[PASSED] Repeal "Commend Hobbesistan"

[Hobbesistan]

*shrug*

[RiderSyl]

The claim that one of the clauses of the original Commendation were false, when it's been proven repeatedly that it wasn't, is a failure on the part of the authors.

Firmly against.

[Elke and Elba]

For.

Worst ever Commendation to ever passed in my honest opinion. Should have been insta-repealed.

Better late than never.

[Blood Wine]

Your point is negligible because you assert it as fact without proof or even basic reasoning. At this point I'm starting to think that is typical for you.

Basic reasoning? now I'm thinking you don't read either

Look,you have a considerable amount of influence,and you suddenly draft up this repeal - what did you expect? people to just take it at face value when SC/GP has a big history regarding backstabs and leming voting?

[Senpai Kohai]

Seems to me all this council does is condemn someone then repeal it, commend someone and repeal it, rinse, wash, repeat. Perhaps we need to become more strict about what is brought up for votes, or more resolute once we make decisions. A council that is go today and stop tomorrow seems beneath the goals of a World Assembly as it were.

[Demongate]

Seems to me all this council does is condemn someone then repeal it, commend someone and repeal it, rinse, wash, repeat. Perhaps we need to become more strict about what is brought up for votes, or more resolute once we make decisions. A council that is go today and stop tomorrow seems beneath the goals of a World Assembly as it were.

I agree. Commendations/condemnations should be stricter, and/or repeals should be.
Still, something seems off about this, in terms of goal...

[Feux]

Seems to me all this council does is condemn someone then repeal it, commend someone and repeal it, rinse, wash, repeat. Perhaps we need to become more strict about what is brought up for votes, or more resolute once we make decisions. A council that is go today and stop tomorrow seems beneath the goals of a World Assembly as it were.

I agree. Commendations/condemnations should be stricter, and/or repeals should be.
Still, something seems off about this, in terms of goal...

This council is known for being less active than its counterpart, making resolutions more strict will not solve anything.

[Philjia]

Examined evidence, seems to point to an against vote, but I refuse to play politics with backstabbing scum. Abstention.

[Funkadelia]

Examined evidence, seems to point to an against vote, but I refuse to play politics with backstabbing scum. Abstention.

lol what

[Funkadelia]

Your point is negligible because you assert it as fact without proof or even basic reasoning. At this point I'm starting to think that is typical for you.

Basic reasoning? now I'm thinking you don't read either

Look,you have a considerable amount of influence,and you suddenly draft up this repeal - what did you expect? people to just take it at face value when SC/GP has a big history regarding backstabs and leming voting?

Yes, it lacked basic reasoning and still lacks basic reasoning. I've read all your posts and you just keep making claims without explaining any justification. I don't really have that much influence outside of Lazarus.

Isn't every proposal ever sudden? It's not like I'm going to toss around my ideas for everyone to hear so they can be stolen. Ask ANY WA author and they will tell you the same thing. Making the argument that I came up with it "all of a sudden" and that's bad is nonsensical.

I think it's been made abundantly clear that this is not a "backstab." You already conceded the point that this has nothing do to with a "grudge," so you can't bring it up again as if it still matters.

[Demongate]

I still can't discern what's wrong with this proposal...
Something is for certain. It gives off negative vibes like a burning cemetery.

[Funkadelia]

I think at this point the voting line is speaking louder than the echoes of five individual nations.

[Demongate]

I suppose you're right on that point.
In the meantime, I'll discern what's wrong here.

At first glance, I've discovered something that could be intended. Or not.
The first letter of each line, put in order, spells TURNFUCSCH, ignoring the co-authored part.
I do not know what FUCSCH means, but the TURN part seems suspicious.
There is also the point that was brought up, with the Shocked line being incorrect with large amounts of proof behind it.
This could be a red herring, though.

EDIT: This aims to repeal resolution 143. If it passes, this will be resolution 161. 161-143=18. This thread was posted on October 18th. The digits in 143 and 161 both add to 8. This thread was posted in the month of October, which was originally the 8th month, but is now the 10th. 8+10=18.
18 must be an important number, and "turn" must be an important word.
I may look crazy, but I am getting results...

EDIT2: This aims to repeal a commendation. The word "commend" comes from the Latin word "commendare", which turned into "commendatio", then its modern existence. The word "commendation" was most used during the year 1805, as far as the records go.
The digits in 1805 add up to 14, which is half of 28. In the edit above, two instances of 8 were found from two different, relevant numbers.
8 and 18 are both significant numbers, therefore a significant date is August 18th. It is the 230th day in the year, except for leap years. 2+3=5. 2+3+1=6. Therefore, a significant year is 1856. The Guano Islands Act was enacted on August 18th, 1856. It allows citizens to take possession of islands containing guano deposits. The most well-known source of guano is from bats. The word "bat" has three letters. 8 cut in half across the Y axis looks like a 3 and a reversed 3. The word "bat" has 1 syllable. Therefore, another important year is 1833.
On August 18th, 1833, a Canadian ship left on a 25-day cruise. 25 is a square number. Squares have four sides. Four is half of eight.
I have concluded that your repeal is secretly a government plot to overthrow the New Mexican government and replace it with seventeen snowboarders from Nepal, to curb crimefighting in Alaska, which therefore makes it invalid, because there is no bacon on Saturn.

[Funkadelia]

I suppose you're right on that point.
In the meantime, I'll discern what's wrong here.

At first glance, I've discovered something that could be intended. Or not.
The first letter of each line, put in order, spells TURNFUCSCH, ignoring the co-authored part.
I do not know what FUCSCH means, but the TURN part seems suspicious.
There is also the point that was brought up, with the Shocked line being incorrect with large amounts of proof behind it.
This could be a red herring, though.

EDIT: This aims to repeal resolution 143. If it passes, this will be resolution 161. 161-143=18. This thread was posted on October 18th. The digits in 143 and 161 both add to 8. This thread was posted in the month of October, which was originally the 8th month, but is now the 10th. 8+10=18.
18 must be an important number, and "turn" must be an important word.
I may look crazy, but I am getting results...

You just made my day, sir/madam/nation.

[Todd McCloud]

-snip-

This is the best post of the year for the SC in 2014. Congratulations - I loved it.

[Shadoke]

I suppose you're right on that point.
In the meantime, I'll discern what's wrong here.

At first glance, I've discovered something that could be intended. Or not.
The first letter of each line, put in order, spells TURNFUCSCH, ignoring the co-authored part.
I do not know what FUCSCH means, but the TURN part seems suspicious.
There is also the point that was brought up, with the Shocked line being incorrect with large amounts of proof behind it.
This could be a red herring, though.

EDIT: This aims to repeal resolution 143. If it passes, this will be resolution 161. 161-143=18. This thread was posted on October 18th. The digits in 143 and 161 both add to 8. This thread was posted in the month of October, which was originally the 8th month, but is now the 10th. 8+10=18.
18 must be an important number, and "turn" must be an important word.
I may look crazy, but I am getting results...

EDIT2: This aims to repeal a commendation. The word "commend" comes from the Latin word "commendare", which turned into "commendatio", then its modern existence. The word "commendation" was most used during the year 1805, as far as the records go.
The digits in 1805 add up to 14, which is half of 28. In the edit above, two instances of 8 were found from two different, relevant numbers.
8 and 18 are both significant numbers, therefore a significant date is August 18th. It is the 230th day in the year, except for leap years. 2+3=5. 2+3+1=6. Therefore, a significant year is 1856. The Guano Islands Act was enacted on August 18th, 1856. It allows citizens to take possession of islands containing guano deposits. The most well-known source of guano is from bats. The word "bat" has three letters. 8 cut in half across the Y axis looks like a 3 and a reversed 3. The word "bat" has 1 syllable. Therefore, another important year is 1833.
On August 18th, 1833, a Canadian ship left on a 25-day cruise. 25 is a square number. Squares have four sides. Four is half of eight.
I have concluded that your repeal is secretly a government plot to overthrow the New Mexican government and replace it with seventeen snowboarders from Nepal, to curb crimefighting in Alaska, which therefore makes it invalid, because there is no bacon on Saturn.

BWAAAHAAAHAAA!!!

My god, this is the best thing I have ever seen! Sigged

[Topid]

I think I'm missing some why Hobbes' forum is no longer Lazarus' forum. I must have missed a good story, anyone wish to share the story? (500 words or less if I'm asking for a story an Imperial would look good answering.)

I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote against this. There is a long standing debate in this body (that started quite a while ago) about whether resolutions should be 'up to date'. I don't like the precedent this sets, even though the greater precedent still rests on the other side of the issue. To me, it is not simply enough that Hobbes doesn't do what he used to do that got him commended. We all retire, we all get inactive, applying that rule forward means all C/C's will eventually be repealed.

I wish, if repealing this was the goal, the author had not simply highlighted what in the original is no longer true. Instead a stronger resolution would have picked two or three lines of the original and told how Hobbes' actions since the original's passage have contradicted his commendation. It isn't enough that regions he once defended got raided again, that's true of all R/Ders commended. It isn't enough that a region he founded (Khora) eventually died. That also happens in the natural life cycle of regions. But if memory serves he not only stopped defending but switched sides. That's a contradiction. Or perhaps if leaving Lazarus was not on good terms, I'm unsure, I haven't been about much.

A perfect example of the distinction I wish we had here is Sedge's commendation. Sedge was commended for being a defender. The repeal text did not just say "Sedge doesn't defend anymore, Sedge doesn't lead the FRA anymore, GRA isn't a big region anymore, etc. It took a specific thing Sedge did (TSP coup) and said this contradicts and invalidates the original's arguments. The same could be said of Condemn Unknown, their eventual actions after the Condemnation contradicted what they were condemned for. These are better arguments, and don't give something for someone to point to down the road when Codger inevitably CTEs again and they wan't to Repeal his Commendation because it is "no longer relevant" or "no longer true."

My 2¢.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

(500 words or less if I'm asking for a story an Imperial would look good answering.)

Would someone mind telling me what "imperialism" is? I see that word all the time in discussions on GP, and still have no idea what they're talking about.

[Hobbesistan]

(500 words or less if I'm asking for a story an Imperial would look good answering.)

Would someone mind telling me what "imperialism" is? I see that word all the time in discussions on GP, and still have no idea what they're talking about.

Think imperialist in RL; basically they want to input their regional views on others, be it by invading regions and perm. occupying them, or otherwise, blabla you get the idea.

[Solorni]

(500 words or less if I'm asking for a story an Imperial would look good answering.)

Would someone mind telling me what "imperialism" is? I see that word all the time in discussions on GP, and still have no idea what they're talking about.

It's regions and people in NS which say they follow imperialist tenants. The most famous are the member regions of the United Imperial Armed Forces (UIAF).

[Feux]

I think I'm missing some why Hobbes' forum is no longer Lazarus' forum. I must have missed a good story, anyone wish to share the story? (500 words or less if I'm asking for a story an Imperial would look good answering.)

I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote against this. There is a long standing debate in this body (that started quite a while ago) about whether resolutions should be 'up to date'. I don't like the precedent this sets, even though the greater precedent still rests on the other side of the issue. To me, it is not simply enough that Hobbes doesn't do what he used to do that got him commended. We all retire, we all get inactive, applying that rule forward means all C/C's will eventually be repealed.

I wish, if repealing this was the goal, the author had not simply highlighted what in the original is no longer true. Instead a stronger resolution would have picked two or three lines of the original and told how Hobbes' actions since the original's passage have contradicted his commendation. It isn't enough that regions he once defended got raided again, that's true of all R/Ders commended. It isn't enough that a region he founded (Khora) eventually died. That also happens in the natural life cycle of regions. But if memory serves he not only stopped defending but switched sides. That's a contradiction. Or perhaps if leaving Lazarus was not on good terms, I'm unsure, I haven't been about much.

A perfect example of the distinction I wish we had here is Sedge's commendation. Sedge was commended for being a defender. The repeal text did not just say "Sedge doesn't defend anymore, Sedge doesn't lead the FRA anymore, GRA isn't a big region anymore, etc. It took a specific thing Sedge did (TSP coup) and said this contradicts and invalidates the original's arguments. The same could be said of Condemn Unknown, their eventual actions after the Condemnation contradicted what they were condemned for. These are better arguments, and don't give something for someone to point to down the road when Codger inevitably CTEs again and they wan't to Repeal his Commendation because it is "no longer relevant" or "no longer true."

My 2¢.

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." 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; 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. 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. 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.

[Wickedly evil people]

it's a really whiny resolution from people that should have never proposed it, other than that, ok...

[Feux]

it's a really whiny resolution from people that should have never proposed it, other than that, ok...

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.

[RiderSyl]

it's a really whiny resolution from people that should have never proposed it, other than that, ok...

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

[Hobbesistan]

For: 4,136. Against: 1,766.

7 hours ago: Hobbesistan voted for the World Assembly Resolution "Repeal "Commend Hobbesistan"".

now we escalate to stage 2.

SC fishcoup in progress