SUBMITTED: Condemn Macedonia

[Aglrinia]

When people welcome Condemnations i dont support them,

Plus due to the fact that you're new, arouses suspicion on who truly is putting in these Condemnations.

[Topid]

When people welcome Condemnations i dont support them,

They made a whole new region and told all the nations to move just to avoid the first condemnation... I don't think they welcome a second.

But, I'm just unsure about condemning the same people twice, especially since they could very easily create ANOTHER region, and then we'd be in a position to condemn them again...

[Klaus Devestatorie]

I was talking about myself actually, but I can see irony in Belgium too.

[Komosan]

I think last time we condemned Macedon they welcomed it as a "badge of honour", which to be honest, may have only fuelled their popularity. I'm not sure 100% about doing it again but it is certain that they should not escape the justice of the WA.

The Emporer of Komosan agrees with The Muse of the Westcountry about not letting Macedon escape the justice of the WA. However, the Emporer must disagree with the previous statement made. The Emporer believes that we MUST condemn this region and the commanding nation. perhaps even nations of power within the region.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Its kinda hard to tell who is actually in charge there :S

[Kalibarr]

heck are they even active?

[Metania]

Considering the effect the first one had on them, another one looks good to me.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

We are currently behind in necessary people... cmon FRA and TITO wheres your WA proposal approving machines

[Sedgistan]

We are currently behind in necessary people... cmon FRA and TITO wheres your WA proposal approving machines

The FRA is unlikely to do any campaigning for C&C resolutions - just liberation ones. As for myself, I've said I support this, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to want to campaign for it. Its up to the author to telegram delegates.

[Travancore-Cochin]

As it stands, it is illegal for violating No-HoC.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Really? We're actually discussing this? Are the Macedonians any less condemned just because they added two letters to the end of the capital region? Is the original Condemnation somehow repealed because the region of Macedon is no longer active? Is it really necessary to pass another resolution just because Condemn badges are non-transferable? This is the risk you took when you decided to condemn a region: it could become inactive, it could move to another region, it could cease to exist, it could be refounded and any evidence of the previous region's Condemnation would not be seen on the region page. You knew these risks full well when you voted to approve the Condemnation.

The previous resolution still stands (as Resolution #1, no less); NSwiki and the archived threads still record the Macedonians as the first recipients of a Condemnation by the Security Council. Belgium was the first region to be Liberated and the resolution that "freed" it contains further condemnation of the Macedonians for griefing. To me, that is enough.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I agree with Kenny. This is wrongheaded and completely unnecessary. What if they move again? And again? Do you intend to chase them around the NS multiverse condemning every region they inhabit?

[Oh my Days]

I think that is wrong, there's no point Condemning them ad infinitum, although I will vote however the Macedonians want meto vote, I'll check with their Emperor to see if he would like me to vote for it.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I think that is wrong, there's no point Condemning them ad infinitum, although I will vote however the Macedonians want meto vote, I'll check with their Emperor to see if he would like me to vote for it.

As usual, I'll be checking with Philimbesi to see how I should vote on it.

[Fuaidh Mor]

I'll repeat what I said. I don't think SC#1 (the original Condemnation) made any difference to them. I think they moved bases for reasons beyond SC#1 namley the availability of the Region they wanted all along vis Macedonia. Condeming them again, however satisfying won't achieve much.

I am sure that there are, out there, things that the SC could be doing that are much more useful than this.

[Ardchoille]

Apparently not, because thats the exact wording from the first proposal. Travancore-Cochin has just discovered a big loophole... we can condemn more than just the designated region in a resolution.

As of this minute, you can't. Sorry, but that's just too open to abuse to leave unplugged. In the absence (then) of links, I read SC#1 as a condemnation of Macedon and (all its metaphorical belongings), the other side of the coin to the idea of "god bless the ship and all who sail in her". The Macedonian Empire I took to be "all who sail in her", not an individual region.

In the (obviously) continued absence of a link, SC#1 can still be read that way, and that's the way it is read. Mod fiat.

As it stands, it is illegal for violating No-HoC.

No, that one's fallen by the wayside, too. With Pyth having taken the trouble to provide us wih inside-NS links, which are likely to fail only if NS fails, the rule now is that in SC proposals you can link to past resolutions. The GA's House of Cards rule still stands.

[Travancore-Cochin]

As of this minute, you can't. Sorry, but that's just too open to abuse to leave unplugged. In the absence (then) of links, I read SC#1 as a condemnation of Macedon and (all its metaphorical belongings), the other side of the coin to the idea of "god bless the ship and all who sail in her". The Macedonian Empire I took to be "all who sail in her", not an individual region.

In the (obviously) continued absence of a link, SC#1 can still be read that way, and that's the way it is read. Mod fiat.

But then again, isn't it illegal to condemn both the ship and all who sail in it, with or without the link?

As it stands, it is illegal for violating No-HoC.

No, that one's fallen by the wayside, too. With Pyth having taken the trouble to provide us wih inside-NS links, which are likely to fail only if NS fails, the rule now is that in SC proposals you can link to past resolutions. The GA's House of Cards rule still stands.

This proposal does not contain a link to SCR #1 (and BTW, you can now link to previous resolutions as well?), so do you still rule it legal?

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Needs 15 approvals in 14 hours...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The honoured ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg would be in favour if there were more arguments about their activities, if SC#1 was ever to be repealed.

[Unibot]

Apparently not, because thats the exact wording from the first proposal. Travancore-Cochin has just discovered a big loophole... we can condemn more than just the designated region in a resolution.

As of this minute, you can't. Sorry, but that's just too open to abuse to leave unplugged. In the absence (then) of links, I read SC#1 as a condemnation of Macedon and (all its metaphorical belongings), the other side of the coin to the idea of "god bless the ship and all who sail in her". The Macedonian Empire I took to be "all who sail in her", not an individual region.

In the (obviously) continued absence of a link, SC#1 can still be read that way, and that's the way it is read. Mod fiat.

As it stands, it is illegal for violating No-HoC.

No, that one's fallen by the wayside, too. With Pyth having taken the trouble to provide us wih inside-NS links, which are likely to fail only if NS fails, the rule now is that in SC proposals you can link to past resolutions. The GA's House of Cards rule still stands.

Although I'd love to see both [resolution] tags implemented, and HoC violations defenestrated for good, I don't believe you can link to an adopted resolution (or any resolution for that matter), the provided tag is only for proposals. I don't understand why that should be a problem though because the game provides us with a list of resolutions ... so... why is a link completely necessary?

If for example I said a lie in a resolution like, "RECALLING Todd was condemned in SC#12 "Condemn Todd McCloud", therefore Todd's region should also be condemned". Wouldn't it be our jobs to make sure the resolution crashes and burns through tirelessly lobbying delegates?

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Status: Lacking Support (requires 6 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 4 hours

It might just make it.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

5 in 3.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

It looks like its made it with an approval to spare.

</commentary>

[Ardchoille]

Although I'd love to see both [resolution] tags implemented, and HoC violations defenestrated for good, I don't believe you can link to an adopted resolution (or any resolution for that matter), the provided tag is only for proposals.<snip>

Yeah, very senior moment there. I conflated linking to proposals with citing resolutions. Citing WA/GA resolutions in SC proposals was on the outer at one stage, but makes sense if Condemnations are applied to RPd actions, and therefore is now acceptable in the SC.

HoC still applies in the GA because GA resolutions are laws for all nations, whereas SC resolutions are actions/opinions on individual nations.

[Unibot]

Although I'd love to see both [resolution] tags implemented, and HoC violations defenestrated for good, I don't believe you can link to an adopted resolution (or any resolution for that matter), the provided tag is only for proposals.<snip>

Yeah, very senior moment there. I conflated linking to proposals with citing resolutions. Citing WA/GA resolutions in SC proposals was on the outer at one stage, but makes sense if Condemnations are applied to RPd actions, and therefore is now acceptable in the SC.

HoC still applies in the GA because GA resolutions are laws for nations, whereas SC resolutions are actions/opinions on nations.

Oh, I see. Well that makes perfect sense, thank you.