Repeal “Condemn The Dourian Embassy”.

[Ole Dixieland]

Good mornin' y'all!

This was submitted last night and was removed by the moderation team for being invalid. Could a more experienced SC author advise me on what was illegal about it?

Deeply Regretting the recent passage of Security Council Resolution #140 “Condemn The Dourian Embassy”,

Believing that a grievous error was committed in condemning a nation for its efforts to repeal unneeded, superfluous, and harmful Resolutions,

Wishing to correct this error as quickly as possible,

The World Assembly hereby repeals Security Council Resolution #140 “Condemn The Dourian Embassy”.

[Eist]

I could be persuaded to repeal this but there's no substance to your proposal. It simply states "the condemnation was wrong" without actually giving any reasons why it was wrong.

[Ole Dixieland]

I could be persuaded to repeal this but there's no substance to your proposal. It simply states "the condemnation was wrong" without actually giving any reasons why it was wrong.

It touches on the fact that he was condemned, in part, for writing repeals. Should I explain in detail why it's okay to repeal resolutions and why a person shouldn't be condemned for doing so?

[Ole Dixieland]

I really don't care one way or the other about the coup in Osiris and hadn't planned on covering that. If that is condemnable he could always be condemned again for that, at a later date.

If a person has been condemned for, say, two different things, is it necessary to refute both charges?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Rule 2:

(d) Repeals should address the contents of the resolution they're repealing, and not by just stating the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.

Perhaps the mod thought your justification for repeal was not "argumentative" enough?

[Mousebumples]

I'm not an SC rule expert, but if you elaborate further why such actions should not be condemned (i.e. such repeals are subject to majority vote, these repeals allowed to rectify particular issues with the targets in question - with details about what the primary issues were, etc.) ... perhaps that could be considered legal?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Rule 2:

(d) Repeals should address the contents of the resolution they're repealing, and not by just stating the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.

Perhaps the mod thought your justification for repeal was not "argumentative" enough?

Going off of this it's been common practice to remove extremely short SC resolutions following the "Liberate the Eastern Islands of Dharma" shenanigans a few years ago.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I think an ideal situation would be to expand on this line "Believing that a grievous error was committed in condemning a nation for its efforts to repeal unneeded, superfluous, and harmful Resolutions,".

Explaining a little about exactly why the resolutions cited by the condemnation were bad might work for fleshing this out.

[The Sotoan Union]

I feel like this can't happen so soon after the vote was passed, but I think it should still be done later.

[Ramaeus]

I feel like this can't happen so soon after the vote was passed, but I think it should still be done later.

There's nothing illegal about repealing a resolution right after it passed.

[The Sotoan Union]

I feel like this can't happen so soon after the vote was passed, but I think it should still be done later.

There's nothing illegal about repealing a resolution right after it passed.

True, but even if it is submitted no one will vote for it. It's also entirely possible that the mods removed it because they don't want the same argument again.

[Ramaeus]

True, but even if it is submitted no one will vote for it. It's also entirely possible that the mods removed it because they don't want the same argument again.

Predicting the outcome of a vote is always a bad idea. You never know what can happen here.

[Ole Dixieland]

I think an ideal situation would be to expand on this line "Believing that a grievous error was committed in condemning a nation for its efforts to repeal unneeded, superfluous, and harmful Resolutions,".

Explaining a little about exactly why the resolutions cited by the condemnation were bad might work for fleshing this out.

I'll work on that. Thanks.