[PASSED] Condemn Stujenske

by **Sedgistan** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:40 pm

Yao wrote:Illegal. Can't commend anyone in your condemnation.

I'm not sure if this relates to a previous version of the text, but there's nothing in the current version that looking like an additional operative clause.

Jean Pierre Trudeau - you've made your point, don't threadjack further. Discuss the proposal, or don't post.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:44 pm

Sedgistan wrote:
Yao wrote:Illegal. Can't commend anyone in your condemnation.

I'm not sure if this relates to a previous version of the text, but there's nothing in the current version that looking like an additional operative clause.

"Urging all members" sounds an awful lot like operative language to me. If this were a GA repeal, it would have been kicked on sight.

by **Sedgistan** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:50 pm

"Urging", "Encouraging" and similar are filler in the SC.

by **Drop Your Pants** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:06 am

Against, not needed or helpful.

by **Clorp** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:04 am

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
Toronina wrote:I don't know who Coupy is but Cormac is Lazmac.

Good for him. You can't have more than one puppet now?

1 minute ago: Coupy resigned from the World Assembly

A typical Cormac strategy. Submit and resign, so he can use one of his 50 or so puppets to defend.

So the submitter of this proposal does not even stick around to defend his work? Shameful. Voting strongly against.

by **Nephmir** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:35 am

Is this all it takes to get condemned now? :meh:

by **Unibot III** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:11 am

This looks like it could be edited to be far stronger as a proposal.

Make advice would be to:

- Start right off with what's happened in Lazarus. First clause. Cut the filler at the top.
- Cut down on the 'shocked' and 'horrified' - keep it more factual based. He did this, he did that and then he did this. Then recount in a penultimate clause, why this is intolerable with a few broad strokes.
- Picking a fight with the Pacific seems unnecessary - you could just say, 'foreign troops'. That much is obvious.
- The last four clauses seem good, bit controversial, but in a good way - the kind that pushes boundaries.

by **Onderkelkia** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:23 am

Unibot III wrote:- Picking a fight with the Pacific seems unnecessary - you could just say, 'foreign troops'.

The Pacific is picking its own fights by choosing (once again) to launch a coup in Lazarus.

Unless you are seriously asking people to ignore the role of Feux or the use of the NPO's flag. If instead of The Pacific, it was an Imperialist region in this position, we all know what you would be saying.

It may be politically inconvenient, but you're going to have to face the facts.

by **Unibot III** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:45 pm

My point was the entire debate would be derailed about whether NPO is or isn't involved.

by **Solorni** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:45 pm

Unibot III wrote:My point was the entire debate would be derailed about whether NPO is or isn't involved.

Linky to this debate and derailment?

by **Coupy** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:35 pm

I hate to agree with Onder

, Uni, but he's correct. There's no point of shying away from the NPO's involvement in this event, though I can concur with making a few tweaks for a stronger proposal. Had it been today I submit it, a couple more clauses and changes could've been made as the situation is still ongoing.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:36 pm

Sedgistan wrote:"Urging", "Encouraging" and similar are filler in the SC.

They constitute specific instructions to nations, even if they are mild. I have next to nothing to do with the SC, Lazarus or the nominee, yet the resolution is telling me it is my moral duty to support the exiled government of Lazarus. It is not an appropriate provision to include in a mere condemnation.

by **Feux** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:39 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Sedgistan wrote:"Urging", "Encouraging" and similar are filler in the SC.

They constitute specific instructions to nations, even if they are mild. I have next to nothing to do with the SC, Lazarus or the nominee, yet the resolution is telling me it is my moral duty to support the exiled government of Lazarus. It is not an appropriate provision to include in a mere condemnation.

They have been used in other SC proposals, though the ones that come to mind are just liberations.

by **Pollaetorian** » Sat Apr 11, 2015 9:14 pm

I feel the condemnation with meaningless now if the NPO stuff is excised.

by **Feux** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:23 pm

I told him he would get one of these.

by **Wineclaw** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:21 pm

Pollaetorian wrote:I feel the condemnation with meaningless now if the NPO stuff is excised.

Only voted FOR because I want to see what happens when you condemn a red herring.

by **201** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:36 pm

The delegate and/or owner of a region has every right to eject/ban any country from a region without cause or need of reason.

The condemming is un-needed, and I can't see why the international community should care about this internal region strife. We have chosen to vote against this resulution.

by **Tim Stark** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:43 pm

Given that the NPO has now revealed its involvement in this matter, I see it appropriate to indeed pass a Condemnation of Stujenske for so that the international community may see what tyrants the NPO really are, and what they do to subvert regions to their will. Previously, I was under the assumption that Stoogensky was acting on his own behalf and therefore would be fine with being Condemned. Now, however, I imagine a condemnation could certainly help the liberation efforts.

My only issue with it is we can put even more details now, but that's not anybody's fault, given that things such as the purge of high-influence natives happened post-submission.

by **Lamoni** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:44 am

Tentative yes vote so far, but would it really be appropriate to provide Stujenske with a perverse badge of honor? That is what Stujenske and any other involved parties will likely take it as, after all.

by **Malkorian Empire** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:58 am

No. If you are going to condemn anyone for their actions at least wait until what the change has to offer becomes apparent. Right now, everyone making a fuss about it seems like theyre upset that the something is CHANGING. Be it for better or for worse? Only time will tell, but at least give it a MONTH.

by **Ciladan** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:19 am

I like how Stujenske has voted for this; really is a no lose situation for him.

by **Pergamon** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:09 am

I'd like to see us honored this way. Thank you.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:26 pm

Lamoni wrote:Tentative yes vote so far, but would it really be appropriate to provide Stujenske with a perverse badge of honor? That is what Stujenske and any other involved parties will likely take it as, after all.

That might be true, except that condemnations are never about how the nominee will react to the badge, just about making the nominees' foes feel better about themselves. Yes, it is quite perverse. Opposed.

by **Gonalla** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:51 pm

Is it pronounced Stoo-jehn-skay or Stoo-yehn-skay (or something else)?

by **Jean Pierre Trudeau** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:53 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Lamoni wrote:Tentative yes vote so far, but would it really be appropriate to provide Stujenske with a perverse badge of honor? That is what Stujenske and any other involved parties will likely take it as, after all.

That might be true, except that condemnations are never about how the nominee will react to the badge, just about making the nominees' foes feel better about themselves. Yes, it is quite perverse. Opposed.

Condemning Stuj will do nothing. Going after Krull, Feux, and AMOM will though.

[PASSED] Condemn Stujenske

Who is online