[PASSED] Repeal "Condemn DEN"

by **Consular** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:47 am

Christmas may have been awkward timing yeah. :/ My offer stands for later if/when needed.

by **Wallenburg** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:05 pm

Do you intend to campaign for this, or should we give up on this proposal?

by **The Silver Sentinel** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:10 pm

Wallenburg wrote:Do you intend to campaign for this, or should we give up on this proposal?

If you actually understood how gameplay works you wouldn't be asking that question.

by **Wallenburg** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:24 pm

The Silver Sentinel wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Do you intend to campaign for this, or should we give up on this proposal?

If you actually understood how gameplay works you wouldn't be asking that question.

I didn't think I'd have to foe your SC puppet as well, but have it your way.

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:29 pm

Wallenburg wrote:Do you intend to campaign for this, or should we give up on this proposal?

I'm taking a break atm due to external RL variables, but I plan to try again next week once my schedule clears, probably between Tuesday and Thursday.

by **Wallenburg** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:42 pm

We Are Not the NSA wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Do you intend to campaign for this, or should we give up on this proposal?

I'm taking a break atm due to external RL variables, but I plan to try again next week once my schedule clears, probably between Tuesday and Thursday.

Good to hear. We wish you luck.

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:41 pm

And Submitted, this time with an actual chance of making it. Tim has agreed to help campaign again. Christmas does not fall in the middle of the timeline during which this needs to be approved.

by **We Couldnt Agree On A Name** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:33 pm

So who is drafting the new condemnation?

by **Tim Stark** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:38 pm

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:So who is drafting the new condemnation?

It's not a new condemnation, simply a re-submission of the previous one during a more opportune time period.

by **We Couldnt Agree On A Name** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:41 pm

Tim Stark wrote:
We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:So who is drafting the new condemnation?

It's not a new condemnation, simply a re-submission of the previous one during a more opportune time period.

Yes, and when the current condemnation is repealed by this proposal who will draft a new one to replace it? Or am I to understand that there is no intention of replacing it?

by **Xoriet** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:54 pm

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:
Tim Stark wrote:It's not a new condemnation, simply a re-submission of the previous one during a more opportune time period.

Yes, and when the current condemnation is repealed by this proposal who will draft a new one to replace it? Or am I to understand that there is no intention of replacing it?

It could be replaced, or it might not. Anyone can write a Condemnation, but they should be of better quality. And better no Condemnation than a Condemnation that looks bad in the halls of the SC.

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:29 pm

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:
Tim Stark wrote:It's not a new condemnation, simply a re-submission of the previous one during a more opportune time period.

Yes, and when the current condemnation is repealed by this proposal who will draft a new one to replace it? Or am I to understand that there is no intention of replacing it?

I would do it, but I draw the line at self condemnations. I mean, I'm perfectly capable of explaining how great I am, but how am I supposed to know how much of a tool I am?

In all seriousness though, I do not know if we have reached the "DEN deserves a condemnation" threshold yet (that has been the argument against condemning DEN in the past). I mean... we could be there... we could not be there... I honestly don't know. If we have, someone experienced should probably get to work on a draft.

by **Tim-Opolis** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:04 pm

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:
Tim Stark wrote:It's not a new condemnation, simply a re-submission of the previous one during a more opportune time period.

Yes, and when the current condemnation is repealed by this proposal who will draft a new one to replace it? Or am I to understand that there is no intention of replacing it?

My bad, I misread what you said. I'll claim a lack of morning coffee and too much to drink the night before as the reason. I'm not super willing to, but I imagine there's capable folks that will.

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:13 pm

I'd just like to ask any delegate who hasn't approved of this proposal to please do so. We only need a few more approvals to get it in queue.

You can approve it here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1452652220

by **We Couldnt Agree On A Name** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:31 pm

We Are Not the NSA wrote:I do not know if we have reached the "DEN deserves a condemnation" threshold yet (that has been the argument against condemning DEN in the past). I mean... we could be there... we could not be there... I honestly don't know. If we have, someone experienced should probably get to work on a draft.

I come across regions attacked by you guys often enough that there's no question about it in my mind.

by **Consular** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:53 pm

I would say no but I'm obviously mildly bitter and not objective. There is the case for one, but I think it would be better if DEN got some more stuff under their belt in their current form, rather than relying on past DEN achievements.

by **Tim-Opolis** » Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:31 pm

Just as an update to folks, this is (thankfully) now in the queue and should be coming to vote after Commend BearNation. If anybody hasn't approved it, though, please still do!

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:00 pm

Consular wrote:I would say no but I'm obviously mildly bitter and not objective. There is the case for one, but I think it would be better if DEN got some more stuff under their belt in their current form, rather than relying on past DEN achievements.

When you say "past DEN achievements" I assume you mean the actions of the previous incarnation of DEN correct?

by **Consular** » Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:18 pm

We Are Not the NSA wrote:
Consular wrote:I would say no but I'm obviously mildly bitter and not objective. There is the case for one, but I think it would be better if DEN got some more stuff under their belt in their current form, rather than relying on past DEN achievements.

When you say "past DEN achievements" I assume you mean the actions of the previous incarnation of DEN correct?

Yes

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:10 am

Consular wrote:
We Are Not the NSA wrote:When you say "past DEN achievements" I assume you mean the actions of the previous incarnation of DEN correct?

Yes

K, just wanted clarification.

by **Weest Korea** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:03 am

I hope this doesn't get passed. DEN deserved their condemnation.

by **Wallenburg** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:07 am

Weest Korea wrote:I hope this doesn't get passed. DEN deserved their condemnation.

They love their condemnation.

by **Xoriet** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:18 am

Weest Korea wrote:I hope this doesn't get passed. DEN deserved their condemnation.

I wouldn't say they deserved that particular Condemnation. The present incarnation of DEN could use a few more big raids on their record before they should have their DEN immortalized in the SC. Also, it wasn't written very well.

by **Vancouvia** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:20 am

Although I'm generally against repealing recent resolutions, the many errors in the proposal urge me to vote yes

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:29 am

Weest Korea wrote:I hope this doesn't get passed. DEN deserved their condemnation.

As I mention in the proposal, the SC can simply condemn DEN again, but with a better quality resolution. There are too many spelling, grammar, syntax and factual errors to allow SC #187 to stand.

[PASSED] Repeal "Condemn DEN"

Who is online