[PASSED] Repeal "Commend Tiago Silva"

[Ambroscus Koth]

Sorry for the double post, but the proposal is live!

[Ambroscus Koth]

Triple post, but the proposal is at vote! Discuss!!!

[Pollaetorian]

Mouse and Ram stacked as promised. Mouse beat Ram on the stacking too.

Seems it'll go smoothly.

[Lebnania]

Just remember, guys, Max Barry himself commended Tiago Silva's efforts in its very own blog post. Even though this seems like a small contribution now, Tiago Silva contributed/improved an essential part of NationStates: THE FLAGS. Sure, it may not be an act of "bravery," but if Max Barry made a post just to thank him, shouldn't Tiago Silva be able to keep his commendation?

AGAINST.

[Ambroscus Koth]

Just remember, guys, Max Barry himself commended Tiago Silva's efforts in its very own blog post. Even though this seems like a small contribution now, Tiago Silva contributed/improved an essential part of NationStates: THE FLAGS. Sure, it may not be an act of "bravery," but if Max Barry made a post just to thank him, shouldn't Tiago Silva be able to keep his commendation?

AGAINST.

Absolutely...if the commendation wasn't absolutely terribly written and out of place amongst the rest of the standing legislation in the Security Council. I'd like to clarify once again that I have nothing against Tiago Silva nor do I think that his contribution to the game wasn't awesome, but the resolution is still trash.

[Lebnania]

Just remember, guys, Max Barry himself commended Tiago Silva's efforts in its very own blog post. Even though this seems like a small contribution now, Tiago Silva contributed/improved an essential part of NationStates: THE FLAGS. Sure, it may not be an act of "bravery," but if Max Barry made a post just to thank him, shouldn't Tiago Silva be able to keep his commendation?

AGAINST.

Absolutely...if the commendation wasn't absolutely terribly written and out of place amongst the rest of the standing legislation in the Security Council. I'd like to clarify once again that I have nothing against Tiago Silva nor do I think that his contribution to the game wasn't awesome, but the resolution is still trash.

True, I agree, it's terribly written. But consider this: Will Tiago Silva receive a replacement commendation if this legislation is passed? Since so much time has passed since the original commendation, it's doubtful that today's delegates will recognize Tiago Silva's contributions as being worthy of commendation. I mean, it was hard enough for me to even find the original events and figure out what they meant. By repealing it now, Tiago Silva has little chance of earning the recognition that he really deserves.

Basically, you are punishing Tiago Silva by repealing the commendation on the grounds that the legislation itself was poorly written, not that Tiago Silva didn't deserve the commendation. That's messed up.

It also should be pointed out that Tiago Silva didn't want the commendation at the time because the badge slowed down his page load on his dial-up modem. This is besides the point. The commendations set a precedent. If we can repeal deserving nations of commendations based simply on the writing skills of the nation that nominated them (again, not the nation that was being commended), we are opening up the floor for future nations to repeal the commendations of NationStates' forefathers until none are left and they have all been forgotten. It'd be like repealing the Declaration of Independence because Thomas Jefferson spelled some words wrong. It undermines the importance of the commendation/condemnation itself and what the World Assembly stands for.

[United Concordian States]

Any nation who votes for this should be nukes into obliteration. If you delve into the author's history, you'll find that he is a raider, that joined the WA just so he could write this, and then left the WA. As of the exact moment of posting this, he is not a WA member, he resigned after writing this. The United Concordian States votes against this resolution on the grounds that it is written by a tyrannical, and oppressive leader who is a member of a raider region, The Brotherhood of Malice.

AGAINST. (Anyone who is for should be shot)

[Ambroscus Koth]

Any nation who votes for this should be nukes into obliteration. If you delve into the author's history, you'll find that he is a raider, that joined the WA just so he could write this, and then left the WA. As of the exact moment of posting this, he is not a WA member, he resigned after writing this. The United Concordian States votes against this resolution on the grounds that it is written by a tyrannical, and oppressive leader who is a member of a raider region, The Brotherhood of Malice.

AGAINST. (Anyone who is for should be shot)

Ignoring the blatant flaming, don't sell me short. I'm the CO-FOUNDER of The Brotherhood of Malice. While you're at it, I should also mention that I'm the highest ranked member of the Black Riders that is not part of the General Staff, I'm a Sergeant in The Black Hawks, and I couped Osiris in the name of Malice and established a raider government that is still active today.

But all that has literally nothing to do with the proposal at hand. I resigned WA so that I could take up membership on another nation Anonymouse, which is currently endorsing Ramaeus. Any other "scandalous" behavior you want to drag up so that you can further your irrelevant argument against my proposal?

If you want to continue attacking me instead of critiquing the proposal at hand, I'd be happy to take this to a different forum

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

It's a well written repeal. Glad to see it made quorum and is currently succeeding.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

There is no arbitrary standard for which contributions merit WA recognition. Tiago Silva's were apparently outstanding to warrant special recognition by Max in a News post; now the SC is becoming so high and mighty in its standards that that's not even good enough anymore. Meanwhile, has the repeal author himself ever contributed to annals of SC recognition himself? If not, what the fuck qualifies him to judge them in retrospect?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

There is no arbitrary standard for which contributions merit WA recognition. Tiago Silva's were apparently outstanding to warrant special recognition by Max in a News post; now the SC is becoming so high and mighty in its standards that that's not even good enough anymore. Meanwhile, has the repeal author himself ever contributed to annals of SC recognition himself? If not, what the fuck qualifies him to judge them in retrospect?

Because Kenny.... They did not engage in gameplay, therefore they don't deserve recognition obviously /sarcasm. With this new standard, I highly expect someone will go after yours soon enough, so you better get out there and raid some regions.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

With this new standard, I highly expect someone will go after yours soon enough, so you better get out there and raid some regions.

If you take some of my detractors' word at face value, I've already done that.

[Sciongrad]

Frankly, that's a terrible argument. You're essentially saying that certain types of of invaluable contributions that are intrinsically tied to the mechanical aspect of the game cannot be rewarded by a commendation because of the difficulty involved in writing one. That line of reasoning is lazy and reveals less about whether Tiago Silva is worthy of his recognition and more about what you, and many others, find to be the sole domain of the SC - that is, gameplay. Fiercely against.

Eh? What implied that I believe that only gameplay actions are commendable? I don't mind RP commends/condemns, or even those made for contributions to the site. But ONE contribution isn't worth commending, especially as badly written as it was. The resolution is garbage and out of place amongst the rest of the standing resolutions.

Please. It is without question that Tiago Silva deserves a commendation - his contributions were so significant to a mechanical aspect of the game that he was praised by Max Barry. If you were truly so concerned about the quality of writing, you would have offered a replacement yourself. But you didn't, and that's because flag making is not truly commendable. I don't doubt you when you say you don't believe gameplay actions are the only commendable ones, but it is undeniable that the almost exclusive use of the SC by the power structure of the NS Gameplay World has established a concept of what is and isn't commendable so ubiquitous that it insidiously undermines the worth of other major contributions in the eyes of the members of that very power structure. Unless you, yourself, off a replacement, seeing as your "argument" against the original was its quality of writing, you can't expect anyone to take your argument seriously.

[Ambroscus Koth]

There is no arbitrary standard for which contributions merit WA recognition. Tiago Silva's were apparently outstanding to warrant special recognition by Max in a News post; now the SC is becoming so high and mighty in its standards that that's not even good enough anymore. Meanwhile, has the repeal author himself ever contributed to annals of SC recognition himself? If not, what the fuck qualifies him to judge them in retrospect?

Oooh, bringing out the big guns! The standard for quality in a WA resolution is merely a comparison to the rest of the resolutions that still stand. There's a pretty stark difference in quality between this commendation and many other standing resolutions. I don't think that there is an "arbitrary standard".

In regards to my status as an SC author (or lack thereof), that's a pretty shitty argument. What, because this is the first proposal I've submitted (not written, mind you), I'm not allowed to repeal a resolution based on writing quality? I've been on-and-off involved in the Security Council (admittedly, it's been a rather long time since I've routinely posted on new drafts) for a while now. Obviously not nearly as long as you, based Kenny, but enough to be pretty well acquainted with the expectations people have for a proposal if they want it to go through. I honestly do not believe that if Tiago Silva was to be commended right now, in 2015, with a resolution of the same quality as the one I'm repealing, it would pass. That's all.

Because Kenny.... They did not engage in gameplay, therefore they don't deserve recognition obviously /sarcasm. With this new standard, I highly expect someone will go after yours soon enough, so you better get out there and raid some regions.

I've addressed this already, but I'll repeat myself just for you. Despite the fact that I am a gameplayer and focus all of my time as a NationStates player on Gameplay, I do not believe that only gameplay related proposals are worth the SC's time. I absolutely support roleplay CC's and other things of the sort. I'm not one of those elitist players that expects everyone to only enjoy the way I play and that everyone else is beneath me. I really hope you don't think that of me.

Please. It is without question that Tiago Silva deserves a commendation - his contributions were so significant to a mechanical aspect of the game that he was praised by Max Barry. If you were truly so concerned about the quality of writing, you would have offered a replacement yourself. But you didn't, and that's because flag making is not truly commendable. I don't doubt you when you say you don't believe gameplay actions are the only commendable ones, but it is undeniable that the almost exclusive use of the SC by the power structure of the NS Gameplay World has established a concept of what is and isn't commendable so ubiquitous that it insidiously undermines the worth of other major contributions in the eyes of the members of that very power structure. Unless you, yourself, off a replacement, seeing as your "argument" against the original was its quality of writing, you can't expect anyone to take your argument seriously.

Maybe I will try my hand at writing a replacement myself. The thing is, this is my first ever serious attempt at a Security Council proposal, and I thought I had a pretty good shot at getting this one through (according to the current votes, it was a pretty solid guess). Do not take my lack of at-the-ready replacement as an indication that I don't actually believe that what Tiago Silva did was worth a shoutout. I'd honestly really like to see a better quality commendation passed for Silva, but the idea I had when I wrote this (high at 3:30 AM) was that it wouldn't be me, the no-name gameplayer who has never even spoken to the guy, who would write it for him

EDIT: formatting error

[Zaolat]

Don't worry I got ya back Kothles.

[Great Brigantia]

There is no arbitrary standard for which contributions merit WA recognition. Tiago Silva's were apparently outstanding to warrant special recognition by Max in a News post; now the SC is becoming so high and mighty in its standards that that's not even good enough anymore. Meanwhile, has the repeal author himself ever contributed to annals of SC recognition himself? If not, what the fuck qualifies him to judge them in retrospect?

As the author has repeatedly stated, the primary problem is the quality of the resolution itself, not the quality of the commended nation's contributions. You can't possibly argue that the commendation is of a high enough quality to merit remaining in international law, even if you believe Tiago Silva's contributions deserve Security Council commendation.

Because Kenny.... They did not engage in gameplay, therefore they don't deserve recognition obviously /sarcasm. With this new standard, I highly expect someone will go after yours soon enough, so you better get out there and raid some regions.

Please. It is without question that Tiago Silva deserves a commendation - his contributions were so significant to a mechanical aspect of the game that he was praised by Max Barry. If you were truly so concerned about the quality of writing, you would have offered a replacement yourself. But you didn't, and that's because flag making is not truly commendable. I don't doubt you when you say you don't believe gameplay actions are the only commendable ones, but it is undeniable that the almost exclusive use of the SC by the power structure of the NS Gameplay World has established a concept of what is and isn't commendable so ubiquitous that it insidiously undermines the worth of other major contributions in the eyes of the members of that very power structure. Unless you, yourself, off a replacement, seeing as your "argument" against the original was its quality of writing, you can't expect anyone to take your argument seriously.

There are plenty of nations that have been commended and condemned for non-gameplay contributions. See the commendations and condemnations of Omigodtheykilledkenny, Greater Tezdrian, Imagey Nation, Great Nepal, Sionis Prioratus, Der Fuhrer Dyszel, Bergnovinaia, Starblaydia, The Cat-Tribe, Commerce Heights, Blackhelm Confederacy, The Kraven Corporation, Glen-Rhodes, Milograd, Automagfreek, Lamoni, Ralkovia, Aglrinia, Mousebumples, Bears Armed, Sanctaria, Abacathea, and Yohannes. These are 23 commendations and condemnations that have little or nothing to do with gameplay contributions. Several of them were written by gameplayers.

There are also other commendations and condemnations of prominent gameplayers that include significant non-gameplay contributions. Your argument that gameplay has established some unwritten rule that only gameplay actions are worthy of Security Council commendation or condemnation isn't reflected by reality.

[United Concordian States]

Any nation who votes for this should be nukes into obliteration. If you delve into the author's history, you'll find that he is a raider, that joined the WA just so he could write this, and then left the WA. As of the exact moment of posting this, he is not a WA member, he resigned after writing this. The United Concordian States votes against this resolution on the grounds that it is written by a tyrannical, and oppressive leader who is a member of a raider region, The Brotherhood of Malice.

AGAINST. (Anyone who is for should be shot)

Ignoring the blatant flaming, don't sell me short. I'm the CO-FOUNDER of The Brotherhood of Malice. While you're at it, I should also mention that I'm the highest ranked member of the Black Riders that is not part of the General Staff, I'm a Sergeant in The Black Hawks, and I couped Osiris in the name of Malice and established a raider government that is still active today.

But all that has literally nothing to do with the proposal at hand. I resigned WA so that I could take up membership on another nation Anonymouse, which is currently endorsing Ramaeus. Any other "scandalous" behavior you want to drag up so that you can further your irrelevant argument against my proposal?

If you want to continue attacking me instead of critiquing the proposal at hand, I'd be happy to take this to a different forum

I'm not attacking you, but I'm questioning your credentials as a WA member. Raiding is something the security council is 100% against, and as a raider yourself I feel that you don't have the authority to write a proposal that removes a commendation. The proposal in itself is fine and well written but I question the legality of the status of the proposal, because if the security council stands to CONDEMN raiders and military aggressors, why do they have a legal right to author proposals? I did not mean to personally attack you but rather I meant to question your status as a legal author. If I did offend or anything of that nature, I do apologize. My wording was harsh and I didn't think to read over it before I posted. I do apologize if you were offended. But I just do not believe that as a raider who clearly has admitted to committing raids, you can join the WA and author a proposal.

[Ambroscus Koth]

Ignoring the blatant flaming, don't sell me short. I'm the CO-FOUNDER of The Brotherhood of Malice. While you're at it, I should also mention that I'm the highest ranked member of the Black Riders that is not part of the General Staff, I'm a Sergeant in The Black Hawks, and I couped Osiris in the name of Malice and established a raider government that is still active today.

But all that has literally nothing to do with the proposal at hand. I resigned WA so that I could take up membership on another nation Anonymouse, which is currently endorsing Ramaeus. Any other "scandalous" behavior you want to drag up so that you can further your irrelevant argument against my proposal?

If you want to continue attacking me instead of critiquing the proposal at hand, I'd be happy to take this to a different forum

I'm not attacking you, but I'm questioning your credentials as a WA member. Raiding is something the security council is 100% against, and as a raider yourself I feel that you don't have the authority to write a proposal that removes a commendation. The proposal in itself is fine and well written but I question the legality of the status of the proposal, because if the security council stands to CONDEMN raiders and military aggressors, why do they have a legal right to author proposals? I did not mean to personally attack you but rather I meant to question your status as a legal author. If I did offend or anything of that nature, I do apologize. My wording was harsh and I didn't think to read over it before I posted. I do apologize if you were offended. But I just do not believe that as a raider who clearly has admitted to committing raids, you can join the WA and author a proposal.

I am absolutely allowed to author proposals, no matter my gameplay alignment. When I became a raider, I didn't have to tick a box on the site signing away my right to participate in the World Assembly, that would be asinine.

Also, your argument is patently false because not only have plenty of raiders contributed to the Security Council as authors, some of them have even been COMMENDED by this body as well!

[Aurum Rider]

I'm not attacking you, but I'm questioning your credentials as a WA member. Raiding is something the security council is 100% against, and as a raider yourself I feel that you don't have the authority to write a proposal that removes a commendation. The proposal in itself is fine and well written but I question the legality of the status of the proposal, because if the security council stands to CONDEMN raiders and military aggressors, why do they have a legal right to author proposals? I did not mean to personally attack you but rather I meant to question your status as a legal author. If I did offend or anything of that nature, I do apologize. My wording was harsh and I didn't think to read over it before I posted. I do apologize if you were offended. But I just do not believe that as a raider who clearly has admitted to committing raids, you can join the WA and author a proposal.

So what you are saying, is that no raider, ever, can propose anything to the security council, for the sole fact that they are a raider?

[Arkotania]

It's said that gameplay is not the only measure, but many arguements are made when determining how to vote on a SC proposal that seem to focus excessively on Gameplay. Especially when condemning itself is almost exclusively gameplay and commending seems to be heading in that direction.

The resolution might not be pretty, but it was decided that he should be commended and I stand behind it. Thus I am AGAINST this repeal.

[Great Brigantia]

It's said that gameplay is not the only measure, but many arguements are made when determining how to vote on a SC proposal that seem to focus excessively on Gameplay. Especially when condemning itself is almost exclusively gameplay and commending seems to be heading in that direction.

The resolution might not be pretty, but it was decided that he should be commended and I stand behind it. Thus I am AGAINST this repeal.

Or you could actually read reality, a few posts up.

[Arkotania]

It's said that gameplay is not the only measure, but many arguements are made when determining how to vote on a SC proposal that seem to focus excessively on Gameplay. Especially when condemning itself is almost exclusively gameplay and commending seems to be heading in that direction.

The resolution might not be pretty, but it was decided that he should be commended and I stand behind it. Thus I am AGAINST this repeal.

Or you could actually read reality, a few posts up.

And like I said, enough people then had decided it warranted a commendation. I don't understand how one can be commended by the community at one point, then later on its decided they aren't worthy enough later.

However, by the look of things it seems like repeal is a significant possibility...

[Ambroscus Koth]

Or you could actually read reality, a few posts up.

And like I said, enough people then had decided it warranted a commendation. I don't understand how one can be commended by the community at one point, then later on its decided they aren't worthy enough later.

However, by the look of things it seems like repeal is a significant possibility...

A grand total of 8 commendations have been repealed since they passed. This is literally the reason why repeals exist.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

There is no arbitrary standard for which contributions merit WA recognition. Tiago Silva's were apparently outstanding to warrant special recognition by Max in a News post; now the SC is becoming so high and mighty in its standards that that's not even good enough anymore. Meanwhile, has the repeal author himself ever contributed to annals of SC recognition himself? If not, what the fuck qualifies him to judge them in retrospect?

Oooh, bringing out the big guns! The standard for quality in a WA resolution is merely a comparison to the rest of the resolutions that still stand. There's a pretty stark difference in quality between this commendation and many other standing resolutions. I don't think that there is an "arbitrary standard".

Of course there's an arbitrary standard at play here, and you yourself define it by measuring this resolution against other passed commendations. You wail that the resolution is only three sentences long. Well, so what? Honestly, I wish more commendations were shorter and sweeter and easier to digest than all these long treatises that do nothing but rattle off players' "resumes" and try to fit in everything a player has ever done in NationStates. That's incredibly boring. This resolution sought to single out a player for something different, and in my book that's something to admire, not something to scorn because it somehow doesn't stack up to all those long-winded accolades about players' roles in feeder coups and regional governments and offsite forums and other such nonsense.

You also bemoan the fact that many other players create flags and aren't commended so neither should this guy be. Yeah, and there's a lot of players who have contributed to regional offsite forums, served in defender organizations, got elected to positions in regional governments, and played a role in repelling coups against Feeders or helped defend smaller regions from attack. Many more players like this than the ones currently on the SC honor role. Does that mean we repeal all the commendations on the books that cite those types of accomplishments? Certainly not.

In regards to my status as an SC author (or lack thereof), that's a pretty shitty argument. What, because this is the first proposal I've submitted (not written, mind you), I'm not allowed to repeal a resolution based on writing quality? I've been on-and-off involved in the Security Council (admittedly, it's been a rather long time since I've routinely posted on new drafts) for a while now. Obviously not nearly as long as you, based Kenny, but enough to be pretty well acquainted with the expectations people have for a proposal if they want it to go through. I honestly do not believe that if Tiago Silva was to be commended right now, in 2015, with a resolution of the same quality as the one I'm repealing, it would pass. That's all.

Haven't been too impressed by your previous drafts. Forgive me if this particular one doesn't wow me. And are you trying to call me "biased" there? Well, yes. Obviously, I am biased, I have opinions, and I choose to post them here. It's the entire point to participating in debate.

[Ambroscus Koth]

Of course there's an arbitrary standard at play here, and you yourself define it by measuring this resolution against other passed commendations. You wail that the resolution is only three sentences long. Well, so what? Honestly, I wish more commendations were shorter and sweeter and easier to digest than all these long treatises that do nothing but rattle off players' "resumes" and try to fit in everything a player has ever done in NationStates. That's incredibly boring. This resolution sought to single out a player for something different, and in my book that's something to admire, not something to scorn because it somehow doesn't stack up to all those long-winded accolades about players' roles in feeder coups and regional governments and offsite forums and other such nonsense.

Eh, I consider it much more common sense and abstract than arbitrary but hey, whatever. I don't really see what's so bad about putting all of a nation's accomplishments in one nice place, easily accessible from their page should it pass, in addition to giving the nations of the world a nice overview of the history of a fellow player they may have never spoken to before. Let's be real, unless you're writing something awesomely controversial, literally all legislation is boring.

In any case, we'll see who agrees with my assessment on the resolution. Given the current vote, I'd say a good portion of the world

You also bemoan the fact that many other players create flags and aren't commended so neither should this guy be. Yeah, and there's a lot of players who have contributed to regional offsite forums, served in defender organizations, got elected to positions in regional governments, and played a role in repelling coups against Feeders or helped defend smaller regions from attack. Many more players like this than the ones currently on the SC honor role. Does that mean we repeal all the commendations on the books that cite those types of accomplishments? Certainly not.

Wail, bemoan, so many powerful verbs at play here! If I ever actually get to the point where I am doing either of those things over a browser game, please send help.

You have a point, but it's wrapped in hyperbole. Of course there have been plenty of gameplayers who have done the things you've listed and not been recognized by the SC for them...yet. It typically takes a fair bit of becoming well-known in their area of the game before nations who eventually get CC's passed on them before they have a chance at getting written into the books. Come on, how many times have we as a playerbase shat on proposals to commend/condemn nations for being too new or obscure? My point being that it's usually only the best get into the books, not every bozo who wins a regional election.

Haven't been too impressed by your previous drafts. Forgive me if this particular one doesn't wow me. And are you trying to call me "biased" there? Well, yes. Obviously, I am biased, I have opinions, and I choose to post them here. It's the entire point to participating in debate.

Two things here: I haven't actually written multiple drafts, the only other SC endeavor I've ever actually written before this was A joke proposal nearly 3 years ago, perhaps you've got me confused with someone else?

Secondly, I was just making a reference to the Based God, not a typo of "biased". The fact that you're shitting on me evidently means that I'm now all the way down the WA rabbit hole, right?