[SHELVED FOR FUTURE USE] Condemn Tab1of2

[Wallenburg]

Condemn Tab1of2

---

Category: Condemnation || Nominee: Tab1of2 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Noting that the World Assembly is a body committed to peace and international goodwill, and not a forum for pushing through poorly written and ridiculous legislation;

Recognizing that Tab1of2 has repeatedly used the Security Council in attempts to tarnish the reputations of nations and regions not deserving of condemnations;

Further recognizing that Tab1of2 has shown complete disregard for the standard, accepted, and essential drafting process for World Assembly proposals;

Highlighting that this nation's most recent proposal to the security council to condemn the World Assembly has nothing to do with that region's own policy, and is only an underhanded attempt to punish an innocent region in an inflated demonstration of Tab1of2's dissatisfaction with the World Assembly;

Noting that Tab1of2 and disgraced ex-member nation Bitely--responsible for the objectively awful World Space Administration--have actively coordinated in both the attempted condemnation of Wallenburg and the attempted condemnation of the World Assembly;

Knowing that these histrionics have done nothing but waste weeks of the World Assembly's valuable time;

The World Assembly hereby condemns Tab1of2.

Any issues with this?

[We Are Not the NSA]

Any issues with this?

Yes, but I'm getting tired of repeating them. The best way to punish attention seekers is to ignore them.

[Vancouvia]

"Knowing that these histrionics have done nothing but waste weeks of the World Assembly's valuable time;"

Outright lie. There was nothing in the queue.

[Wallenburg]

"Knowing that these histrionics have done nothing but waste weeks of the World Assembly's valuable time;"

Outright lie. There was nothing in the queue.

It doesn't have to be in queue. That Wallenburg's condemnation went to vote--and that the condemnation of the World Assembly is very likely to do so--is far more wasteful than simply sitting around in quorum.

[Central Asian Republics]

There was nothing in the queue.

Does that mean I can pump out as much rubbish as I can and expect anyone to sit down and deal with it? No.

[Vancouvia]

"Knowing that these histrionics have done nothing but waste weeks of the World Assembly's valuable time;"

Outright lie. There was nothing in the queue.

It doesn't have to be in queue. That Wallenburg's condemnation went to vote--and that the condemnation of the World Assembly is very likely to do so--is far more wasteful than simply sitting around in quorum.

The World Assembly's time is only wasted if there is something in queue that hasn't yet gone to vote yet because something "wasteful" is currently up for vote. There was nothing in queue thus there was no waste of time.

[Wallenburg]

It doesn't have to be in queue. That Wallenburg's condemnation went to vote--and that the condemnation of the World Assembly is very likely to do so--is far more wasteful than simply sitting around in quorum.

The World Assembly's time is only wasted if there is something in queue that hasn't yet gone to yet because something "wasteful" is currently up for vote. There was nothing in queue thus there was no waste of time.

It wasted my time. Please try to find someone who believes that "Condemn Wallenburg" and "Condemn the World Assembly" aren't a waste of time.

[Wrapper]

Somebody wastes our time, so your answer to that is to waste our time with this dreck?

Please, enough already.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

"Yes. I believe a condemnation would be an appropriate slap on the wrist.... a rather heavy handed one."

[Wallenburg]

Somebody wastes our time, so your answer to that is to waste our time with this dreck?

Please, enough already.

How do you suggest we correct the problem, then?

[Central Asian Republics]

How do you suggest we correct the problem, then?

That's the problem. The WA is like the Issues, every option is an extreme option.

[John Turner]

It wasted my time.

Good for you. There is this thing called an "X" in the right corner of your browser to close the browser. Time no longer wasted.

I sincerely hope that fixes your problem for you.

Somebody wastes our time, so your answer to that is to waste our time with this dreck?

Please, enough already.

How do you suggest we correct the problem, then?

By ignoring the attention seeker, much like I have began ignoring your attention seeking. Seems pretty simple.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Somebody wastes our time, so your answer to that is to waste our time with this dreck?

Please, enough already.

How do you suggest we correct the problem, then?

Any issues with this?

Yes, but I'm getting tired of repeating them. The best way to punish attention seekers is to ignore them.

[Improving Wordiness]

Does this come under the tit for tat rule?
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=23970

[John Turner]

Does this come under the tit for tat rule?
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=23970

Looks like it to me.

[Wallenburg]

It wasted my time.

Good for you. There is this thing called an "X" in the right corner of your browser to close the browser. Time no longer wasted.

I sincerely hope that fixes your problem for you.

Your sincerity is heartwarming.

How do you suggest we correct the problem, then?

By ignoring the attention seeker, much like I have began ignoring your attention seeking. Seems pretty simple.

Hmm. I didn't think it would ever happen, but you actually said something that I can agree with. I should ignore attention seekers. And there's even a forum function to block out those messages!

If you find me not responding to your posts, don't worry, it's perfectly normal. In the meantime, I'm shelving this.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Does this come under the tit for tat rule?
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=23970

Yes, as currently written.

[Cultural Liaisons Association]

How might the World Assembly, whose existence and realm are indeed revolved around histrionics, condemn a nation based on its unspecified histrionics?

This Association requires case studies. Evidence. The drudging up of international diplomatic malice that has long been settled or forgotten. The high drama of betrayal and espionage. The Opulent Citizenry's Demesne of Glamour shall only lift its steady and unfaltering finger of blame and accusation when adequate evidence is presented for its consideration.

However, the idea that the World Assembly should condemn itself (as proposed by the aforementioned nation) is held by this Association to be universally and cross-referentially shambolic, unfavourable, flacid and counterproductive to any idea of progress or idealism, based simply and objectively upon the logical collision at the crux of the proposal itself. Nonetheless, a condemnation of such a nation by the World Assembly purely for questioning the status and legitimacy of the World Assembly would constitute, in this Association's view, the World Assembly itself being abominably corrupt and a mockery of the freedom of speech. Such a turn of events might persuade this Association to vote to pass the aforementioned nation's proposal that the World Assembly ought condemn itself.

With that said, there could be grounds to persuade this Association of the argument that the entirety of the World Assembly, should it as a whole choose not to condemn the majority of itself by a clear majority of itself, would then have to accept the will of the majority of itself that it, as a whole, should be preserved, and in this instance the World Assembly would be required to purge all from within itself who are opposed to its own preservation; i.e., those aspects of (or nations amongst) its whole self who voted to condemn it - with particular focus on the aforementioned nation, since that nation was the instigator of such a proposal.

Under these hypothetical circumstances, this Association would call resolutely that the aforementioned nation be condemned, since the vote of the World Assembly as a whole would act as sufficient evidence in itself for this Association to consider specified and legal grounds for condemnation of the aforementioned nation by the World Assembly as a whole and by proxy in the vote (as yet withheld) reflected by the view of this Association, legitimate; yet even lo, action to condemn here would become not only attractive but necessary as the prism of this Association would see it refracted.

[Epiche]

Condemn Tab1of2

---

Category: Condemnation || Nominee: Tab1of2 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Noting that the World Assembly is a body committed to peace and international goodwill, and not a forum for pushing through poorly written and ridiculous legislation;

Recognizing that Tab1of2 has repeatedly used the Security Council in attempts to tarnish the reputations of nations and regions not deserving of condemnations;

Further recognizing that Tab1of2 has shown complete disregard for the standard, accepted, and essential drafting process for World Assembly proposals;

Highlighting that this nation's most recent proposal to the security council to condemn the World Assembly has nothing to do with that region's own policy, and is only an underhanded attempt to punish an innocent region in an inflated demonstration of Tab1of2's dissatisfaction with the World Assembly;

Noting that Tab1of2 and disgraced ex-member nation Bitely--responsible for the objectively awful World Space Administration--have actively coordinated in both the attempted condemnation of Wallenburg and the attempted condemnation of the World Assembly;

Knowing that these histrionics have done nothing but waste weeks of the World Assembly's valuable time;

The World Assembly hereby condemns Tab1of2.

Any issues with this?

I'm votin' for that when it hits the floor and vaults into the face of Tab1of2.

[Wallenburg]

Does this come under the tit for tat rule?
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=23970

Yes, as currently written.

How would I rectify that? That thread doesn't seem to explain much about this supposed rule, and based off of the definition of "tit-for-tat", I'm not sure how I would go about condemning Tab1of2 at all.

[Tab1of2]

Condemn Tab1of2

---

Category: Condemnation || Nominee: Tab1of2 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Noting that the World Assembly is a body committed to peace and international goodwill, and not a forum for pushing through poorly written and ridiculous legislation;

Recognizing that Tab1of2 has repeatedly used the Security Council in attempts to tarnish the reputations of nations and regions not deserving of condemnations;

Further recognizing that Tab1of2 has shown complete disregard for the standard, accepted, and essential drafting process for World Assembly proposals;

Highlighting that this nation's most recent proposal to the security council to condemn the World Assembly has nothing to do with that region's own policy, and is only an underhanded attempt to punish an innocent region in an inflated demonstration of Tab1of2's dissatisfaction with the World Assembly;

Noting that Tab1of2 and disgraced ex-member nation Bitely--responsible for the objectively awful World Space Administration--have actively coordinated in both the attempted condemnation of Wallenburg and the attempted condemnation of the World Assembly;

Knowing that these histrionics have done nothing but waste weeks of the World Assembly's valuable time;

The World Assembly hereby condemns Tab1of2.

Any issues with this?

Sounds petty to me.

[Wallenburg]

So do "Condemn Wallenburg" and "Condemn the World Assembly".

[Tab1of2]

So do "Condemn Wallenburg" and "Condemn the World Assembly".

No. For the fallowing reason: this proposal is illegal; yet Clause 3 states :

Further recognizing that Tab1of2 has shown complete disregard for the standard, accepted, and essential drafting process for World Assembly proposals;

When "Condemn Wallenburg" and "Condemn the World Assembly" are legal proposals.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So do "Condemn Wallenburg" and "Condemn the World Assembly".

No. For the fallowing reason: this proposal is illegal; yet Clause 3 states :

Further recognizing that Tab1of2 has shown complete disregard for the standard, accepted, and essential drafting process for World Assembly proposals;

When "Condemn Wallenburg" and "Condemn the World Assembly" are legal proposals.

Even if that were true it does not make it illegal in of itself.

[Wallenburg]

So do "Condemn Wallenburg" and "Condemn the World Assembly".

No. For the fallowing reason: this proposal is illegal; yet Clause 3 states :

Further recognizing that Tab1of2 has shown complete disregard for the standard, accepted, and essential drafting process for World Assembly proposals;

You only prove my point. I know that--were I to submit this as is--it would be pulled for illegality. That's the whole point of a drafting process: to repair problems, refine clauses, and strengthen proposals. You have ignored this essential process, and by that you have fathered two awful proposals.

When "Condemn Wallenburg" and "Condemn the World Assembly" are legal proposals.

Show me where I said they weren't. Why do you feel the urge to repeat what I already know? You also haven't demonstrated how your proposals aren't petty. Being legal does not protect them from being garbage.