[DRAFT] Repeal Liberate The NSIA

[The Texan Union]

The Security Council,

Observing that resolution SC#207 is intended solely to oppress a peaceful region known as The NSIA, due to its far-right views.

Noting that The NSIA's aforementioned views may be considered harmful to the residents of the nations that reside there.

Reminding the Security Council that it is not our job to allow for the invasion of innocent regions in order to enforce certain ideas upon them, or to keep to them from having "wrong" ideas.

Discouraging the Council from further encouraging Anti-Fascist group, as doing such is an encouragement of ideological warfare.

Acknowledging that the SC definition of "liberation" is as follows:

"A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region."

Arguing that this definition is simply a description of this type of resolution's process. If the founders of this council had intended these resolutions to simply allow for the invasion of regions, they wouldn't have used the word "liberation". It is believed, however, that the intended use of such resolutions is to "liberate" regions from hostile forces, for the purpose of allowing natives to maintain control of their respective homelands.

Citing SC#132 as a similar case, in which similar actions were agreed by the Council to be against the principles of the Council.

Recommending that the region be instead condemned for its harmful views, but allowed to maintain them in peace.

Hereby repeals the so-called Liberation of The NSIA.

The Security Council,

Observing Caelapes' resolution SC#207 is intended solely to oppress a peaceful region known as The NSIA, due to opposing views.

Noting that The NSIA's aforementioned views may be considered harmful to the residents of the nations that reside there.

Reminding the Security Council that it is not their job to invade innocent regions in order to enforce certain ideas upon them, or to keep to them from having "wrong" ideas.

Discouraging the SC from further encouraging Anti-Fascist group, as doing such is an encouragement of ideological warfare.

Recognizing the fact that the word "liberation" is defined as follows:

"the act of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release."

Also recognizing a second, rather ironic definition of the word:

"freedom from limits on thought or behavior."

Acknowledging that the SC definition of the word is as follows:

"A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region."

Arguing that regardless of its mechanical meaning, the founders of this council intentionally used the word "liberation" in order to assign this type of resolution a specific purpose, which is the definition of the word itself.

Recommending that other resolutions that defy the definition and therefore purpose of this council also be repealed.

Further recommending that the region be instead condemned for its harmful views, but allowed to maintain them in peace.

Hereby repeals the so-called liberation of The NSIA.

Changes:
*Removed the RL definition of "liberation".
*Changed "their" to "our" in the third clause.
*Reworded clause 7.
*Removed a clause recommending that other resolutions similar to the one that's being repealed here also be repealed, as none others still exist.
*Added clause 8
*May have changed some other stuff, but my memory is garbage, so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ I'm entirely new to writing resolutions, so forgive me if I made any mistakes.

As for grammar, I'm on my phone, so be patient. ]

[Proctopeo]

Likely by the time this gets passed, The NSIA will be raided and gutted. I don't know how liberation repeals work, though, so it could undo a raiding and gutting.

[The Texan Union]

Likely by the time this gets passed, The NSIA will be raided and gutted. I don't know how liberation repeals work, though, so it could undo a raiding and gutting.

Nonetheless, I feel as though it should be done. Based solely on principle. Depending on the overall effect this has on the NSIA, I might motion to condemn the author of the original liberation resolution, our beloved Secretary-General.

[We Are Not the NSA]

The Security Council,

Observing Caelapes' resolution SC#207 is intended solely to oppress a peaceful region known as The NSIA, due to opposing views.

Not sure mentioning the author by name is the right way to go with this. It makes it immediately come off as just some sort of tit-for-tat (not the rules violation) proposal, and is likely to turn some people off.

Noting that The NSIA's aforementioned views may be considered harmful to the residents of the nations that reside there.

Reminding the Security Council that it is not their job to invade innocent regions in order to enforce certain ideas upon them, or to keep to them from having "wrong" ideas.

Technically the SC isn't invading them, it is just opening them up to invasion. This also comes dangerously close to an R4d violation. While it can be interpreted as being from the SC's pov, it doesn't sound like it.

Discouraging the SC from further encouraging Anti-Fascist group, as doing such is an encouragement of ideological warfare.

I'd just spell out the full word. Never liked using abbreviations in proposals.

Recognizing the fact that the word "liberation" is defined as follows:

"the act of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release."

Also recognizing a second, rather ironic definition of the word:

"freedom from limits on thought or behavior."

As was pointed out to you in the target's thread, only the SC's official definition of liberation matters. You cannot site another definition as being an a real definition, as it is impossible to do so site the sources of an RL definition with breaking Rule 4.

Acknowledging that the SC definition of the word is as follows:

"A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region."

Arguing that regardless of its mechanical meaning, the founders of this council intentionally used the word "liberation" in order to assign this type of resolution a specific purpose, which is the definition of the word itself.

This part has slightly more merit, though a rewording is in order.

Recommending that other resolutions that defy the definition and therefore purpose of this council also be repealed.

There are no other Liberations atm that are like this one, but I suppose if you want to set precedent...

Further recommending that the region be instead condemned for its harmful views, but allowed to maintain them in peace.

Hereby repeals the so-called liberation of The NSIA.

Liberation should be capitalized.

[Ainland]

Likely by the time this gets passed, The NSIA will be raided and gutted. I don't know how liberation repeals work, though, so it could undo a raiding and gutting.

Nonetheless, I feel as though it should be done. Based solely on principle. Depending on the overall effect this has on the NSIA, I might motion to condemn the author of the original liberation resolution, our beloved Secretary-General.

I would support such a condemnation. The resolution just passed has brought our council into disrepute. We are now apparently an organisation which justifies invasion, whilst calling it liberation, and has no regard for a people's right to self governance. The proposer of the resolution has abused SC procedures for his political aims and I find that deplorable.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

The Security Council,

Observing Caelapes' resolution SC#207 is intended solely to oppress a peaceful region known as The NSIA, due to opposing views.

Noting that The NSIA's aforementioned views may be considered harmful to the residents of the nations that reside there.

Reminding the Security Council that it is not their job to invade innocent regions in order to enforce certain ideas upon them, or to keep to them from having "wrong" ideas.

Discouraging the SC from further encouraging Anti-Fascist group, as doing such is an encouragement of ideological warfare.

Recognizing the fact that the word "liberation" is defined as follows:

"the act of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release."

Also recognizing a second, rather ironic definition of the word:

"freedom from limits on thought or behavior."

Acknowledging that the SC definition of the word is as follows:

"A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region."

Arguing that regardless of its mechanical meaning, the founders of this council intentionally used the word "liberation" in order to assign this type of resolution a specific purpose, which is the definition of the word itself.

Recommending that other resolutions that defy the definition and therefore purpose of this council also be repealed.

Further recommending that the region be instead condemned for its harmful views, but allowed to maintain them in peace.

Hereby repeals the so-called liberation of The NSIA.

[ I'm entirely new to writing resolutions, so forgive me if I made any mistakes.

As for grammar, I'm on my phone, so be patient. ]

Reads more like a rant than a repeal. At the moment I'd say it could be failing Rule 2(d); a repeal should address the contents of the original resolution and I don't think this does.

[Proctopeo]

Likely by the time this gets passed, The NSIA will be raided and gutted. I don't know how liberation repeals work, though, so it could undo a raiding and gutting.

Nonetheless, I feel as though it should be done. Based solely on principle. Depending on the overall effect this has on the NSIA, I might motion to condemn the author of the original liberation resolution, our beloved Secretary-General.

I was actually planning to draft up something, if I managed to get two endorsements. I would support such a condemnation 100%.

[The Texan Union]

Not sure mentioning the author by name is the right way to go with this. It makes it immediately come off as just some sort of tit-for-tat (not the rules violation) proposal, and is likely to turn some people off.

Fair point. Fixed.

Technically the SC isn't invading them, it is just opening them up to invasion. This also comes dangerously close to an R4d violation. While it can be interpreted as being from the SC's pov, it doesn't sound like it.

Fixed the first bit.

I also changed "their" to "our" to make it sound more from the SC's point of view. If that's what you were referring to.

I'd just spell out the full word. Never liked using abbreviations in proposals.

Eh. I changed it to "Council". Does sound better, I guess.

As was pointed out to you in the target's thread, only the SC's official definition of liberation matters. You cannot site another definition as being an a real definition, as it is impossible to do so site the sources of an RL definition with breaking Rule 4.

I disagree entirely. By that reasoning, literally every word that isn't defined by the SC is up for interpretation. Regardless, I removed those clauses anyway.

This part has slightly more merit, though a rewording is in order.

Reworded.

There are no other Liberations atm that are like this one, but I suppose if you want to set precedent...

Pretty sure someone said there were; That this wasn't the first resolution like this. I'll look further into it, but for now that's staying.

Liberation should be capitalized.

Ah, I missed that.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Pretty sure someone said there were; That this wasn't the first resolution like this. I'll look further into it, but for now that's staying.

I suppose I could have been a little clearer. There have been Liberations like this, but none are still on the books, unless I'm completely forgetting about something.

[The Texan Union]

Reads more like a rant than a repeal. At the moment I'd say it could be failing Rule 2(d); a repeal should address the contents of the original resolution and I don't think this does.

How so? There's hardly an argument to refute. It's basically virtue signalling. The only argument I can present is regarding the legality and intent of the proposal. For the most part, the author simply stated pointless facts. Which could very well be interpreted as a testament to this organization's overwhelming ignorance.

[The Texan Union]

Pretty sure someone said there were; That this wasn't the first resolution like this. I'll look further into it, but for now that's staying.

I suppose I could have been a little clearer. There have been Liberations like this, but none are still on the books, unless I'm completely forgetting about something.

Ah, I see. Well, unless someone comes along to provide evidence to the contrary, I'll go ahead and remove it.

[Proctopeo]

I suppose I could have been a little clearer. There have been Liberations like this, but none are still on the books, unless I'm completely forgetting about something.

Ah, I see. Well, unless someone comes along to provide evidence to the contrary, I'll go ahead and remove it.

Are 109 and 132 still on the books? 109 had a similar purpose to 207, and 132 repealed it for reasons similar to why we want to repeal 207.

[The Texan Union]

Ah, I see. Well, unless someone comes along to provide evidence to the contrary, I'll go ahead and remove it.

Are 109 and 132 still on the books? 109 had a similar purpose to 207, and 132 repealed it for reasons similar to why we want to repeal 207.

I'll make a clause mentioning SC#132, as I think it certainly is similar.

The argument was, however, whether or not to include the clause that stated:

Recommending that other resolutions that defy the definition and therefore purpose of this council also be repealed.

Since no known Liberation proposals similar to this one are still in effect, it's redundant. Citing a similar case may help the argument though.

[States of Glory]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if the region gets invaded and the liberation is then repealed, wouldn't that allow the new occupiers to password the region and therefore prevent an actual liberation?

[The Texan Union]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if the region gets invaded and the liberation is then repealed, wouldn't that allow the new occupiers to password the region and therefore prevent an actual liberation?

...

If that happens, we can write a new, legal liberation to free it and allow the natives to retake it.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Ah, I see. Well, unless someone comes along to provide evidence to the contrary, I'll go ahead and remove it.

Are 109 and 132 still on the books? 109 had a similar purpose to 207, and 132 repealed it for reasons similar to why we want to repeal 207.

Fine, I'll be clearerer: "There have been Liberations like this, but none are still in effect." That's what I meant, but I suppose technically speaking they're still on books in that their text is still listed.

[Drasnia]

Likely by the time this gets passed, The NSIA will be raided and gutted. I don't know how liberation repeals work, though, so it could undo a raiding and gutting.

Nonetheless, I feel as though it should be done. Based solely on principle. Depending on the overall effect this has on the NSIA, I might motion to condemn the author of the original liberation resolution, our beloved Secretary-General.

That sounds awfully close for a tit-for-tat condemnation. I'd advise against that.

As for this proposal, I would suggest reading some of the attempts (especially the successful one) to repeal Nazi Europe's Liberation. That will give you some ideas on how to argue against liberations used offensively against Nazis.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if the region gets invaded and the liberation is then repealed, wouldn't that allow the new occupiers to password the region and therefore prevent an actual liberation?

...

If that happens, we can write a new, legal liberation to free it and allow the natives to retake it.

The present liberation is legal. You may not like it, but it is still legal.

SC132 did not say that SC109 was illegal, rather that it was in "contradiction with the spirit of this council".

Edit: Link to the ruling on "illegal". http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 2#p3825252

[The Texan Union]

...

If that happens, we can write a new, legal liberation to free it and allow the natives to retake it.

The present liberation is legal. You may not like it, but it is still legal.

SC132 did not say that SC109 was illegal, rather that it was in "contradiction with the spirit of this council".

Edit: Link to the ruling on "illegal". http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 2#p3825252

If something is contradictory to what the Council is meant to be, wouldn't that be illegal?

Similar to the way the U.S. considers unconstitutional legislation illegal?

I mean, a law passed in the U.S. can later be considered unconstitutional. Thus, it is repealed.

Regardless, I'll edit the draft and reword it.

[Brunhizzle]

If something is contradictory to what the Council is meant to be, wouldn't that be illegal?

Similar to the way the U.S. considers unconstitutional legislation illegal?

I mean, a law passed in the U.S. can later be considered unconstitutional. Thus, it is repealed.

Regardless, I'll edit the draft and reword it.

If the Security Council were meant to be a purely Defensive institution, the potential for an Offensive Liberation such as the one against NSIA wouldn't be possible.

[The Texan Union]

If something is contradictory to what the Council is meant to be, wouldn't that be illegal?

Similar to the way the U.S. considers unconstitutional legislation illegal?

I mean, a law passed in the U.S. can later be considered unconstitutional. Thus, it is repealed.

Regardless, I'll edit the draft and reword it.

If the Security Council were meant to be a purely Defensive institution, the potential for an Offensive Liberation such as the one against NSIA wouldn't be possible.

There's a potential for literally anything, as long as it doesn't violate the rules.

We could repeal the WA, if we had enough support.

[The Texan Union]

Nonetheless, I feel as though it should be done. Based solely on principle. Depending on the overall effect this has on the NSIA, I might motion to condemn the author of the original liberation resolution, our beloved Secretary-General.

That sounds awfully close for a tit-for-tat condemnation. I'd advise against that.

As for this proposal, I would suggest reading some of the attempts (especially the successful one) to repeal Nazi Europe's Liberation. That will give you some ideas on how to argue against liberations used offensively against Nazis.

If harm is brought upon undeserving nations, he who brought harm is worthy of condemnation. I think you're just being excessively picky. I guess will find out.

I've read that resolution. Most of it was kissing ass.

[Cormactopia II]

I'm curious how you think you're going to pass this or a condemnation of Caelapes, given the margin by which Liberate The NSIA passed.

Perhaps you should instead focus on condemning the Feeder and Sinker Delegates like myself who will use our hundreds of votes each in the World Assembly to absolutely crush this.

[The Texan Union]

I'm curious how you think you're going to pass this or a condemnation of Caelapes, given the margin by which Liberate The NSIA passed.

Perhaps you should instead focus on condemning the Feeder and Sinker Delegates like myself who will use our hundreds of votes each in the World Assembly to absolutely crush this.

[Proctopeo]

I'm curious how you think you're going to pass this or a condemnation of Caelapes, given the margin by which Liberate The NSIA passed.

Perhaps you should instead focus on condemning the Feeder and Sinker Delegates like myself who will use our hundreds of votes each in the World Assembly to absolutely crush this.

I suppose simply the fact that they were tried makes a point of its own, even if it doesn't get anything done.

If the resolution is written well enough, and says enough, it could - yes, could, not will - make enough people change their tune.

And that's gross, but in an entirely different way than 207.