SC Proposal: Repeal: “Commend Evil Wolf”

[Lenlyvit]

Repeal: “Commend Evil Wolf”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: SC#169

Proposed By: Marxist Germany

Security Council Resolution #169 “Commend Evil Wolf” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly Security Council,

Recognising Evil Wolf's efforts in combatting the spread of Nazism and Fascism,

Acknowledging, however, that Evil Wolf is a nation notorious for raiding and initiating coups,

Deploring Evil Wolf's more recent involvement in Lazarus, a region that it was commended for helping, in which Evil Wolf, other members of Lone Wolves United, and their allies, Aleister and Funkadelia, committed the following crimes:

• Ejecting numerous native nations without a fair trial;

• Establishing an autocratic regime led by its proxy Killer Kitty;

• Making several changes, such as declaring Lazarus a "Khanate" and flying a flag derived from the colours and symbols of Lone Wolves United, followed thereafter by changing the World Factbook Entry to include the phrase "the Dictatorship of the Raider"; and

• Appointing regional officers from the Condemned raiding region Lone Wolves United,

Decrying the actions of Evil Wolf that preceded and helped facilitate the aforementioned coup in Lazarus, which include allowing for the smuggling of foreign voters as part of a scheme to undermine the democratic process and lying to natives about preventing a coup from happening as part of the propaganda used to legitimise their coup,

Appalled by the contradiction arising from commending a nation that is the founder of a region condemned by this body in Security Council Resolution #74, Lone Wolves United: a region infamous for its coups in Feeders and Sinkers and which continues to raid and wreak havoc in undefended regions,

Observing that whilst the actions taken by Evil Wolf to destroy Nazi Europe were noble and greatly cherished by the NationStates community, they do not justify a commendation on their own as the invasion of Nazi Europe was merely another griefing activity to add to its list, as indicated by several leaked telegrams between the leaders of Evil Wolf and German Dragons, in which Evil Wolf's leaders admit that the attack on Nazi Europe was nothing more than an opportunity to raid and was not ideologically motivated,

Further observing that the target resolution contains factual inaccuracies, such as a mention of Killer Kitty having been delegate of Lazarus in 2006-2007 for two terms, which is incorrect, as Killer Kitty served its first term in 2005 and its second in 2006, and never served as delegate in 2007,

Recalling that the previous commendations of A mean old man and Sedgistan had been repealed after the former's involvement in a coup of Lazarus and the latter's lead of a coup in The South Pacific,

Dismayed by the actions of the commended nation in actively seeking to discredit attempts to warn natives of a coup in The East Pacific as 'lies' from 'conspiracy theorists', and the detrimental impact this had on attempts to prevent the crimes that were subsequently done, and

Discerning that the actions of the nation Evil Wolf, when considered, are not befitting of a commendation;

Thus, the World Assembly Security Council repeals Security Council Resolution #169, Commend Evil Wolf.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Vivolkha]

Raiders don't get commends. As simple as that. FOR

[HumanSanity]

I support the idea of this Repeal but the execution is, strategically, botched beyond repair and, ethically, not something I endorse. I'm abstaining. I strongly urge others to do the same.

[Deleted]

I believe that MG is being railroaded, and his comments are being presented out of their context by those with an agenda to see this repeal fail. MG was very clearly trying to make a comparison between one form of specious reasoning (raiders justifying Delegate toppling because MG submitted the proposal) and another form of specious reasoning (those who would blame the victim of rape for what they were wearing). In fact, MG was condemning both forms of specious reasoning, equally.

At no point did MG express support for the idea of victim blaming. In fact, quite the opposite. MG pointed out the logical flaws in such reasoning in one context as it compared to the logical flaws in the other, and in the context of the conversation in NSGP.

While his comment touched thoughtlessly on a topic that is very sensitive for some, there is no evidence that MGs comment came form anywhere other than a place of carelessness and insensitivity. Those who are now doing their best to make hay out of that carelessness, to undermine support for this repeal, and are doing so for political reasons.

This is what we have come to expect from the raider community in their ongoing efforts to undermine the Security Council, and bend it to a raider sympathetic organization, even if it means creating a false narrative to besmirch an author's character. Nothing is sacred to these individuals, and I would encourage everyone to actually view the comments made, in their proper context, before hastily reaching for the pitchforks and torches. Don't get played by the players.

With all of that said, this is now serving as the desired distraction from the text of the resolution, and the completely separate issue of the repeal at vote. The decision of course is up to the individual, but please take the time to get all the facts, read the comments yourself, explore the whole context of this situation, then choose.

THX, through its WA proxy, continues to be strongly in support of repealing this commendation of one of the most notorious raiders in the game.

[HumanSanity]

I think there are several levels to think about this on.

As it relates to the comments themselves, I do not believe they can be defended. It is not, in any world, acceptable to make analogies between rape and things that are not rape. Even if you believe it to be logically justified, it ignores the distress that saying this has on others and that part of being compassionate people is listening to concerns of others about words we say. It would be one thing if this distress was just something reported by raiders in a game (although, even if it was, compassion calls me to listen to the concerns of others), but it's not. The distress and re-traumetization caused by this conflation is widespread and well documented.

There were and are far better ways to answer the argument that approval raiding is justified. Namely, it is to reassert the compassion that calls us to defend in the first place, and that inducing distress by approval raiding is simply not kind or considerate to the feelings, communities, and play of others. Defending the comparison MG drew is the antithesis of a compassionate defender ethic because it denies the feelings and emotions of others involved in the conversation about this repeal.

Many things could be manipulated for political gain, but I think there are overwhelmingly compelling reasons here to think they aren't being manipulated for political gain in this case.

A separate level is what is the correct redress. On a personal level: I think, and have attempted to start, honest efforts to talk to MG about why this is problematic because I'm highly receptive to the argument that public admonishment and mob mentalities are not the best way to handle genuine learning from the incident. I'm entirely understanding that some people wouldn't want to have that conversation, and I'm not saying they should, but that would seem to be the role of allies: to step up to the plate because they are confident they will not be hurt in this situation.

On the level of this resolution: does an issue with the drafting of the resolution and the way it was justified sully the resolution itself or can the text stand on its own? Pragmatically, this resolution is deader than dead. Ethically, I'm definitely having my doubts. But I think this should be given another shot. I think another author should take it on. I do not, substantively, agree with MG's perspective on raiding fascist regions and I don't think a resolution by an author with that perspective will realistically have any success.

I think the original resolution should be repealed, but this is not the way it's going to happen.

[NCE]

If possible, I think a Condemnation without a repeal of the Commendation would be best. The actions involved, as far as I can tell, are from two separate events, but I haven’t read both resolutions/props so I could be very wrong.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2020 15:57:05 GMT -5 HumanSanity said:

I think there are several levels to think about this on.

As it relates to the comments themselves, I do not believe they can be defended. It is not, in any world, acceptable to make analogies between rape and things that are not rape. Even if you believe it to be logically justified, it ignores the distress that saying this has on others and that part of being compassionate people is listening to concerns of others about words we say. It would be one thing if this distress was just something reported by raiders in a game (although, even if it was, compassion calls me to listen to the concerns of others), but it's not. The distress and re-traumetization caused by this conflation is widespread and well documented.

I don't disagree with anything said after this, but what you are presenting above is a false dichotomy. It is absolutely spurious reasoning. You may believe it, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, suggesting that there was any comparison made by MG between Delegate toppling and the act of rape, is an outright lie. The comparison was between a group of people using warped reasoning to justify their anti-social actions in-game, and other groups who use warped reasoning to justify criminal action by themselves or others.

While I agree, framing it as MG did was insensitive and could potentially cause anguish to others (which is the matter that needs to be addressed, through education) the giant leap being taken by some to try and make an apple and orange is everything wrong with poorly considered, rash, ideological vigilantism.

[Free Las Pinas]

I still believe raiders don't deserve to be commended, so I'm still voting For this proposal. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a different repeal attempt - and maybe with a replacement condemnation.

Scratch that, abstain. I just caught myself up with the discussion and I don't support this specific repeal attempt. I do however stand by my previous statement and I would consider supporting a different attempt.

[Lenlyvit]

Aug 28, 2020 15:57:05 GMT -5 HumanSanity said:

I think there are several levels to think about this on.

As it relates to the comments themselves, I do not believe they can be defended. It is not, in any world, acceptable to make analogies between rape and things that are not rape. Even if you believe it to be logically justified, it ignores the distress that saying this has on others and that part of being compassionate people is listening to concerns of others about words we say. It would be one thing if this distress was just something reported by raiders in a game (although, even if it was, compassion calls me to listen to the concerns of others), but it's not. The distress and re-traumetization caused by this conflation is widespread and well documented.

There were and are far better ways to answer the argument that approval raiding is justified. Namely, it is to reassert the compassion that calls us to defend in the first place, and that inducing distress by approval raiding is simply not kind or considerate to the feelings, communities, and play of others. Defending the comparison MG drew is the antithesis of a compassionate defender ethic because it denies the feelings and emotions of others involved in the conversation about this repeal.

Many things could be manipulated for political gain, but I think there are overwhelmingly compelling reasons here to think they aren't being manipulated for political gain in this case.

A separate level is what is the correct redress. On a personal level: I think, and have attempted to start, honest efforts to talk to MG about why this is problematic because I'm highly receptive to the argument that public admonishment and mob mentalities are not the best way to handle genuine learning from the incident. I'm entirely understanding that some people wouldn't want to have that conversation, and I'm not saying they should, but that would seem to be the role of allies: to step up to the plate because they are confident they will not be hurt in this situation.

On the level of this resolution: does an issue with the drafting of the resolution and the way it was justified sully the resolution itself or can the text stand on its own? Pragmatically, this resolution is deader than dead. Ethically, I'm definitely having my doubts. But I think this should be given another shot. I think another author should take it on. I do not, substantively, agree with MG's perspective on raiding fascist regions and I don't think a resolution by an author with that perspective will realistically have any success.

I think the original resolution should be repealed, but this is not the way it's going to happen.

As the world assembly delegate of our region, I would like to ask Islanders to please vote to abstain in the forum poll for the above reasons.

[Deleted]

I choose not to be a willing participant in moral panics and witch hunts, especially when the facts are being so deeply distorted by individuals who act first and think later (if at all). I'm not so eager to throw a fellow Islander under the bus or cast stones because a mob insists it need be done. Had MG done the things he's being accused of doing, maybe I'd feel differently, but the narrative has now superseded the reality, and this situation has lost all semblance of humanity. It's all pretty grotesque to me, but I have always been something of a partisan when it comes to mob mentalities.

That said, I have always tried to make WA decisions based on the merits of the resolution, solely, and leave the in-game politics out of it. I'm not the type to go along to get along, or reject an idea because of the author, and this will be no exception. I won't abstain for those reasons, and because I still feel the resolution has merit. It's well written. It's well researched. It makes a compelling case for repeal, and that is the metric I have used for years. If I'm alone in that yes vote, that's fine with me.

[Vivolkha]

Following the discussion in this thread, I have changed my forum vote to abstain. However, as somebody who is (somwewhat intentionally) unaware of MG's comments, my personal vote in the World Assembly will still be FOR. This is because, as THX1138 said, the resolution in a vacuum is still good. The problem is that there are a lot of in-game politics mixed in.

[NCE]

Aug 29, 2020 2:38:46 GMT -5 Vivolkha said:

Following the discussion in this thread, I have changed my forum vote to abstain. However, as somebody who is (somwewhat intentionally) unaware of MG's comments, my personal vote in the World Assembly will still be FOR. This is because, as THX1138 said, the resolution in a vacuum is still good. The problem is that there are a lot of in-game politics mixed in.

Personally, still against. I think a separate condemnation would be best. Bad actions cannot cancel out the good ones.

In forums, abstain, because against wont happen.

[HumanSanity]

Aug 29, 2020 23:59:50 GMT -5 NCE said:

Aug 29, 2020 2:38:46 GMT -5 Vivolkha said:

Following the discussion in this thread, I have changed my forum vote to abstain. However, as somebody who is (somwewhat intentionally) unaware of MG's comments, my personal vote in the World Assembly will still be FOR. This is because, as THX1138 said, the resolution in a vacuum is still good. The problem is that there are a lot of in-game politics mixed in.

Personally, still against. I think a separate condemnation would be best. Bad actions cannot cancel out the good ones.

In forums, abstain, because against wont happen.

I don't agree with this theory of the SC. Commendations are reserved for nations with unambiguously positive impacts on the NationStates community. If the impact is ambiguous, you don't deserve a Commend. I think perhaps there could be an argument for Dual Commend/Condemns if they are for distinct aspects of the game (e.g. if we Condemned Noah's Second Country for cards related things as has already been done and separately Commended him for Issue writing) but even then I'm seeing some issues. The argument that "well then we don't recognize people" is not persuasive to me because no one is entitled to SC recognition just because they've been a high impact player--if you're an effective political actor then you should have gotten your rewards by accomplishing whatever good or bad things you wanted to accomplish.

Aug 28, 2020 22:17:35 GMT -5 @thx1138 said:

I choose not to be a willing participant in moral panics and witch hunts, especially when the facts are being so deeply distorted by individuals who act first and think later (if at all).

I don't think the facts are being distorted, you laid them out quite clearly in your post. I still object to the comment MG made on the basis of the facts as you reported them. Raiding is not OK. We use every legal tool to stop it and should emphatically make this argument.

But analogizing the logic used in justifying approval-raiding to the logic used in justifying rape is still a no. Every reason that I outlined for why this comment is unacceptable is about a failure to understand the way it effects other people. That is based in saying the thing, not the thing being applicable.

Lastly, I can't speak for others, but I definitely thought about this quite a lot. I don't appreciate the implication everyone who flipped their vote is part of a crusade pushed by raider propaganda. Opposing the rhetoric used in this case is part of being an empathetic person and has nothing to do with R/D.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2020 9:28:53 GMT -5 HumanSanity said:

I don't think the facts are being distorted, you laid them out quite clearly in your post.

Well, in fact I gave a broad overview, but here are the specifics: The raiders were claiming they engaged in Delegate toppling because MG submitted the resolution. MG replied that that sort of warped logic was akin to those who would blame a victim of sexual assault because of what they wore. The analogy itself is pretty accurate. Both lines of reasoning are equally messed up.

Framing it as he did was careless, and he should have found a better rhetorical device. It's a sensitive subject not to be thrown around carelessly, but that's the extent of the transgression. MG did not compare himself to a rape victim. MG did not diminish the crime of rape. MG did not compare raiding to rape. All things he's been accused of, mostly by people with half the facts, or a preexisting axe to grind.

Anything being suggested beyond those facts, is narrative, and I still see a lot of people trying to make hay with the whole situation. Unfortunately, that's the ugly side of this community, in action.