[PASSED] Commend Starblaydia

[Topid]

And as you must know because I do (and I know very little about RP), there is also a smaller group of roleplayers that do roleplay based on what the game gives them, and they will not ignore it.

Is it not just as foolish to insist that this information must be ignored and only IC posts be considered just because one form of roleplay is more popular?

When one is talking about a nation in the context of RP (which this proposal's subject matter basically is), shouldn't one do so according to the manner in which it that nation actually is RPed?

I think it seems reasonable if a role-player uses game stats to judge other nations, they shouldn't be expected to look at the game differently for the SC. It is reasonable for them to go against resolutions where the RPed and NS nations differ.

[Unibot]

OOC: For your information, it is generally considered acceptable for people to RP their nations as differing in various ways from how the game's decidely simplistic programming describes those countries, and trying to insist that the descriptions must be taken as completely accurate just makes you look foolish...

And as you must know because I do (and I know very little about RP), there is also a smaller group of roleplayers that do roleplay based on what the game gives them, and they will not ignore it.

Is it not just as foolish to insist that this information must be ignored and only IC posts be considered just because one form of roleplay is more popular?

Assuming you're OOC:

(1) These stats do not have to be ignored because it is an 'inferior' source of statistics, however as Bears has pointed out they are in fact an inferior source of statistics -- as I've stated, these censuses use qualitative descriptions ("frightening"), imprecise definitions and unstated methodology other than some rather unscientific methods. Between NSwiki and the Game.. NSwiki is a more definite resource on nations. You are in fact being unreasonable --even in-character-- to ignore the superior source of statistics and infallibly insist that Starblaydia is a dictatorship, even though there is at least one definite source that says otherwise... in addition to pretty much the entirety of Starblaydia's collected works in the NS-Sports subforum.

Even assuming your statistics are correct, and you are not being unreasonable for ignoring all of the other wealth of information available in favor of a narrow and inferior source of statistics that paints the unfavorable picture of Starblaydia that your 'revolution' would prefer...

(2) Starblaydia is not being commended for being a dictatorship. You sure didn't like it when "Commend Todd McCloud" became a trial on Todd's raiding activities even though that was not the focus of the resolution. Why the change of heart? Are we commending actions or character here?

(3) A dictatorship is not necessarily a fascist Italy -- dictatorships can serve as an emergency state when democracy is being threatened by an even greater threat. Political philosophers like J.S Mill (he did so in Representative Government) agree with this belief, and so did, eh, the Roman Empire.

Furthermore your argument is disrespectful to Roleplaying freedoms...

(4) There is such thing as roleplayer freedoms, roleplayers migrate to subforums like International Incidents or NS-Sports to develop their nations further than the weak imagery of the game's descriptions. You suggest that you want the same freedoms that they have, but to do so, the Security Council must also protect the collision of your gameplay freedoms and their roleplayer freedoms. In other words you have a negative duty to respect roleplayer freedoms, if they want to roleplay their nation better than it is.. so be it. In return, roleplayers have a duty to respect your freedom to gameplay. This isn't a one-sided contest where you get all the power to disrespect.. if you want to ignore it, frankly, stay out of the thread.

From, Third Spanish States' A(nother) Basic Guide to International Incidents..

Roleplay is known as the written posts in this forum. Gameplay is known as the different things that go on in the NS site, such as issues or the World Assembly. Within the International Incidents forum, most (if not all) roleplayers choose to ignore gameplay functions entirely. This means that the WA resolutions have no effect on your nation in II, and similarly there will be no wars composed of WA nations vs anti-WA nations. Likewise, if your nation's home page says you are a "Benevolent Dictatorship" but you prefer to RP as a democracy, then nothing is stopping you. The only thing that always transfers between gameplay and roleplay is population, and this can even vary if you decide to cap your population for RP purposes or if you RP a lot of your citizens dying. Regardless of those scenarios, your population will never be higher than what is listed there.

(5) Note that there is a precedent to respect roleplayer freedoms, in "Condemn Greater Tezdrian", Greater Tezdrian was free to roleplay his nation worse than his "Good' Civil Rights rating suggests... and there is a precedent to respect gameplayer freedoms, in "Condemn Durkadurkiranistan II", roleplayers had to respect that although the game stats says Durk is an inoffensive centrist government, that he is allowed to gameplay as being much worse (dictator of the transitory TNP government).

[Xeraphim]

Not sure what this has to do with Security.
Seems more like a GA issue.

[Bergnovinaia]

Not sure what this has to do with Security.
Seems more like a GA issue.

"What the hell are you talking about!" blurted out Bergnovinaian Representative to the WA, Spenanda Thenkenbail.

[Krytenia]

"Well, of course Krytenia's vote shall be in favour of our good friends, strong sporting rivals, and Calanian neighbours - even if it does mean they get one over on us. Again. The gits."

[Topid]

Assuming you're OOC:

Of course I am.

(1) These stats do not have to be ignored because it is an 'inferior' source of statistics, however as Bears has pointed out they are in fact an inferior source of statistics -- as I've stated, these censuses use qualitative descriptions ("frightening"), imprecise definitions and unstated methodology other than some rather unscientific methods. Between NSwiki and the Game.. NSwiki is a more definite resource on nations. You are in fact being unreasonable --even in-character-- to ignore the superior source of statistics and infallibly insist that Starblaydia is a dictatorship, even though there is at least one definite source that says otherwise... in addition to pretty much the entirety of Starblaydia's collected works in the NS-Sports subforum.

To you NSwiki is a superior source. To someone who wants to define their nation and all other nations by what the game says about them it wouldn't be. I could start an NS wiki article for Topid and say my nation is oppressive, that doesn't change the fact that to people who actually consider what the game says about a nation, my nation always answers issues in the most libertarian way. (Well I stopped doing that a couple days ago, but I was a complete anarchy up till recently.)

(2) Starblaydia is not being commended for being a dictatorship. You sure didn't like it when "Commend Todd McCloud" became a trial on Todd's raiding activities even though that was not the focus of the resolution. Why the change of heart? Are we commending actions or character here?

Actually I told most the defenders that voted against it that it was fair for them to hold a policy of voting against all commendations of raiders. But I did continually say that I wished people wouldn't, even though they had a right to, because that was bad for the SC.

And don't get me wrong, I'm totally fine with the resolution. I wouldn't vote against it because Star may or may not be a dictatorship... I don't Roleplay and so I have no opinion on most that 'government' stuff. I said that because I generally dislike how anti-new nation the SC is becoming, and it sounded to me like the original post I responded to had some of that 'I have been here longer, I know more than you so stfu' attitude that will continue to drive new nations and possible authors away from the GA for all eternity. I'd prefer the SC not make that mistake.

(3) A dictatorship is not necessarily a fascist Italy -- dictatorships can serve as an emergency state when democracy is being threatened by an even greater threat. Political philosophers like J.S Mill (he did so in Representative Government) agree with this belief, and so did, eh, the Roman Empire.

Once again, don't get me wrong, I could care less what government style nominees have.

(4) There is such thing as roleplayer freedoms, roleplayers migrate to subforums like International Incidents or NS-Sports to develop their nations further than the weak imagery of the game's descriptions. You suggest that you want the same freedoms that they have, but to do so, the Security Council must also protect the collision of your gameplay freedoms and their roleplayer freedoms. In other words you have a negative duty to respect roleplayer freedoms, if they want to roleplay their nation better than it is.. so be it. In return, roleplayers have a duty to respect your freedom to gameplay. This isn't a one-sided contest where you get all the power to disrespect.. if you want to ignore it, frankly, stay out of the thread.

From, Third Spanish States' A(nother) Basic Guide to International Incidents..

Roleplay is known as the written posts in this forum. Gameplay is known as the different things that go on in the NS site, such as issues or the World Assembly. Within the International Incidents forum, most (if not all) roleplayers choose to ignore gameplay functions entirely. This means that the WA resolutions have no effect on your nation in II, and similarly there will be no wars composed of WA nations vs anti-WA nations. Likewise, if your nation's home page says you are a "Benevolent Dictatorship" but you prefer to RP as a democracy, then nothing is stopping you. The only thing that always transfers between gameplay and roleplay is population, and this can even vary if you decide to cap your population for RP purposes or if you RP a lot of your citizens dying. Regardless of those scenarios, your population will never be higher than what is listed there.

Get out of the thread Mr. The-SC-Should-Be-Able-To-Be-Used-By-All? I am 'out' to some extent, I don't care how this vote ends. I only care about sticking up for new nations when they are targeted for being new.

If there was a Condemnation of me that ever made it to vote despite my protests, I wouldn't instruct nations to not vote based on my government catagory because I don't recognize Topid as a nation, just a username for me as a player. That doesn't change the fact that to you and many others out there, I am a nation. And people should be allowed to vote based on that, even though their definition of me is different than my definition of me.

(5) Note that there is a precedent to respect roleplayer freedoms, in "Condemn Greater Tezdrian", Greater Tezdrian was free to roleplay his nation worse than his "Good' Civil Rights rating suggests... and there is a precedent to respect gameplayer freedoms, in "Condemn Durkadurkiranistan II", roleplayers had to respect that although the game stats says Durk is an inoffensive centrist government, that he is allowed to gameplay as being much worse (dictator of the transitory TNP government).[/blocktext]

I didn't say that the proposal should be illegal... I don't see what precedent has to do with this. I merely said it is reasonable to vote against this because of a difference in viewpoints of the game.

[Unibot]

To you NSwiki is a superior source. To someone who wants to define their nation and all other nations by what the game says about them it wouldn't be. I could start an NS wiki article for Topid and say my nation is oppressive, that doesn't change the fact that to people who actually consider what the game says about a nation, my nation always answers issues in the most libertarian way. (Well I stopped doing that a couple days ago, but I was a complete anarchy up till recently.)

Dude, I've already explained why this isn't an issue of relative preference... you're choosing to ignore a clearly more detailed source of information for a vague and unscientific source... that is in fact, unreasonable.

And don't get me wrong, I'm totally fine with the resolution. I wouldn't vote against it because Star may or may not be a dictatorship... I don't Roleplay and so I have no opinion on most that 'government' stuff. I said that because I generally dislike how anti-new nation the SC is becoming, and it sounded to me like the original post I responded to had some of that 'I have been here longer, I know more than you so stfu' attitude that will continue to drive new nations and possible authors away from the GA for all eternity. I'd prefer the SC not make that mistake.

Says the author of "Commend Todd McCloud" to the author of "Condemn Greater Tezdrian". Ironic? Correct me if I'm wrong, but only one clause is commending Starblaydia for its long history of sport successes, it was a last minute suggestion from a NS-sports person. It's practically a sidenote in the resolution which is commending Starblaydia for its commitment and dedication to NS-Sports which has allowed it to grow a community. That's a history that a new nation can't possibly have now... but that doesn't mean we can't recognize new nations for different reasons. I think if you believe that any one resolution can decide how all other resolutions shall be written... then it is not me who is stunting the possibilities and universal opportunity of the Security Council .. it's you. Be the change you want to see, Topid, write the resolutions you want to pass. I'm certainly not going to do that for you, and I'm not against resolutions that nominate new nations.. but just because this resolution formula --based on a nominee's commitment and dedication-- isn't applicable for that type of resolution, doesn't mean you can't devise a new resolution formula (or just use the one I've made in previous resolutions...).

Get out of the thread Mr. The-SC-Should-Be-Able-To-Be-Used-By-All? I am 'out' to some extent, I don't care how this vote ends. I only care about sticking up for new nations when they are targeted for being new.

If there was a Condemnation of me that ever made it to vote despite my protests, I wouldn't instruct nations to not vote based on my government catagory because I don't recognize Topid as a nation, just a username for me as a player. That doesn't change the fact that to you and many others out there, I am a nation. And people should be allowed to vote based on that, even though their definition of me is different than my definition of me.

The SC-Should-Be-Able-To-Be-Used-By-All... and that doesn't happen if we're not willing to recognize the nominee's way of playing.. otherwise the SC just becomes a collision of dickwaving between gameplayers and roleplayers who want to recognize their world in different ways and disrespect one another in the process. I'm say respect is a reciprocal process, Topid, if you want people to respect how you play and perceive NationStates.. you need to do the same for others. You can start with this resolution, if you like.

I didn't say that the proposal should be illegal... I don't see what precedent has to do with this. I merely said it is reasonable to vote against this because of a difference in viewpoints of the game.

And I'm saying it's unreasonable, disrespectful and hypocritical. What that precedent was trying to show was that roleplayers have actually been doing us a great service and respecting how gameplayers play the game for a long, time time.. since the creation of the Security Council, in-fact. They've politely ignored all the reasonable roleplay sources that say a nation is overtly decent to believe as gameplayers do that a nominee is capable of pure evil.

[Topid]

The SC-Should-Be-Able-To-Be-Used-By-All... and that doesn't happen if we're not willing to recognize the nominee's way of playing..

We could go back and forth re-quoting long posts, but this is where we disagree.

That doesn't happen if we're not willing to recognize the voter's way of playing.

I can't really cite why we have differing perspectives there, only that we have them.

[Sedgistan]

DISCLAIMER: If any part of this resolution has you thinking? "You know.. I'd like to give this "World Cup" stuff a try!", the NS World Cup 54 will be running soon and surely welcomes all spectators to come and watch! Click here for more information!

Commend Starblaydia

---

One of the harder resolutions I found to write, just because of the sheer amount of research involved to get my facts straight and whatnot. Starblaydia's career is a long and robust one that is easy to get lost in as a researcher. I've provided the resolution text and a list of references I found useful while writing this proposal. Your criticism, support and any roleplayed shenanigans would be appreciated as always — you guys and gals should know the drill by now.

(Image) Commend Starblaydia
A resolution to recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region.
Category: Commendation | Nominee: Starblaydia | Proposed by: Unibot

The Security Council,

Deeply Admiring the healthy competition, spirit, sportspersonship and sense of community that a well-organized sporting event can promote,

Noting with approval Starblaydia's vast sporting successes that — at the time of this writing — includes five World Cups, six Atlantian Oceania Confederation of Association Football (AOCAF) Cups, two U21 World Cups, five Cherry Cups and the first Quidditch World Cup,

Observing the World Cup Committee — a body of nations that manages and organizes the biggest and most prestigious international sporting events in NationStates:

• NationStates World Cup (WC),
• The Baptism of Fire ,
• The Cup of Harmony,

Celebrating the nominee for having — at the time of this writing — presided the World Cup Committee for fifteen world cups (also serving as the acting president during WC#52-54) in an elected position that requires dedication and integrity,

Recognizing that Starblaydia drafted the current Constitution of the World Cup Committee which replaced all previous World Cup Committee rules, standardized the KPB Rankings system as the official international ranking system for sporting, in addition to creating a legal foundation for the (1) various branches of the World Cup Committee, (2) sanctioned events hosted by the World Cup Committee, (3) process to which proposals, repeals and amendments are voted on by the World Cup Committee,

Bearing in mind that the Starblaydi Football Association (SFA) has co-hosted two World Cup tournaments (WC#20/40), with the latter being held while the SFA also hosted the corresponding Baptism of Fire and the Cup of Harmony,

Expressing its satisfaction with Starblaydia’s reestablishment of an Under-21 World Cup tournament that is now referred to as the “Di Bradini Cup” — named after the Starblaydi former football player, manager and president of the World Cup Committee (during WC#25-27),

Approving of the nominee’s demonstrated readiness to share its expertise with fledgling football associations that are considering playing at the international level,

Further Approving of the helpful advice that Starblaydia has provided to competition organizers on how their sports can achieve equivalent success to the World Cup,

Noting that without Starblaydia’s leadership, dedication, integrity and impartiality, the world would not be as united as it is today with the passions, spirit and sportspersonship of international sport,

Further Noting that the World Assembly sympathizes with these ideals and is honored to commemorate any nominee that devotes so much time and effort to them as Starblaydia has,

Hereby Commends Starblaydia.

References

---

• The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version II) — includes the WC Constitution,
• NS World Cup: Presidential Announcements,
• World Cup FAQ— written mostly by Starblaydia,
• NS Sports Archive Project Transcript of WC#20— Co-hosted by Starblaydia (Compliments of Vephrall),
• Download/Accessible transcripts of WC#40 ^{[1 2 3]}, Cup of Harmony and the Baptism of Fire. (Thanks Zwangzug!),
• General Sports Roleplaying Questions (OOC),
• Older "Commend Starblaydia" draft by West Newmanistan,
• World Cup Committee (NSwiki Article),
• Starblaydia (NSwiki Article),
• Simeone Di Bradini (NSwiki Featured Article),
• NationStates World Cup (NSwiki Article),
• Baptism of Fire (NSwiki Article),
• Cup of Harmony (NSwiki Article),
• Under-21 World Cup (NSwiki Article),
• Di Bradini Cup (NSwiki Article),
• Starblaydi Football Association (NSwiki Article).

Sounds cool,

Against.

[Unibot]

The SC-Should-Be-Able-To-Be-Used-By-All... and that doesn't happen if we're not willing to recognize the nominee's way of playing..

We could go back and forth re-quoting long posts, but this is where we disagree.

That doesn't happen if we're not willing to recognize the voter's way of playing.

I can't really cite why we have differing perspectives there, only that we have them.

I think we differ on what duty we believe we have to those whose-- let's call it-- 'realities' differ from our own. You believe that you have no duty to respect others' reality and in turn you should be recognized as having a reasonable and legitimate perspective on the issue. To you we're atoms in a council, who don't run into trouble so long as we don't bat heads. Whereas I believe we have a duty to respect others realities and acknowledge their validity on issues that are raised by them, and in turn can expect their respect in return on issues that are raised by us. I'm not going to run into a thread about a condemnable nation and dismiss their roleplayer culture by screaming about how their nation is a nice democracy according to the game, and a roleplayer has never bashed into a thread regarding a feeder dictator and dismissed the gameplay atrocities they've committed with perhaps a career of roleplaying their nation as peaceful.

[Parti Ouvrier]

We could go back and forth re-quoting long posts, but this is where we disagree.

That doesn't happen if we're not willing to recognize the voter's way of playing.

I can't really cite why we have differing perspectives there, only that we have them.

I think we differ on what duty we believe we have to those whose-- let's call it-- 'realities' differ from our own. You believe that you have no duty to respect others' reality and in turn you should be recognized as having a reasonable and legitimate perspective on the issue. To you we're atoms in a council, who don't run into trouble so long as we don't bat heads. Whereas I believe we have a duty to respect others realities and acknowledge their validity on issues that are raised by them, and in turn can expect their respect in return on issues that are raised by us. I'm not going to run into a thread about a condemnable nation and dismiss their roleplayer culture by screaming about how their nation is a nice democracy according to the game, and a roleplayer has never bashed into a thread regarding a feeder dictator and dismissed the gameplay atrocities they've committed with perhaps a career of roleplaying their nation as peaceful.

Good point, I might vote for this resolution now.

[Unibot]

Good point, I might vote for this resolution now.

*nods solemnly*

[Unibot]

As Kandarin would say, the Security Council has passed its New Year's Resolution! Let's just hope we can keep it.

Congratulations Starblaydia!

And have a Happy New Years, everybody!!

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The resolution is now on record, honoured ambassadors, we found another good peaceful use for a commendation and this time it's sport.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

i'm afraid this might have to be repealed

RECOGNIZING the Passing of the Resolution Commend Starblaydia,
NOTING that this resolution was passed on January 1,
REALIZING that as per the standard calender, January 1 is the first day of a new year,
AWARE that resolutions made during this time of year are called New Years Resolutions
KNOWING that nobody keeps their New Year Resolutions,
WANTING the Security Council to follow this tradition,
HEREBY REPEALS Commend Starblaydia.

[Kalibarr]

i'm afraid this might have to be repealed

RECOGNIZING the Passing of the Resolution Commend Starblaydia,
NOTING that this resolution was passed on January 1,
REALIZING that as per the standard calender, January 1 is the first day of a new year,
AWARE that resolutions made during this time of year are called New Years Resolutions
KNOWING that nobody keeps their New Year Resolutions,
WANTING the Security Council to follow this tradition,
HEREBY REPEALS Commend Starblaydia.

Can the GA pass a resolution banning puns?

[Unibot]

Heh. As a token of his gratitude, Starblaydia and my band of 'merry misfits, vagabonds and circus acts' will be playing a friendly game of football against one another in the pre-qualifying round of the upcoming World Cup. Come check it out when it happens! I'm sure it will be a specular ass-kicking -- my ass, that is.