacific, The South Pacific and others are attempting to destroy St Abbaddon,

KNOWING that those forces have spoken of intentions to destroy the region and refound it as a protectorate of a variety of international organizations,

UNDERSTANDING that a liberation will make it impossible for these groups to cause grief to the region,

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that St Abbaddon's nations and community are deserving of protection from such an action,

Hereby liberates St Abbaddon.

It's in the queue, and it's going to pass. Oh god I hope they never repeal this beautiful piece of social engineering.

Quoth the Cormac

I feel that there is still some confusion in regard to what has just occurred, and since Delegates of supporting regions and I have already begun stacking the vote in favor of Liberate St Abbaddon I will explain.

I decided very early on in this operation, as lead for The Brotherhood of Malice in St Abbaddon, that we would not grief the region due to the obscene amount of regional influence possessed by its native population. Instead, in cooperation with the Osiran WA Affairs Department and specifically WA Scribe Treize Dreizehn (The Dourian Embassy) who authored this resolution, The Brotherhood of Malice has pursued a strategy to pass a "preemptive" Liberation resolution. In pursuing this strategy we have already accomplished several goals:

1. We have illustrated the stupidity of passing or even approving preemptive Liberation resolutions. This resolution was authored by a non-native using an anonymous puppet, without any native support, and after I loudly and repeatedly said St Abbaddon would not be griefed. Nonetheless, this resolution was quickly pushed into the queue without a second thought. The Brotherhood of Malice will not grief St Abbaddon, but if this resolution passes, the Security Council will -- by turning the region into Warzone St Abbaddon. All because WA Delegates and voters have become so accustomed to just approving any Liberation resolution that comes their way, even in the absence of any evidence that it is needed.

2. We have turned the Security Council upside down, manipulating it to do the exact opposite of what it is intended to do and receiving substantial, unwitting defender support in order to do so. Indeed, this Liberation resolution was submitted with the endorsement of Cameron Romefeller, UDL Chief of Foreign Affairs and founder of the fledgling Allied Liberation Armed Forces. He provided one of the endorsements needed to submit the resolution, and during that conversation made an unsolicited offer to support Treize Dreizehn in a future coup d'etat against the Osiris Fraternal Order. Mr. Romefeller now stands charged with treason in Osiris.

As supporting Delegates continue to stack in favor of this resolution, the ruse is now clear for everyone to see and it is entirely possible this resolution will not pass for that reason -- though it is equally possible that the early stacking has made passage inevitable. Nonetheless, even if the resolution does not pass we have still managed to illustrate the foolishness of preemptive Liberation resolutions, undermine the credibility of the Security Council, embarrass defenders, and catch a prominent defender in an act of treasonous duplicity. In addition, we have held St Abbaddon for fifteen days without military liberation and we will continue to hold it for as long as we care to do so.

The Brotherhood of Malice and our friends and allies: 1
Defenders and the Security Council: 0

I'm voting aye. ;D

There's nothing beautiful about it...the entire invasion and situation around St Abbaddon is nothing short of pathetic, and this proposal only speaks to the untrustworthy, dishonourable, duplicitous nature of the leading participants, the BoM and the OFO. It would seem our decision not to recognize the OFO has proven to be the correct one, at least at this moment.

The fact of the matter is, there is cause for concern that the region would eventually be griefed. In between his "loud and repeated" assurances that the region would not be griefed, he threatened to do just that on several occasions, such as in response to an article in The Rejected Times about the initial invasion and then this very proposal, which he blamed on defenders at the time. He's taken moves to maximize his own influence gain, such as kicking out fellow invader nations that moved WA to other ops and kept their nations in that region. Why would one need to make such moves if they weren't planning on taking action? The fact of the matter is, Cormac is hardly the most trustworthy person in NationStates, and if people are still concerned about the state of the region in spite of his assurances, it's certainly understandable.

Additionally, I'm extremely concerned about the charges filed against Cameron Romefeller and the political motivations the OFO may have in doing so. Having read the released logs myself, it seems more likely to me that he's discussing supporting a liberation of St. Abbaddon, not a coup of Osiris. In particular he mentions that he can get 3 WAs for the operation, a number that would be pathetic and useless in supporting a coup of a GCR, even one as weak as Osiris. I hope that these charges don't degenerate into a showtrial more concerned with persecuting defenders and "embarrassing the shit out of Cam and ALAF" than dispensing justice, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it did.

In any case, to clandestinely draft a liberation proposal, blame it on defenders, and then use it to try to fuck over one of the oldest regions in the game with a native population, just to exercise a vendetta held against a previous delegate, is nothing short of disgusting. It's certainly one of the lowest, most petty things I've seen in this game yet, and that's saying something. It's obviously a tactic meant to make defenders worry about utilizing preemptive liberations, a tactic that was key to defender success in preventing the UIAF from refounding Slavia. I had already planned on voting against merely because the natives of that region had not been consulted beforehand. Preemptive or not, we should not be making liberation resolutions without the support of the natives of the region it targets, unless that region no longer has natives to consult. However, this scheme makes me wish I could vote against a thousand times more.

Against

I agree with much of what you've said, but I find the act of passing a liberation while pretending to be the opposite alignment both inventive and hilarious.

I have to support the governments I'm loyal to, ALL of them

Against

I share Wintermoot's reasons. Against.

Any other votes? I personally think this is kinda an important one...