[DEFEATED] Repeal "Condemn Vandoosa"

[Wallenburg]

Repeal "Condemn Vandoosa"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: SC#188 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Applauding international efforts to combat raiding;

Recognizing that condemnations do little to discourage raiding, and often serve as badges of honor to prominent raiders;

Alarmed at the assertions that Vandoosa participated in raiding Alternate World History and is its current delegate to the World Assembly, both of which are incorrect;

Dismissing the claim that the Glorious Nations of Iwaku have fallen apart due to Vandoosa's actions, considering that the region has not fallen at all, and is actually quite successful;

Questioning Vandoosa's true impact on the international community, and recognizing the lack of evidence for many of the claims in the condemnation of Vandoosa;

Noting the dissonance of condemning Vandoosa for supposedly injuring the Glorious Nations of Iwaku, yet explicitly stating the further injury of this region's activity as one of the condemnation's main goals;

Believing that nations should not be condemned on false pretenses;

Observing no benefit to any nation but Vandoosa itself in the continued existence of SC#188;

The World Assembly hereby repeals SC#188, "Condemn Vandoosa".

EDIT 1: Split fourth clause into two sentences. Replaced commas with semicolons.
EDIT 2: Swapped ALL CAPS for sexy italics.
EDIT 3: Added the sixth clause.
EDIT 4: Added the fifth clause.
EDIT 5: Moved things around for clarity. Added the seventh clause.
EDIT 6: Repaired end punctuation and reworked the fourth clause, turning it back into one sentence.
EDIT 7: Tweaked the fifth clause by adding "recognizing" to it for clarity.
EDIT 8: Replaced "healthy" with "successful" in the fourth clause.

[Dark Commander]

QUESTIONING the claim that Glorious Nations of Iwaku has fallen apart due to Vandoosa's actions, when the region has not fallen at all, and is actually quite healthy.

This feels a bit drawn out, almost on the verge of being a run on sentence. I would place a period after "actions," and then add "on the contrary."

[Wallenburg]

QUESTIONING the claim that Glorious Nations of Iwaku has fallen apart due to Vandoosa's actions, when the region has not fallen at all, and is actually quite healthy.

This feels a bit drawn out, almost on the verge of being a run on sentence. I would place a period after "actions," and then add "on the contrary."

Not sure how it seems drawn out, but that sentence structure works better. Editing.

[We Are Not the NSA]

APPLAUDING international efforts to combat raiding;

Booooooooooooo!

RECOGNIZING that condemnations do little to discourage raiding, and often serve as badges of honor to prominent raiders;

[rant]As I've said before, I absolutely despise this argument. Everybody already knows that raiders don't give two craps about condemnations, condemnations have never had the goal of discouraging already established raiders from raiding. The point is to alert other players about raiding and discourage them from raiding. Nobody should care that raiders like being condemned, and it's not a valid argument to either repeal a condemnation or not pass a condemnation. In fact, this very argument calls into question why the security council even exists! Condemnations have no negative side effects, so what's the point of even writing them! There isn't a single condemnation that has been passed in my time on this site that has actually made someone say "I guess I should be less evil." THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF CONDEMNATIONS!!! It's like if people said, "hmmm... Raiders enjoy combating defenders, therefor we should not only not defend anyone anymore, but we should raid all of the regions we've previously liberated! It's the perfect plan!" It's SOOOOOO #$@$ing stupid, and I hate it when people treat it as a valid argument. >:| [/rant]

ALARMED at the assertions that Vandoosa participated in raiding Alternate World History and is its current delegate to the World Assembly, both of which are incorrect,

Both of these points are valid. If I remember correctly, the condemnation states that Vandy helped raid the wrong region.

QUESTIONING the claim that Glorious Nations of Iwaku has fallen apart due to Vandoosa's actions. On the contrary, the region has not fallen at all, and is actually quite healthy;

Another good point. Iwaku is doing fine.

OBSERVING no benefit to any nation but Vandoosa itself in the continued existence of SC#188;

The author benefits. #argumentshredded

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY REPEALS SC#188, "Condemn Vandoosa".

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTOL FOR COOL!!! <--- That's a joke, not a critisism.

Overall, it could use some more meat, but it brings some valid points to the table.

[Wallenburg]

RECOGNIZING that condemnations do little to discourage raiding, and often serve as badges of honor to prominent raiders;

As I've said before, I absolutely despise this argument. Everybody already knows that raiders don't give two craps about condemnations, condemnations have never had the goal of discouraging already established raiders from raiding. The point is to alert other players about raiding and discourage them from raiding. Nobody should care that raiders like being condemned, and it's not a valid argument to either repeal a condemnation or not pass a condemnation. In fact, this very argument calls into question why the security council even exists! Condemnations have no negative side effects, so what's the point of even writing them! There isn't a single condemnation that has been passed in my time on this site that has actually made someone say "I guess I should be less evil." THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF CONDEMNATIONS!!! It's like if people said, "hmmm... Raiders enjoy combating defenders, therefor we should not only not defend anyone anymore, but we should raid all of the regions we've previously liberated! It's the perfect plan!" It's SOOOOOO #$@$ing stupid, and I hate it when people treat it as a valid argument. >:|

Well, I'll have to disagree with you. I might even set up a De-Medaling Committee to deal with other ones!

OBSERVING no benefit to any nation but Vandoosa itself in the continued existence of SC#188;

The author benefits. #argumentshredded

Oh noes! :0

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTOL FOR COOL!!! <--- That's a joke, not a critisism.

It does look weird though. I'll change it to hoity-toity italics.

Overall, it could use some more meat, but it brings some valid points to the table.

Thank you. I'll go through the debate on the target and see if anyone had other standing arguments against it.

[Wallenburg]

After reading over the original debate, I've added another clause to the repeal.

[The Silver Sentinel]

I see even less reason to support this, than Tims proposal. The fact is Vandoosa deserves a condemnation, and the fact that it is shittily written makes it even sweeter. On top of that, Tim has a perfectly good draft in the works, and this seems like nothing more than an attempt to ninja in and try to grab an authorship badge. Pretty low move if you ask me. The fact that Tim is a major delegate, and you are a nobody pretty much assure that Tim has a far greater chance of being successful, than you do. I suggest (not that you will even consider it) is to drop this and let Tim deal with it.

[Wallenburg]

I see even less reason to support this, than Tims proposal. The fact is Vandoosa deserves a condemnation, and the fact that it is shittily written makes it even sweeter. On top of that, Tim has a perfectly good draft in the works, and this seems like nothing more than an attempt to ninja in and try to grab an authorship badge. Pretty low move if you ask me. The fact that Tim is a major delegate, and you are a nobody pretty much assure that Tim has a far greater chance of being successful, than you do. I suggest (not that you will even consider it) is to drop this and let Tim deal with it.

It's funny that you think that, after a month of inactivity on that thread, I am somehow "ninja'ing in" on this repeal effort. And you can leave your snark at the doorstep, because it only makes your posts more childish.

I will continue to work on this.

[The Silver Sentinel]

I see even less reason to support this, than Tims proposal. The fact is Vandoosa deserves a condemnation, and the fact that it is shittily written makes it even sweeter. On top of that, Tim has a perfectly good draft in the works, and this seems like nothing more than an attempt to ninja in and try to grab an authorship badge. Pretty low move if you ask me. The fact that Tim is a major delegate, and you are a nobody pretty much assure that Tim has a far greater chance of being successful, than you do. I suggest (not that you will even consider it) is to drop this and let Tim deal with it.

It's funny that you think that, after a month of inactivity on that thread, I am somehow "ninja'ing in" on this repeal effort. And you can leave your snark at the doorstep, because it only makes your posts more childish.

I will continue to work on this.

A whole month of inactivity? My god, what has the SC come to? What is your take in this? Why do you need this repealed so bad? How did the condemnation of Vandy affect you in any way? Like I said, you are attempting to ninja a badge on an unpopular resolution, and nothing more.

[Wallenburg]

It's funny that you think that, after a month of inactivity on that thread, I am somehow "ninja'ing in" on this repeal effort. And you can leave your snark at the doorstep, because it only makes your posts more childish.

I will continue to work on this.

A whole month of inactivity? My god, what has the SC come to? What is your take in this? Why do you need this repealed so bad? How did the condemnation of Vandy affect you in any way? Like I said, you are attempting to ninja a badge on an unpopular resolution, and nothing more.

As I recall, you couldn't even wait a week on Civilian Aircraft Accord to submit it, and you just up and submitted your repeal of Preserving Antimicrobials after months of inactivity, so I wouldn't be talking shit like you are about being impatient.

[The Silver Sentinel]

A whole month of inactivity? My god, what has the SC come to? What is your take in this? Why do you need this repealed so bad? How did the condemnation of Vandy affect you in any way? Like I said, you are attempting to ninja a badge on an unpopular resolution, and nothing more.

As I recall, you couldn't even wait a week on Civilian Aircraft Accord to submit it, and you just up and submitted your repeal of Preserving Antimicrobials after months of inactivity, so I wouldn't be talking shit like you are about being impatient.

Precisely. My repeal of Antimicrobials had been on the boards for months, and was getting no activity, so I submitted it. The timing on the submission of the CAA was a joint decision between SP and myself, as we felt it was ready to go. You on the other hand are so desperate for a badge that you will try and ninja one. It is nice to see that instead of answering my question, you fire back with an ad homoniem attack? Good to know how this debate will proceed. I shall go prepare my counter-campaign and have it ready.

[Wallenburg]

As I recall, you couldn't even wait a week on Civilian Aircraft Accord to submit it, and you just up and submitted your repeal of Preserving Antimicrobials after months of inactivity, so I wouldn't be talking shit like you are about being impatient.

Precisely. My repeal of Antimicrobials had been on the boards for months, and was getting no activity, so I submitted it. The timing on the submission of the CAA was a joint decision between SP and myself, as we felt it was ready to go. You on the other hand are so desperate for a badge that you will try and ninja one. It is nice to see that instead of answering my question, you fire back with an ad homoniem attack? Good to know how this debate will proceed. I shall go prepare my counter-campaign and have it ready.

When all you post is "urgh, badge hunter!!!", I don't really feel like showing you any kinder responses. After all, in your own words:

You want to be a smart ass, you will get it back in spades young fella.

And although I know you will ignore this like you always do, I'm not hunting for a badge. I don't give half a shit about the badge.

[The Silver Sentinel]

And although I know you will ignore this like you always do, I'm not hunting for a badge. I don't give half a shit about the badge.

Then once again, why the repeal? You are not involved in gameplay, so what is your stake in this?

[Wallenburg]

And although I know you will ignore this like you always do, I'm not hunting for a badge. I don't give half a shit about the badge.

Then once again, why the repeal? You are not involved in gameplay, so what is your stake in this?

Must I have a stake in it to draft a repeal? I didn't know that was a requirement. After all, I'm staring at the "Submit Proposal to Repeal" button right now.

Is it not enough to see a bad resolution and want to help cleanse the record of its text? If Tim-Opolis submits his draft, I'd be more than happy to see it pass. If not, mine will certainly do well in its stead.

[The Silver Sentinel]

Then once again, why the repeal? You are not involved in gameplay, so what is your stake in this?

Must I have a stake in it to draft a repeal? I didn't know that was a requirement. After all, I'm staring at the "Submit Proposal to Repeal" button right now.

Is it not enough to see a bad resolution and want to help cleanse the record of its text? If Tim-Opolis submits his draft, I'd be more than happy to see it pass. If not, mine will certainly do well in its stead.

No dice in my opinion. Passing shittily written condemnations of prolific raiders is the best thing that we can do. I know I wouldn't want a terrible resolution written about me. Raiders happen to like having condemnation badges, so giving them one that is terribly written is the best solution in my opinion.

[Wallenburg]

Must I have a stake in it to draft a repeal? I didn't know that was a requirement. After all, I'm staring at the "Submit Proposal to Repeal" button right now.

Is it not enough to see a bad resolution and want to help cleanse the record of its text? If Tim-Opolis submits his draft, I'd be more than happy to see it pass. If not, mine will certainly do well in its stead.

No dice in my opinion. Passing shittily written condemnations of prolific raiders is the best thing that we can do. I know I wouldn't want a terrible resolution written about me. Raiders happen to like having condemnation badges, so giving them one that is terribly written is the best solution in my opinion.

I'll have to disagree. Giving them any condemnation is an honor to them. You would dislike a poorly written resolution about you because you actually give a shit about the WA. With regard to the vast majority of raiders though, we may as well do our best to reserve condemnations for those who don't want them.

[Xoriet]

I'll have to disagree. Giving them any condemnation is an honor to them. You would dislike a poorly written resolution about you because you actually give a shit about the WA. With regard to the vast majority of raiders though, we may as well do our best to reserve condemnations for those who don't want them.

Actually, you should reserve them for those who deserve them. That logic leads to only giving Commendations to those who don't want them.

[Wallenburg]

I'll have to disagree. Giving them any condemnation is an honor to them. You would dislike a poorly written resolution about you because you actually give a shit about the WA. With regard to the vast majority of raiders though, we may as well do our best to reserve condemnations for those who don't want them.

Actually, you should reserve them for those who deserve them. That logic leads to only giving Commendations to those who don't want them.

No it doesn't. At all. You should only condemn those who don't want to be condemned because, if they want it, you are rewarding them when you are trying to punish them. You don't want to reward people who do bad things. When writing commendations, you should only commend those who want to be commended, because a commendation is supposed to be a reward.

[Ayvari]

Actually, you should reserve them for those who deserve them. That logic leads to only giving Commendations to those who don't want them.

No it doesn't. At all. You should only condemn those who don't want to be condemned because, if they want it, you are rewarding them when you are trying to punish them. You don't want to reward people who do bad things. When writing commendations, you should only commend those who want to be commended, because a commendation is supposed to be a reward.

Silly Wallenburg, a Condemnation these days is a Commendation for players on the wrong side of the perceived spectrum of good and evil! It also informs people why this person should be Condemned, which eases up extremely silly accusations made up out of the fluff of the brain. Otherwise you may end up Condemning someone who doesn't deserve it at all just because they don't want one.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Actually, you should reserve them for those who deserve them. That logic leads to only giving Commendations to those who don't want them.

No it doesn't. At all. You should only condemn those who don't want to be condemned because, if they want it, you are rewarding them when you are trying to punish them. You don't want to reward people who do bad things. When writing commendations, you should only commend those who want to be commended, because a commendation is supposed to be a reward.

I don't agree. I've always thought of condemnations as a reward for playing the game well in an evil manner. You condemn OMGTKK for playing well. You condemn TBR for playing well.

[Herby]

No it doesn't. At all. You should only condemn those who don't want to be condemned because, if they want it, you are rewarding them when you are trying to punish them. You don't want to reward people who do bad things. When writing commendations, you should only commend those who want to be commended, because a commendation is supposed to be a reward.

I don't agree. I've always thought of condemnations as a reward for playing the game well in an evil manner. You condemn OMGTKK for playing well. You condemn TBR for playing well.

Yeah this exactly. Kenny's dolphin killing RP is the shit, it's hilarious, especially his banners. He deserves his condemnation for that. As for raiders, who cares if they want it or not, or if it's a recruiting tool, or whatever. We condemn nations who deserve it for in-character play, not, as the rules point out, for player transgressions. You want to repeal a condemn because someone was found to be cheating after the fact, or because the resolution is factually wrong or is written poorly, or because they've changed IC and gone fenda, fine, those are good reasons. "They want this badge/it's a badge of honor" is not.

[Wallenburg]

No it doesn't. At all. You should only condemn those who don't want to be condemned because, if they want it, you are rewarding them when you are trying to punish them. You don't want to reward people who do bad things. When writing commendations, you should only commend those who want to be commended, because a commendation is supposed to be a reward.

I don't agree. I've always thought of condemnations as a reward for playing the game well in an evil manner. You condemn OMGTKK for playing well. You condemn TBR for playing well.

Well, we clearly have different opinions on raiding. In any case, from the information that I have gathered on Vandoosa, they didn't do a very good job at ruining people's lives, and we really shouldn't be condemning people for things that they haven't done.

[Herby]

I don't agree. I've always thought of condemnations as a reward for playing the game well in an evil manner. You condemn OMGTKK for playing well. You condemn TBR for playing well.

Well, we clearly have different opinions on raiding. In any case, from the information that I have gathered on Vandoosa, they didn't do a very good job at ruining people's lives, and we really shouldn't be condemning people for things that they haven't done.

To add to my previous post, okay yeah, I'll buy that rationale if that's the basis of your repeal.

[Wallenburg]

I've made a couple changes and shifted the repeal toward a more facts-based argument.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Repeal "Condemn Vandoosa"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: SC#188 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Applauding international efforts to combat raiding;

Boo!

Recognizing that condemnations do little to discourage raiding, and often serve as badges of honor to prominent raiders;

[Insert rant here]

Alarmed at the assertions that Vandoosa participated in raiding Alternate World History and is its current delegate to the World Assembly, both of which are incorrect,

I think focusing on the fact that there was no raid on AWH would be smart. Either way this sentence does not flow well.

Dismissing the claim that the Glorious Nations of Iwaku have fallen apart due to Vandoosa's actions. On the contrary, the region has not fallen at all, and is actually quite healthy;

I'm not liking the word "healthy" here. "Doing well" or something like that would sound better.

Questioning Vandoosa's true impact on the international community, and the lack of evidence for many of the claims in the condemnation of Vandoosa.

This clause interupts a chain of thought, and should be moved. Switching it with the clause above would be best.

Noting the dissonance of condemning Vandoosa for supposedly injuring the Glorious Nations of Iwaku, yet explicitly stating the further injury of this region's activity as one of the condemnation's main goals;

Believing that nations should not be condemned on false pretenses;

Observing no benefit to any nation but Vandoosa itself in the continued existence of SC#188;

I still dislike this clause.