[Advisory Question] Griefing Provisions in The Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army Act

The Conclave
1

— Begin quote from ____

SECTION II. OPERATIONS

…2.1. The Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army (EPSA) is permitted to execute defensive and/or offensive operations sanctioned by the Delegate, the Overseeing Officer, or any executive appointee thereto, subject to the provisions of this Act.

…2.2. It is forbidden for the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army to grief any region.
…2.2.2. “Griefing” shall be defined as intentional acts to destroy a region and/or its community by irreversible or hardly reversible actions such as, but not necessarily limited to: bans or ejections of native nations, passwording a region, or refounding a region.
…2.2.3. The griefing prohibition set out herein shall not apply to regions displaying nazism, fascism or other such ideologies, regions with a history of griefing other regions, regions at war with The East Pacific or an ally of it, regions that have or attempted to overthrow legitimate government of The East Pacific or damage its community, Warzones which do not hold official relations with the East Pacific, or regions being liberated from raider control.

…2.3. Should the East Pacific be required to fulfill a treaty obligation, the Army shall mobilize to fulfill the obligations. This mission shall take priority over any other on-going mission.

…2.4. Should the Magisterium of The East Pacific pass a declaration of war, the Delegate may order mobilization to fulfill the obligations of the Declaration.

— End quote

From the EPSA Act: The Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army Act - The East Pacific - Tapatalk

— Begin quote from ____

Most Recent Government Activity: 22 hours ago

4rstotzka’s influence in Equestria fell from “Page” to “Shoeshiner”.

4rstotzka ejected and banned https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/maude_pie__426925t2.png
The Republic of Maude Pie from Equestria.

4rstotzka ejected and banned https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/feslie__702312t2.png
The New Lunar Republic of Feslie from Equestria.

The Protectorate of Pacifist Optimists granted Border Control authority to https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/4rstotzka__475075t2.png
4rstotzka as Overseer Atlae in Equestria.

— End quote

From the occupation of Equestria: NationStates | Equestria

[nation=Maude Pie] previously enjoyed a residency of 226 days, which was 100% of the time that nation existed and 220 days additional to the start of this invasion. [nation=Feslie] enjoyed a residency of 174 days, under similar conditions. By what legal capacity does [nation=4rstotzka], who is also know as [nation=The Atlae Isles], commanding the forces of the EPSA in this occupation, have to ban these native nations?

2

As far as I understand it, 4rstozka acted in their capacity as a member of EPSA. Therefore, the griefing prohibition applies to them. In addition, I could find nothing about Equestria that matches the exceptions to the griefing prohibition:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.2.3. The griefing prohibition set out herein shall not apply to regions displaying nazism, fascism or other such ideologies, regions with a history of griefing other regions, regions at war with The East Pacific or an ally of it, regions that have or attempted to overthrow legitimate government of The East Pacific or damage its community, Warzones which do not hold official relations with the East Pacific, or regions being liberated from raider control.

— End quote

Therefore, so far as I understand the situation, 4rstozka was prohibited from banning those nations by the EPSA Act.

3

I (4rstotzka) banjected Maude Pie and Feslie when the lead of the raid linked the nations to me. I had gotten Border Control when they asked that I would “banject as many sleepers as possible.” I asked again today what the reasons for the banjection orders were and they responded, “they looked like [sleepers], joined up when defenders noticed [the raid], resigned shortly after.” This seems to refer when defenders had stopped attempting to liberate Equestria because ERN, the military leading the raid, was known not to grief during their occupations.

I’d like to note that the https://forums.europeians.com/index.php?threads/guidelines-for-operational-procedure-and-ethics.10053841/ of the Europeian Republican Navy states that “Banning and/or ejecting any natives who resided in the region prior to the raid” is unacceptable activity. However, most definitions of the word ‘native’ tend to exclude ‘sleeper’ nations left by raiders or defenders to accrue influence in a region (such as [nation=Dont eject this fenda sleeper 13] but they tend to be much less conspicuous), and I presume that’s why the order was given to banject sleepers. They were fair game for bans or ejections, and it would clear out the region for potential raids in the future. That was the determination I had made when I banned them as well.

(Yes, by all measures they griefed [region=The Embassy], but a new administration was elected right after and made some reforms, and they seem to be abiding by that.)

However, I did some digging myself. Because the raid happened and ended a few days ago (sorry for not noticing the thread earlier, that’s my fault), there’s not much left in the happenings/activity feed that happened at least a week ago. Luckily, some things still remain on the nation:

— Begin quote from ____

Maude Pie

Maude Pie’s influence in The Rejected Realms rose from “Zero” to “Unproven”.

Maude Pie relocated from Equestria to The Rejected Realms.

Maude Pie was ejected and banned from Equestria by https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/4rstotzka__475075t2.png
The Republic of 4rstotzka.

Maude Pie resigned from the World Assembly.

Maude Pie endorsed https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/Europet2.png
The Colony of Thedzoairos.

Maude Pie endorsed https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/great_britain_and_ireland_and_the_empire__883281t2.jpg
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Empire.

Maude Pie endorsed https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadinest2.png
The Strength of The United Universe.

Maude Pie endorsed https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/Vatican_Cityt2.png
The Glittering Heaven of Jovar.

Maude Pie endorsed https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/Defaultt2.png
The Republic of Sharkboy and Lavagirl Is A Good Movie 9.

Maude Pie was endorsed by https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/United_Kingdomt2.png
The Kingdom of Hunting Accidents.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

Feslie

Feslie’s influence in The Rejected Realms rose from “Zero” to “Unproven”.

Feslie relocated from Equestria to The Rejected Realms.

Feslie was ejected and banned from Equestria by https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/4rstotzka__475075t2.png
The Republic of 4rstotzka.

Feslie resigned from the World Assembly.

Feslie was endorsed by https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/equestria_guardian__395288t2.gif
The Colony of Equestria Guardian.

Feslie was endorsed by https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/United_Kingdomt2.png
The Kingdom of Hunting Accidents.

Feslie was endorsed by https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/Europet2.png
The Colony of Thedzoairos.

Feslie was endorsed by https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/free_las_pinas_iii__27146t2.gif
The Camping Van of Free Las Pinas III.

Feslie was endorsed by https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/california_seals__696292t2.png
The Republic of California Seals.

Feslie endorsed https://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/bluementhol__721217t2.png
The Republic of Bluementhol.

— End quote

Both of them seem to be cross-endorsing with the defenders. Fine, that’s not necessarily exclusively defender behavior. Perhaps they were instructed to do so when they asked for help. But what’s really peculiar is that both of them resign WA (on the 29th and 30th). Given that the raid finished on April 3rd, it doesn’t seem like native behavior to resign WA and give up.

I also took a look at NSHistory:

Feslie’s motto at least before March 20th was “Puppeteer” which is a default motto generated by NationStates++, and in my mind the indication of a puppet. Maude Pie is inconspicuous enough looking through their history. Neither nation has RMB posts. Maude Pie does not seem to have answered any issues after the first batch since they were founded and Feslie has answered 0 issues (as indicated by the third paragraph saying “Crime is moderate. Feslie’s national animal is the Pony.” without any other legislation).

Here’s my final piece of information to distinguish them as sleepers rather than “real” natives.
[spoiler]You can reproduce this yourself with this link: NationStates | Not Found
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the_east_pacific/download/file.php?id=603427
The graph indicates that by the 27th of March, the WA endorsements on Untspah, the native Delegate of Equestria, had peaked at 55. Maude Pie is at 17 endorsements and Felsie is at 16. I included Lysset and Zachtia because they have been long-time natives of Equestria and have been endorsed by defenders before in previous occupations/holds (check their respective WA endorsement stats). Lysset and Zachtia’s endorsement lines actually overlap, both are at 3 endorsements on March 27th. This seems to indicate that the order on the defenders’ side were to cross-endorse, jump into the region, and endorse the delegate (standard procedure). It does not appear that other natives were supposed to be endorsed as part of this operation, as indicated by Lysset and Zacthia’s low endorsement levels.

Further, the graph indicates that after the initial jump on Equestria during the major update of March 27, the endorsements declined on all of these nations. This is because the defenders did not attempt another liberation of Equestria. Thus, the majority of defender puppets leave by this time but some still remain (including defender sleepers).

The sleepers in the region can be distinguished by their conspicuous lack of WA before the raid and a sudden amount of endos gained on the 27th of March (something that no other native have gotten besides Untspah) likely gained through cross-endorsing. You can add more suspected sleeper nations (or confirmed ones like Dont eject this fenda sleeper 13, otherwise known as Python) and native nations to the graph to see for yourself.
[/spoiler]
I hope with this information it is determined that these nations are proven without a reasonable doubt as defender sleepers. As one of the people who debated the griefing prohibitions in the Curia Act which are now in the current EPSA Act, I believe that the current interpretation of the law that prohibits bans or ejections of native nations do not extend to sleepers, primarily because they are not native nations.

So in turn, I ask the Conclave: Do sleeper nations, regardless of R/D ideology, count as native nations and qualify for the griefing prohibition set out in Section 2.2.2? If not, to what extent does the person behind the banhammer need to prove that the nation is a sleeper?

I thank the Conclave for its time.

4

The medium of an advisory question is not suitable for weighing circumstantial evidence. With that in mind, we must still consider that the questions raised here hinge on whether the banned nations were “sleepers”.

I concur with Pakitsk on this matter, under the assumption that the banned nations are not sleepers. The Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army Act of 2021 § 2.2.2 is clear that “bans or ejections of native nations” are griefing and therefore illegal actions under TEP law.

If we assume the banned nations are sleepers, then we must examine the meaning of “native” under this section. The act does not define this term, so we must rely on common understanding of the term. I defer to those of my colleagues more familiar with the R/D game on this matter, but I understand sleepers to be exclusively non-native to the regions they “sleep” in. Their defining characteristic is to appear as natives but to function as regular military assets (in contrast to natives recruited in defender actions). I would not consider the ban or ejection of a sleeper a violation of the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army Act of 2021.

5

I concur with Wallenburg’s final paragraph in principle but not in the details. I will admit that my understanding of R/D is extremely limited; however, I must mention that, as far as I can see, a sleeper that was recruited to “sleep” in their own native region is still a native and therefore protected no matter how obvious their sleeper status is. This is a failing of the EPSA Act itself, I would say; not once does it actually mention sleepers. Below is the text of the relevant section:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.2. It is forbidden for the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army to grief any region.
…2.2.2. “Griefing” shall be defined as intentional acts to destroy a region and/or its community by irreversible or hardly reversible actions such as, but not necessarily limited to: bans or ejections of native nations, passwording a region, or refounding a region.
…2.2.3. The griefing prohibition set out herein shall not apply to regions displaying nazism, fascism or other such ideologies, regions with a history of griefing other regions, regions at war with The East Pacific or an ally of it, regions that have or attempted to overthrow legitimate government of The East Pacific or damage its community, Warzones which do not hold official relations with the East Pacific, or regions being liberated from raider control.

— End quote

Again, the exceptions do not include sleeper nations at all. Obviously, bans and ejections of non-native sleepers are fair game; however, sleepers that happen to be natives are protected, no matter how well-proven their sleeper status is. This is a consequence, as I have said, of a glaring oversight in the EPSA Act and I recommend that someone fix this as soon as is reasonably possible.