Redundant: Liberate Pakistan

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The draft on the Liberation of France was largely made redundant by the sudden refoundation of France. A representative from my nation, The French Ryberg will represent the region of France, which will magically help rebuild the new region of France (no need to lift a finger).

As requested by Todd McCloud, the next stage of the liberation is Pakistan, PW-protected and invaded by Macedon only and will use the template generated by the discussion into the liberation that did not require WA attention and requests opinion and information from fellow Assembly members:

---

SECURITY COUNCIL

Liberate Pakistan
A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region

Category: Liberation | Nominee (region): Pakistan | Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

Description: The World Assembly,

DESCRIBING the region of Pakistan prior to its invasion as a peaceful and thriving region where cultures were celebrated by its native nations without fear of persecution;

NOTING the joint invasion of the region of Pakistan by Macedon in February 2008, resulting in the merciless ejection and banning of long-time natives of the region and ultimately the password protection of the region to prevent natives from returning;

UNDERSTANDING the grief and anger the actions of the invaders caused to the natives as well as the scale of devastation caused to the region;

CONVINCED that the intention to prevent the celebration of the culture by natives of Pakistan using such tactics is unacceptable;

ACCEPTING that the intervention of the Security Council is needed in the case of Pakistan;

HEREBY removes password protection from the region of Pakistan and forbids imposition of the same.

---

And this is the template as it stands:

---

SECURITY COUNCIL

Liberate {regionname}
A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region

Category: Liberation | Nominee (region): {regionname, tag with "region" around it} | Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

Description: The World Assembly,

DESCRIBING the region of {regionname} prior to its invasion as {insert summary here};

NOTING the joint invasion of the region of {regionname} by {invader} in {date - accurate as possible}, resulting in the merciless ejection and banning of long-time natives of the region and ultimately the password protection of the region to prevent natives from returning;

UNDERSTANDING the grief and anger the actions of the invaders caused to the natives{Optional - as well as the scale of devastation caused to the region};

CONVINCED that the intention to prevent the celebration of the culture by natives of Pakistan using such tactics is unacceptable;
{Optional - add extra arguments}

ACCEPTING that the intervention of the Security Council is needed in the case of {regionname};

HEREBY removes password protection from the region of {regionname} and forbids imposition of the same.

---

Over to you, ambassadors!

[Todd McCloud]

Perhaps something about the attempted changing of the religion of the region would be good?

[Unibot]

Interesting....

We could very well mention the "Freedom of Expression" act from the GA. As Macedon's actions are in direct violation of it.

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal

Seems to me the GA's laws are written for the entirety of the WA world. Not just the GA.

But thats a decision we have yet to make concerning the extension of the two subgroups' powers. So its up to you if you'd like to bite the bullet and do it.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

They all come under "persecution" and in fact it is possible to refer to the rights of inhabitants without mentioning past resolution, just by simply stating that:

Native inhabitants of the region should be allowed to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly without fear of persecution by other regions;

[Unibot]

Though I do think it would be an interesting tie of councils. That clause will surely suffice instead of what I previously suggested, and help to avoid this thread from being some breeding ground of gameplay/GA arguments.

[Unibot]

Oh, and might I suggest copy and pasting these .... ●
Instead of using ( - ) dashes.

Dots are easier on the eyes.

They should work in the proposal frame. Symbols work in RMB posts.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I would make a point of repealing my own resolution to prevent it from being applied to this foolishness, actually. The definition of "fourth wall" really ought to be tattooed to your foreheads, in the vain hope that eventually one or two of you will get it right: WA (now GA) resolutions "take effect in all WA member nations." They apply only to the imaginary citizens that inhabit WA nations. They do not apply to the players who control the nations at all.

[Yelda]

I would make a point of repealing my own resolution to prevent it from being applied to this foolishness, actually.

That goes for WALRA and Patient's Rights Act as well, should anyone get the notion of referencing them in any of this SC gibberish. In fact I might just go ahead and repeal them anyway as a preventative measure.

[Anime Daisuki]

Just a note:

In order or importance, I'll suggest placing Pakistan's liberation on hold and put Chicago on first.

Chicago has been under siege since last year, with natives kicked out one by one. 'StCharles West Apts' was ejected yesterday.

Pakistan is already emptied and was a dead region even before it was invaded. Chicago on the other hand, had a community of about a dozen nations.

Pakistan is just a name placeholder. Even if its liberated now, its doubtful if there are any "natives" who will return.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Oh, and might I suggest copy and pasting these .... ●
Instead of using ( - ) dashes.

Dots are easier on the eyes.

They should work in the proposal frame. Symbols work in RMB posts.

Done!

I would make a point of repealing my own resolution to prevent it from being applied to this foolishness, actually. The definition of "fourth wall" really ought to be tattooed to your foreheads, in the vain hope that eventually one or two of you will get it right: WA (now GA) resolutions "take effect in all WA member nations." They apply only to the imaginary citizens that inhabit WA nations. They do not apply to the players who control the nations at all.

That goes for WALRA and Patient's Rights Act as well, should anyone get the notion of referencing them in any of this SC gibberish. In fact I might just go ahead and repeal them anyway as a preventative measure.

Not to worry at all honoured ambassadors, I have reworded it to refer to native nations or natives. That would be the adjustment for the template...

Just a note:

In order or importance, I'll suggest placing Pakistan's liberation on hold and put Chicago on first.

Chicago has been under siege since last year, with natives kicked out one by one. 'StCharles West Apts' was ejected yesterday.

Pakistan is already emptied and was a dead region even before it was invaded. Chicago on the other hand, had a community of about a dozen nations.

Pakistan is just a name placeholder. Even if its liberated now, its doubtful if there are any "natives" who will return.

...which I may soon be need for the liberation of Chicago. The World Assembly Department for the Charlotte Ryberg Taskforce has been overwhelmed by the liberation requests in response to the Macedon and Mencer Crisis and now the DEN army, although the observations by the WADfCRT shows that the militant is disintegrating at the home region(s). However, whoever agrees a WASC list of nations to liberate by priority may get their wish depending on consensus.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I would make a point of repealing my own resolution to prevent it from being applied to this foolishness, actually. The definition of "fourth wall" really ought to be tattooed to your foreheads, in the vain hope that eventually one or two of you will get it right: WA (now GA) resolutions "take effect in all WA member nations." They apply only to the imaginary citizens that inhabit WA nations. They do not apply to the players who control the nations at all.

Not to worry at all honoured ambassadors, I have reworded it to refer to native nations or natives. That would be the adjustment for the template...

You do not have permission to borrow language from my resolution for your proposal. Please remove it.

[Buffett and Colbert]

You're going to argue about using the same language? Damn and I thought we were productive...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You're going to argue about using the same language?

Well, plagiarism is against the rules...

[Buffett and Colbert]

You're going to argue about using the same language?

Well, plagiarism is against the rules...

I seriously doubt that using that tiny phrase, (and actual United Nations resolutions use similar language too) is plagiarism.

[Far-Tortuga]

I don't claim to know much about the submittal process or the legalities involved, but is it actually possible to claim plagirism if someone quotes a resolution you wrote and uses it in another? WA resolutions don't pass out of the author's hands and into some sort of public domain when they're taken up by the WA as a whole?

[Unibot]

WA resolutions don't pass out of the author's hands and into some sort of public domain when they're taken up by the WA as a whole?

I dunno know - Issues are? They belong to NationStates once you've submitted them.

[Todd McCloud]

You're going to argue about using the same language?

Well, plagiarism is against the rules...

I believe resolutions, once they pass, become property of NationStates proper, as it is in direct relation to the game. I guess you could write a repeal on it, though.

[Yelda]

You're going to argue about using the same language?

Well, plagiarism is against the rules...

I believe resolutions, once they pass, become property of NationStates proper, as it is in direct relation to the game. I guess you could write a repeal on it, though.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=18

Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the WA as well.

[Far-Tortuga]

This doesn't exactly sound like Proposal Stealing, though. Charlotte Ryberg was quoting a passed resolution, in effect citing previous WA legislation in an effort to provide additional proof for this proposal's argument. I.e., liberation would be justified because the actions taken are directly contradictory to the sentiments expressed in WA legislation.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This doesn't exactly sound like Proposal Stealing, though. Charlotte Ryberg was quoting a passed resolution, in effect citing previous WA legislation in an effort to provide additional proof for this proposal's argument. I.e., liberation would be justified because the actions taken are directly contradictory to the sentiments expressed in WA legislation.

..which does not apply to invaders. Like I said before, GA resolutions, like daily issues, can only change laws in your nation. They only affect your imaginary citizens, and don't even exist in the same universe as players. Besides, the author doesn't "quote" the resolution or even cite it; she simply stole a clause from a resolution and changed "individuals" to "natives of a region," as though laws designed for imaginary people could be applied to players who control nations and regions.

Besides, whatever loopholes you can muster to allow a player to steal passages from other people's resolutions, it still isn't right to do it without their permission, is it?

EDITED for content.

[Ardchoille]

I don't claim to know much about the submittal process or the legalities involved, but is it actually possible to claim plagirism if someone quotes a resolution you wrote and uses it in another? WA resolutions don't pass out of the author's hands and into some sort of public domain when they're taken up by the WA as a whole?

The problem with quoting a WA resolution in another resolution is that the original may be repealed. This is what the GA calls a "House of Cards" violation. If your resolution depends on the earlier one, and the earlier one no longer exists, yours falls over too.

HoC violations get proposals wiped from the proposal queue before they even have a chance to reach quorum. The SC may not have rules about it yet, but logic does.

EDIT: Have a think about the programming problems of having SC resolutions -- which affect the way players play the game -- use GA resolutions (which, as Kenny said, affect the RPd citizens of an RPd nation and are expressed in-game as automatically changing statistics).

EDIT 2: Kenny, what wording is the sticking-point?

[Unibot]

EDIT: Have a think about the programming problems of having SC resolutions -- which affect the way players play the game -- use GA resolutions (which, as Kenny said, affect the RPd citizens of an RPd nation and are expressed in-game as automatically changing statistics).

I have to seriously contest that idea, as concluded in one of the discussions threads with Erastide & Urgench - the only way to have any sort of connection intact between the SC and the GA other than this umbrella we call the WA, is to have the GA laws' present in SC legislation.

Macedon is in fact in violation of the GA resolution, its a nation thats deciding for another nation (a body of individuals) what cultures/religions it cannot partake in. Unless Kenny left a massive loophole in the articles, which I did not see, with one nation deciding to tell another WA nation, with all its inherent citizens, what religion to participate in, they are in violation of such a resolution.

A player may be telling another player what to do. But that player also represents the executive body of a nation. 'Cause this is also a Nation Simulator.

Hence, its also a nation telling citizens of another nation what to do.

You can move this post if you like one of the many discussion threads we have on potential WASC rules. I don't want to muddle Ryberg's thread with more debate.

[Ardchoille]

You can move this post if you like one of the many discussion threads we have on potential WASC rules. I don't want to muddle Ryberg's thread with more debate.

Not really necessary; I think we're just misunderstanding each other and, as you say, it's not fair to try sorting it out here. My main point was to get on record that HoC has to stand in both chambers. Carry on carrying on.

[Goobergunchia]

Ultimately, we concur in the Ardchoillean opinion that the House of Cards point of order would be controlling in this circumstance. While we considered referencing the World Assembly Condemnation of Macedon explicitly in our resolution to liberate Belgium, we decided against it due to fear of a similar point of order, instead opting for more general language.

However, we are alarmed by the concept that the original intent of a resolution's author is the necessary interpretation of this resolution. Resolutions can be interpreted in both narrower and broader ways that the original author intended, and extranational governments, such as those governing entire regions, are just as validly governments as national or subnational governments. We find it an interesting legal question whether extranational governments consisting of some World Assembly member states and some non-member states would be bound by World Assembly policy.

On the actual merits of the draft proposal "Liberate Pakistan", we find no significant faults in the text. However, we are uncertain whether "HEREBY liberates" is a proper term. Common usage of the term "liberate" is usually "a forceable return of regional leadership to the original inhabitants of the region". However, the World Assembly usage, per the form of the resolution type, is simply "to remove password protection and forbid imposition of the same". The Liberal Unitary Republic prefers to use common usage whenever feasible in the interpretation of World Assembly resolutions, but recognizes that an explicit definition to the contrary supersedes common usage. The obvious question: does the "Liberation" resolution type supersede common usage?

Obviously, we support this proposal, based solely on its active clause, at such time as it is submitted.

[float=right][/float][Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Retired Officer, Nasicournia

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Deleted the problematic clause, honoured ambassadors. That is why the draft floor exists.

Let's try this one:

HEREBY strikes down password protection from the region of Pakistan and forbids imposition of the same;

or

HEREBY strikes down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in Pakistan and forbids the imposition of the same;