[PASSED] Repeal "Commend Hobbesistan"

[Topid]

Imma change the order up a bit to make it easier to make my point.

Inactivity and retirement are not necessarily the issue at hand, and I think the first clause of the proposal implies the author's sole argument behind this legislation is simply not "because he/she does not do it anymore."

We shall see. Going to the proposal:

"Understanding that a commendation, an official recognition from the Security Council for virtuous deeds or attributes above and beyond the typical, is arguably the highest honor bestowed on any nation for their achievements;"

Granted. Good into, no specific reasons to repeal. Not a line with meat.

"Regretting that Security Council Resolution #143 was passed despite the achievements of the commended nation in the resolution being inconsequential or false;"

It definitely sounds like we're going to hear arguments soon about how what Hobbes was doing at the time was inconsequential. I will not enter into the false/not false thing. But I'll give it to the author and agree that is one reason that this could be repealed.
This is not a line with any meat either, still intro, but at this point we do look like we're headed somewhere good.

"Noting that all regions highlighted within resolution SC #143 have been subject to invading forces on multiple occasions since the decree's passing, rendering the ultimate consequence of these regions on the world as collectively negligible, and further withdrawing from the arguments presented in the resolution;"

Oooh, bad bad bad. The only thing said in this line is that he hasn't continuously defended these regions. Now I agree with what you are saying, a repeal COULD say that defending a few regions isn't commendable. That would be dandy. Not what we have here, though. This line does have meat, and its meat is saying "he stopped doing what he used to do."

"Further noting that the region of Khora collapsed shortly after the assistance of The C̴̥͕͓͔̫̼ae͇̻̠͈͠k of Hobbesistan, and is frequently invaded by warfaring organizations;"

Once again, this DOESN'T say that stopping one purge isn't that noteworthy. That's an argument that could have been made, but wasn't. The argument that was made, is that Hobbes did not continue to save the region, or perhaps that he should have only saved the region if he knew it would continue to grow and exist after he saved it. -OR- That commendations for defenders are only good for as long as the regions they saved continue to exist, because afterwards their impacts on the game are gone. Again, not what we want for C/C's. That leads to players like The Cat-Tribe not being commendable anymore because none of the threads he posted in are active, or Franks as not noteable because what impact are all his old raids still having? These players contributed noteworthy amounts in their time, that's deserving of a C/C even if what they worked on died later. Again, you could argue that the saving of Khora wasn't significant in the first place, but here the author chose not to do so.

This is a line that has meat, and is based on "he stopped helping Khora."

"Understanding that The C̴̥͕͓͔̫̼ae͇̻̠͈͠k of Hobbesistan no longer has any relation to Lazarus, and Lazarus now has new forums unrelated to the nation;"

Word for word, he stopped being an admin and stopped being a member.

The argument could have been made that being a forum admin isn't noteworthy, and numerous people do it for GCRs all the time, but it wasn't. So that's not what we are voting on.

The line has meat, and it's meat is "he stopped doing what he was originally doing."

"Considering that RadioNS and the Lazarene Stock Exchange existed for a short period of time, and are now defunct, and have had no lasting impact on the world whatsoever;"

SO CLOSE. Almost had it. The word lasting kills this one. If we had said 'These had no impact on NS' then ding ding we have a winner. But no lasting impact means that they have no impact today. The question C/C's should ask is was it significant in its time. If it was, just because it doesn't really matter to us now, it is still noteworthy. Does Fudge's leadership of TSP have any sort of significance today? No, of course not, the region has completely overhauled its structure and it would be hard to say Fudgie's actions have a lasting impact on TSP now. But who cares? It was damn important then.

Though this time we did come close to saying that these items were of no consequence, that's not exactly what we said. But it is certainly better than the ones above, so I'll put this in a grey area. I don't like the implication, but it isn't so blunt I hate it.

This line has meat and was close to going somewhere good, but a straight reading says "he stopped supporting these activities, so they don't really matter today"

"Shocked that The C̴̥͕͓͔̫̼ae͇̻̠͈͠k of Hobbesistan was given credit for developing the "approx" script, when the script was actually developed by the nation of The Royal Confederacy of Eluvatar at a far earlier time;"

As I said above I don't know how similar or different they were, I don't know how they work, I'm not going to comment on it one way or another. If true I will grant that this is a good argument, so I will call this line good.

"Concluding that The C̴̥͕͓͔̫̼ae͇̻̠͈͠k of Hobbesistan's contributions to the world are on the whole irrelevant or inconsequential, while good intentioned, and that one clause of the commending resolution is completely false"

I gave you false. But you proved that his 'contributions to the world are on the whole irrelevant or inconsequential' to us today. Not that they never mattered. I think this resolution could work, if you went the way I suggested, point out that recent actions directly contradict what is stated in his commendation, or do what you suggested (but not co-authored) a repeal saying that his contributions never arose to the level of commendable. That's not what we have here. What we have here is

Take what the original said he did -> Check to see if they are still true -> point out things that he once did or people he once helped whom he doesn't now. Big difference in my book.

Understanding that a commendation, an official recognition from the Security Council for virtuous deeds or attributes above and beyond the typical, is arguably the highest honor bestowed on any nation for their achievements;

Granted, it is a big deal. However so are repeal resolutions. They should say what they mean and mean what they say, in a consistent way.

While I do understand your perspective to a degree, this proposal will certainly not be one to set any precedent as well. I recall several commendations/condemnations removed from nations and regions because they or whatever they did has become irrelevant, such as Security Council resolution # 101 or #116. However, that is not the case as already specified, and with such a possible negative precedent already set, I have not seen any drafts attempting to repeal commendations/condemnations from old time players you and I would consider creditable, or well versed, etc. because they no longer do anything.

I voted against repealing TQOTD's Commend. That was a bad precedent. And yes, there are numerous attempts to repeal CTEd nations commendations, and Macedon's condemnation because the region is empty. Now if you are saying "attempt by someone who has a name that will make success likely," then no, but the threads are made pretty often and discouraged because that is not why we should repeal resolutions.

So yes, I would agree with you that it took a more developed argument to repeal Sedge's commendation. AMOM, SkyDip, Kandarin, Naivetry are names that come to mind when thinking of possible examples. I ask that you please consider stepping back from any notion that the sole arguments presented in this proposal are "because he no longer does them" clauses and that they are setting negative precedents, and consider the arguments presented within the first two clauses of the proposal more highly.

I must point above. All of the lines with any meat, or reference to specifics do just that, except that part about the "approx script" and maybe the considering line but even it seems to point toward "he used to do it, but now it doesn't."

In addition, I think Anime Daisuki asked an interesting question in this thread when questioning "why...Hobbes [was] commended when under 'normal' circusmstances he wouldn't have been?" Not to steal any diction from BT, but the Security Council should not recognize individuals that do an assortment of meh+ activities.

Good questions. Those are good questions that would relate better to a repeal that criticized the reasons for which he was initially commended.

And the answer to the question is Lemmings don't just follow vote totals, they follow TGs.

[Feux]

Our objectives are the same, I assume. The end result is what truly matters in retrospect, not the authors or the diction, and I find it much more constructive to focus on similar objectives rather than drafting passive comments.

"Who the authors are is not what truly matters in a resolution."
- one of the authors of the resolution

Excellent observation, here is your cookie kid.

[RiderSyl]

Excellent observation, here is your cookie kid.

If you hand out a cookie every time someone points out your hypocrisy, Feux, then you better be buying that shit in bulk.

[Feux]

Imma change the order up a bit to make it easier to make my point.

Inactivity and retirement are not necessarily the issue at hand, and I think the first clause of the proposal implies the author's sole argument behind this legislation is simply not "because he/she does not do it anymore."

We shall see. Going to the proposal:

"Understanding that a commendation, an official recognition from the Security Council for virtuous deeds or attributes above and beyond the typical, is arguably the highest honor bestowed on any nation for their achievements;"

Granted. Good into, no specific reasons to repeal. Not a line with meat.

"Regretting that Security Council Resolution #143 was passed despite the achievements of the commended nation in the resolution being inconsequential or false;"

It definitely sounds like we're going to hear arguments soon about how what Hobbes was doing at the time was inconsequential. I will not enter into the false/not false thing. But I'll give it to the author and agree that is one reason that this could be repealed.
This is not a line with any meat either, still intro, but at this point we do look like we're headed somewhere good.

"Noting that all regions highlighted within resolution SC #143 have been subject to invading forces on multiple occasions since the decree's passing, rendering the ultimate consequence of these regions on the world as collectively negligible, and further withdrawing from the arguments presented in the resolution;"

Oooh, bad bad bad. The only thing said in this line is that he hasn't continuously defended these regions. Now I agree with what you are saying, a repeal COULD say that defending a few regions isn't commendable. That would be dandy. Not what we have here, though. This line does have meat, and its meat is saying "he stopped doing what he used to do."

"Further noting that the region of Khora collapsed shortly after the assistance of The C̴̥͕͓͔̫̼ae͇̻̠͈͠k of Hobbesistan, and is frequently invaded by warfaring organizations;"

Once again, this DOESN'T say that stopping one purge isn't that noteworthy. That's an argument that could have been made, but wasn't. The argument that was made, is that Hobbes did not continue to save the region, or perhaps that he should have only saved the region if he knew it would continue to grow and exist after he saved it. -OR- That commendations for defenders are only good for as long as the regions they saved continue to exist, because afterwards their impacts on the game are gone. Again, not what we want for C/C's. That leads to players like The Cat-Tribe not being commendable anymore because none of the threads he posted in are active, or Franks as not noteable because what impact are all his old raids still having? These players contributed noteworthy amounts in their time, that's deserving of a C/C even if what they worked on died later. Again, you could argue that the saving of Khora wasn't significant in the first place, but here the author chose not to do so.

This is a line that has meat, and is based on "he stopped helping Khora."

"Understanding that The C̴̥͕͓͔̫̼ae͇̻̠͈͠k of Hobbesistan no longer has any relation to Lazarus, and Lazarus now has new forums unrelated to the nation;"

Word for word, he stopped being an admin and stopped being a member.

The argument could have been made that being a forum admin isn't noteworthy, and numerous people do it for GCRs all the time, but it wasn't. So that's not what we are voting on.

The line has meat, and it's meat is "he stopped doing what he was originally doing."

"Considering that RadioNS and the Lazarene Stock Exchange existed for a short period of time, and are now defunct, and have had no lasting impact on the world whatsoever;"

SO CLOSE. Almost had it. The word lasting kills this one. If we had said 'These had no impact on NS' then ding ding we have a winner. But no lasting impact means that they have no impact today. The question C/C's should ask is was it significant in its time. If it was, just because it doesn't really matter to us now, it is still noteworthy. Does Fudge's leadership of TSP have any sort of significance today? No, of course not, the region has completely overhauled its structure and it would be hard to say Fudgie's actions have a lasting impact on TSP now. But who cares? It was damn important then.

Though this time we did come close to saying that these items were of no consequence, that's not exactly what we said. But it is certainly better than the ones above, so I'll put this in a grey area. I don't like the implication, but it isn't so blunt I hate it.

This line has meat and was close to going somewhere good, but a straight reading says "he stopped supporting these activities, so they don't really matter today"

"Shocked that The C̴̥͕͓͔̫̼ae͇̻̠͈͠k of Hobbesistan was given credit for developing the "approx" script, when the script was actually developed by the nation of The Royal Confederacy of Eluvatar at a far earlier time;"

As I said above I don't know how similar or different they were, I don't know how they work, I'm not going to comment on it one way or another. If true I will grant that this is a good argument, so I will call this line good.

"Concluding that The C̴̥͕͓͔̫̼ae͇̻̠͈͠k of Hobbesistan's contributions to the world are on the whole irrelevant or inconsequential, while good intentioned, and that one clause of the commending resolution is completely false"

I gave you false. But you proved that his 'contributions to the world are on the whole irrelevant or inconsequential' to us today. Not that they never mattered. I think this resolution could work, if you went the way I suggested, point out that recent actions directly contradict what is stated in his commendation, or do what you suggested (but not co-authored) a repeal saying that his contributions never arose to the level of commendable. That's not what we have here. What we have here is

Take what the original said he did -> Check to see if they are still true -> point out things that he once did or people he once helped whom he doesn't now. Big difference in my book.

Understanding that a commendation, an official recognition from the Security Council for virtuous deeds or attributes above and beyond the typical, is arguably the highest honor bestowed on any nation for their achievements;

Granted, it is a big deal. However so are repeal resolutions. They should say what they mean and mean what they say, in a consistent way.

While I do understand your perspective to a degree, this proposal will certainly not be one to set any precedent as well. I recall several commendations/condemnations removed from nations and regions because they or whatever they did has become irrelevant, such as Security Council resolution # 101 or #116. However, that is not the case as already specified, and with such a possible negative precedent already set, I have not seen any drafts attempting to repeal commendations/condemnations from old time players you and I would consider creditable, or well versed, etc. because they no longer do anything.

I voted against repealing TQOTD's Commend. That was a bad precedent. And yes, there are numerous attempts to repeal CTEd nations commendations, and Macedon's condemnation because the region is empty. Now if you are saying "attempt by someone who has a name that will make success likely," then no, but the threads are made pretty often and discouraged because that is not why we should repeal resolutions.

So yes, I would agree with you that it took a more developed argument to repeal Sedge's commendation. AMOM, SkyDip, Kandarin, Naivetry are names that come to mind when thinking of possible examples. I ask that you please consider stepping back from any notion that the sole arguments presented in this proposal are "because he no longer does them" clauses and that they are setting negative precedents, and consider the arguments presented within the first two clauses of the proposal more highly.

I must point above. All of the lines with any meat, or reference to specifics do just that, except that part about the "approx script" and maybe the considering line but even it seems to point toward "he used to do it, but now it doesn't."

In addition, I think Anime Daisuki asked an interesting question in this thread when questioning "why...Hobbes [was] commended when under 'normal' circusmstances he wouldn't have been?" Not to steal any diction from BT, but the Security Council should not recognize individuals that do an assortment of meh+ activities.

Good questions. Those are good questions that would relate better to a repeal that criticized the reasons for which he was initially commended.

And the answer to the question is Lemmings don't just follow vote totals, they follow TGs.

I was attempting to convey to you that the justification for this repeal is of plenty, regardless of whether the proposal's diction fully captures this justification to your liking. I see now you are more concerned with the proposals wording than the final objective of this repeal, regardless of whether all justifications are presented within the proposal itself. This is fine, and I will seed more information could have been provided; however, it is a little late to be discussing proposal wording at this point. Still talking on negative precedents, I think many would be in agreement that this commendation was at risk of posing a larger danger to the standards of commendations than this repeal will ever have on the Security Council. Furthermore, you seem to have disregarded that I agreed with you concerning why particular resolutions are not and should not be repealed, opting to place words in my mouth. I do not mean to represent an argument anything near "attempting by someone who has a name that will make success likely." As I have already said within this thread, I do not believe authors should play such a central role in the overall presentation of a proposal or its objective. This goes back to the entirety of the proposals justification, regardless of whether it is collectively presented within the proposal at vote. Others are aware of this and the justifications that found elsewhere, but if you so chose to continue to operator strictly to the wording within the proposal, and ignore the general points I linked you to - such as Anime Daisuki's statement, not just the question I quoted - than we can not come to a stasis. Not that I have a problem with individuals requesting more information, I just wanted you to be aware that the justification is here, present in some form or the other and this has been recognized by many. I understand your perspective more and the necessity of argument that you demand; I respect your judgement to vote against.

[Feux]

Excellent observation, here is your cookie kid.

If you hand out a cookie every time someone points out your hypocrisy, Feux, then you better be buying that shit in bulk.

Oh, I seem to have brought the language out. Was it not to your liking? Maybe some milk to help you wash it down. Seem to have missed where you said my statement was hypocritical in your last post, perhaps I should not be the only one taking a lesson from Topid regarding how to better state our arguments clearly. But please, do continue to make baseless assumptions that fit your perspective of things.

[Topid]

The proposal's text is all that matters. It will be all that is remembered even two weeks from now. I mean if good arguments were omitted for R4 reasons that'd be one thing.. But it is kind of silly to me that the co-author is saying vote based on what should have been said rather than what was.

Not how the WA should work, IMO.

[Feux]

The proposal's text is all that matters. It will be all that is remembered even two weeks from now. I mean if good arguments were omitted for R4 reasons that'd be one thing.. But it is kind of silly to me that the co-author is saying vote based on what should have been said rather than what was.

Not how the WA should work, IMO.

I am working with what is at vote.

[Topid]

The proposal's text is all that matters. It will be all that is remembered even two weeks from now. I mean if good arguments were omitted for R4 reasons that'd be one thing.. But it is kind of silly to me that the co-author is saying vote based on what should have been said rather than what was.

Not how the WA should work, IMO.

I am working with what is at vote.

Does this mean if I ask you in four days you'll agree that the text is the only thing that is of importance. Because I'm totally cool with that answer.

For what it is worth, I wish I had seen this sooner. But I don't lurk around the SC nearly as much as I used to.

[Feux]

I am working with what is at vote.

Does this mean if I ask you in four days you'll agree that the text is the only thing that is of importance. Because I'm totally cool with that answer.

For what it is worth, I wish I had seen this sooner. But I don't lurk around the SC nearly as much as I used to.

No, I would not agree, but I understand its role within any proposal. You have seen my other resolutions, if I need to provide some examples. We even have had a small discussion on the layout of a particular clause in one of my drafts where you were not entirely happy with the diction, and I proposed a way to better adhere to your suggestions. You should lurk more.

[RiderSyl]

Oh, I seem to have brought the language out. Was it not to your liking? Maybe some milk to help you wash it down. Seem to have missed where you said my statement was hypocritical in your last post, perhaps I should not be the only one taking a lesson from Topid regarding how to better state our arguments clearly. But please, do continue to make baseless assumptions that fit your perspective of things.

Will do.

Have fun up on your pedestal, Sir Condescension.

[Feux]

Oh, I seem to have brought the language out. Was it not to your liking? Maybe some milk to help you wash it down. Seem to have missed where you said my statement was hypocritical in your last post, perhaps I should not be the only one taking a lesson from Topid regarding how to better state our arguments clearly. But please, do continue to make baseless assumptions that fit your perspective of things.

Will do.

Have fun up on your pedestal, Sir Condescension.

The ground suits me just fine.

[Topid]

Does this mean if I ask you in four days you'll agree that the text is the only thing that is of importance. Because I'm totally cool with that answer.

For what it is worth, I wish I had seen this sooner. But I don't lurk around the SC nearly as much as I used to.

No, I would not agree, but I understand its role within any proposal. You have seen my other resolutions, if I need to provide some examples. We even have had a small discussion on the layout of a particular clause in one of my drafts where you were not entirely happy with the diction, and I proposed a way to better adhere to your suggestions. You should lurk more.

I recall, we've worked together on plenty outside of the WA as well. Just somewhat surprised someone with WA experience is taking that position I suppose.

[Solorni]

For the record those are the longest posts Feux has ever made Ridersyl. It seems you have helped him set a new record!

[Feux]

For the record those are the longest posts Feux has ever made Ridersyl. It seems you have helped him set a new record!

Making your daily round of passive and incorrect insults? They truly are a testament to your well versed rhetoric and ever increasing post count. However, the lack of any type of emoticon was a disappointment. Anyone can simply click the link in my signature to discover how senseless that statement was, or bother to pull up any threads that I have started, etc. In addition, the longer posts had nothing to do with Ridersyl, and was a discussion between Topid and I.

[Solorni]

I was impressed and surprised by your post. In any case, have you made enough edits yet to your short albeit absurd response yet? That is to say, is it the final version? Or is it still being worked on...

[Sedgistan]

That's enough. Discuss the proposal rather than snarking at each other.

[Feux]

Of course, thank you Sedge.

[Todd McCloud]

Well, I'll stand by my 'nay' vote. It probably doesn't mean much at this stage of the game, but Hobbes is a standup guy who has done a lot of good in the game. Perhaps he was too "young" to commend, but frankly I don't think longevity is essential; rather, it's about impact. If someone is recognizable in gameplay (or roleplay, GA, etc) for doing good work, why should they not be commended?

[Hobbesistan]

2 minutes ago: The Security Council resolution Repeal "Commend Hobbesistan" was passed 6,310 votes to 2,295.

[Aperi]

Nice try Hobbes

[Fezkovia]

Anyone feel like drafting another Commendation? It would have to win a great big battle to get passed. The battle of Bannockburn. Led by Hobbert the Bruce.

Oh yes.

[Blood Wine]

And ofcourse right after the repeal is passed,someone is writing a condemn proposal,so much for repeal and replace eh?

[Demongate]

It'd be hilarious if someone repeals the repeal.

I don't think that can happen, though.
I'm slightly surprised this passed, to be honest, given that one of the points was proven to be a complete lie and a couple others to be half-truths.
Not awake enough to find them, though. Don't quote me on this.

[Todd McCloud]

Anyone feel like drafting another Commendation? It would have to win a great big battle to get passed. The battle of Bannockburn. Led by Hobbert the Bruce.

Oh yes.

In all seriousness, the sticking point with a lot of people seemed to be the fact that he was commended as a fairly new nations as far as things are concerned. But the SC is a confusing mess at times. Early on it was clear some voting blocs formed, probably based more on allegiances than actual substance with the repeal. Perhaps one can argue that not succumbing to a bloc is a quality of independence (since that word's been thrown around in gameplay a lot recently), but here's probably not the place to do that. I mean, I remember how tough it was for anything to happen with AMOM, for instance. And that guy deserved a commendation as far as I'm concerned.

That all aside, I'd probably wait to submit a C&C for this guy. Unless he really flubs up, he's going to be a feeder delegate one day IMO so perhaps that'll give more substance.

[Fezkovia]

Anyone feel like drafting another Commendation? It would have to win a great big battle to get passed. The battle of Bannockburn. Led by Hobbert the Bruce.

Oh yes.

In all seriousness, the sticking point with a lot of people seemed to be the fact that he was commended as a fairly new nations as far as things are concerned. But the SC is a confusing mess at times. Early on it was clear some voting blocs formed, probably based more on allegiances than actual substance with the repeal. Perhaps one can argue that not succumbing to a bloc is a quality of independence (since that word's been thrown around in gameplay a lot recently), but here's probably not the place to do that. I mean, I remember how tough it was for anything to happen with AMOM, for instance. And that guy deserved a commendation as far as I'm concerned.

That all aside, I'd probably wait to submit a C&C for this guy. Unless he really flubs up, he's going to be a feeder delegate one day IMO so perhaps that'll give more substance.

More substance for him to be the first player ever with two commendations!

Hobbes has already been here for a year, and with most points in the repeal being at the very least questionable, I wouldn't be surprised if another Commendation came up in the future.

I would start drafting a new one, but 1. there was just a repeal so the SC might not be in the mood and 2. this nation is relatively new and belonging to someone who's only a few months older than Hobbes.