Sure, some nominees will treat a WA Condemnation as a "badge of honour," but if the WA Security Council really believes a nation or region is conducting deplorable acts, it should condemn them.

One should have a moral inclination to help those whose regions have been invaded in the act of freeing their region.

Raids spur activity in otherwise inactive regions, which is a good thing.

Communities should not be concerned about their reputation outside of their communities – at least not to the extent that they feel obligated to do something or not do something.

Calls for civility in NationStates are misplaced or disingenuous. Some players don't want to accept the social and political consequences for their in-game actions, others think we should just all hang out offline like we're friends —we're enemies! This is a political simulator: "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Nowadays, it is too easy to join various regions and switch loyalties – there are not enough consequences.

As a citizen of a region: to hold citizenship only in that region and serve that region well and faithfully is a demonstration of loyalty that is admirable and praiseworthy.

A distinguished NationStates player is one that is well known and recognized all across NationStates, not just in one regional community.

There’s no value to having a legislature or a senate or a judiciary. Points of order can be decided by administrators.

After a raid occurs and leaves, one should try to restore the region (e.g., World Factbook Entry) to how it looked before the raid because natives would want this if they had an active regional delegate.

Every region deserves to be defended from invasions.

A region is an opportunity to model a particular kind of government, like a MUN Conference in Real Life.

Regional communities should be open and inviting to new members – even those who were formerly enemies of said community.

It would be fun to invade a random region against the will of its residents and try to maintain control over it.

Video games (e.g., Rocket Bot Royale) are terrific for region-building and cultural development!

Raiding someone's region is inconsiderate and sometimes, downright unkind. The people behind these raids must be just as inconsiderate and unkind.

It is frustrating and/or annoying to see citizens in regions who are also citizens in many other regions.

A regional community should have values. Furthermore, those who accept those values should be the first to be accepted in a community.

I cannot condone this game culture where 'harshness' between players is expected all the time: the toxicity, the gloating, and duplicity, it's all too much. Players may say it's "In-Character," but they're taking it too far.

NationStates, in its totality, can be a home to a player just as much as a regional community can be.

One is a citizen when the law says one is a citizen. Treating other citizens differently on the basis of perceived loyalty to the region is unfair.

Experiencing multiple regions as a citizen is fun and more engaging.

It’s important to me that I can explain my actions in NationStates based on a system of rules, principles, or beliefs.

Morality (e.g., right and wrong) in NationStates exists beyond simply just what is legal or illegal.

Citizens who are inactive often but active elsewhere in NationStates (except they participate in the important votes) are not really –true- citizens and should be viewed with suspicion.

Raiders have every right to destroy a region if they have the ability to do so.

You shouldn’t tolerate your enemies in offsite platforms and shared Discord servers. These spaces are an extension of your region and community.

Leaving reversible signs on the region (e.g. in the World Factbook Entry and the regional flag) that you have raided the region as a source of pride and accomplishment for yourself or a source of torment for your enemies is justified and acceptable.

Most residents of regions are comfortable with their region being raided, so long as it does not become destructive.

Large-scale uncontested raids against "do-not-defend" regions are a rallying point that brings everyone together and offers a richer way to play the game than old conflicts of the past. The game and its community are better for this!

Even if one’s regional mates are against it, one should do what one thinks they should do or wants to do.

One should be comfortable with fellow citizens fraternizing with enemies of the region.

Social exclusion is a legitimate political instrument in NationStates.

Regions should not be invaded without strong political justification (e.g. self defense).

It is unacceptable to vote on the basis of one’s values when they conflict with the interests or collective values of the region.

I just roll my eyes when someone says I can’t do something because “the civil code says blah-blab-blah” or “what about my rights or ‘_blank_’ unity,” this is a game, if you wrong me, you’re going to get what’s coming to you.

It is good that defenders can serve as relief, since often raids cause long-time residents to panic and break rules (flamebaiting, attempting to hack raider accounts).

Raiding is the only way of playing NationStates where others (gameplayers, roleplayers, generalites) are forced to play another's way to play the game.

The best regions are the ones with a variety in beliefs, philosophy and culture.

I miss all the writing and intellectual rigor that players used to put into NationStates. It’s fun to explore these ideas.

The prevailing interregional opinion should be a major consideration when a region or individual is deciding to do something or not do something.

Patriotism and regional identity is important for any region that wants to be successful.

It is perfectly acceptable to invade a region for fun.

When my allies demur on a point of “principle”, I get frustrated. They know this is a game, right? Do they want to win or don’t they?

There is no such thing as a "native"; there are only communities capable of holding a region and communities that are not. No community is -entitled- to a governorless region.

The game is better without unnecessary conflict. We should move on from phony old conflicts, like raiders versus defenders.

Without raiders, the game would have no military gameplay and thus be more inactive - therefore raiders are necessary and serve a purpose.

Interregional organizations draw members away from participating regionally; in addition to eroding or undermining regional sovereignty.

There are lots of good players in NationStates that play the game differently and bring a different perspective to it. I can still appreciate them as people.

Citizens should be given special status, opportunities or privileges (e.g., government positions, enfranchisement) for having their main nation or WA nation in the region to encourage this behavior.

It is more important to keep things loose, so you can remove enemies from your region, than structuring your region’s rules and governance.

Interregional cooperation on military efforts is desirable and often necessary.

People who reside in a region for a long-time without outside interests are "natives" who are entitled to administrate that region.

So-called "social gameplay" has gotten out of hand. Players are focusing too much on what happens offsite (e.g., Discord) and not enough on their regions in-game.

Raids should refrain from griefing (e.g., banning natives, passwording).

Long-time residents lose the right to sovereignty over their governorless region when they are too inactive or inept to even stop an invasion.

You can’t have a political simulator without rules and regional laws and a variety of different systems of regional governance. That’s an important part of NationStates, otherwise it’s just another form of social media.

A game needs real stakes and competition. It's more fun to have enemies in NationStates than having no active enemies at all.

If you don't want to be raided, make sure your region has a governor. Otherwise, you have no right to complain about being raided.

No matter how much you dislike a citizen of your region, if they’re law-abiding, there is no reasonable political grounds for removal.

No matter how much you dislike a citizen of your region, if they’re law-abiding, there is no reasonable political grounds for removal.

A game needs real stakes and competition. It's more fun to have enemies in NationStates than having no active enemies at all.

You can’t have a political simulator without rules and regional laws and a variety of different systems of regional governance. That’s an important part of NationStates, otherwise it’s just another form of social media.

So-called "social gameplay" has gotten out of hand. Players are focusing too much on what happens offsite (e.g., Discord) and not enough on their regions in-game.

It is more important to keep things loose, so you can remove enemies from your region, than structuring your region’s rules and governance.

There are lots of good players in NationStates that play the game differently and bring a different perspective to it. I can still appreciate them as people.

The game is better without unnecessary conflict. We should move on from phony old conflicts, like raiders versus defenders.

When my allies demur on a point of “principle”, I get frustrated. They know this is a game, right? Do they want to win or don’t they?

I miss all the writing and intellectual rigor that players used to put into NationStates. It’s fun to explore these ideas.

I just roll my eyes when someone says I can’t do something because “the civil code says blah-blab-blah” or “what about my rights or ‘_blank_’ unity,” this is a game, if you wrong me, you’re going to get what’s coming to you.

Social exclusion is a legitimate political instrument in NationStates.

Large-scale uncontested raids against "do-not-defend" regions are a rallying point that brings everyone together and offers a richer way to play the game than old conflicts of the past. The game and its community are better for this!

You shouldn’t tolerate your enemies in offsite platforms and shared Discord servers. These spaces are an extension of your region and community.

It’s important to me that I can explain my actions in NationStates based on a system of rules, principles, or beliefs.

I cannot condone this game culture where 'harshness' between players is expected all the time: the toxicity, the gloating, and duplicity, it's all too much. Players may say it's "In-Character," but they're taking it too far.

Video games (e.g., Rocket Bot Royale) are terrific for region-building and cultural development!

A region is an opportunity to model a particular kind of government, like a MUN Conference in Real Life.

There’s no value to having a legislature or a senate or a judiciary. Points of order can be decided by administrators.

Calls for civility in NationStates are misplaced or disingenuous. Some players don't want to accept the social and political consequences for their in-game actions, others think we should just all hang out offline like we're friends —we're enemies! This is a political simulator: "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Sure, some nominees will treat a WA Condemnation as a "badge of honour," but if the WA Security Council really believes a nation or region is conducting deplorable acts, it should condemn them.