[ PASSED] Repeal Condemn Sedgistan

by **Mahaj** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:25 am

The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING that Condemn Sedgistan was drafted after an agreement between Crazy Girl and Sedgistan, where it was agreed upon that Sedgistan would draft a commendation for Crazy Girl and in turn receive a condemnation;

AWARE that this resolution lacks substance to justify a condemnation, instead condemning for petty things such as the changing of a forum color and 'insults';

DISGUSTED by the use of the Security Council as a tool to play silly games;

HEREBY REPEALS Condemn Sedgistan.

by **New Rogernomics** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:15 pm

I wouldn't call genuine concern at the time about this 'Concerned by the powerhungry acts of Sedgistan, such as the seizing of important positions within the Rejected Realms and other regions for itself, and believing its ambition could spread out all over the World,' as a silly game Mahaj. Is it time to repeal it? Sure. But I think you need more justification than just 'the use of the Security Council as a tool to play silly games'; as not everyone at the time viewed it as silly, nor have you illustrated why it was silly. :meh:

by **Mahaj** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:23 pm

New Rogernomics wrote:I wouldn't call genuine concern at the time about this 'Concerned by the powerhungry acts of Sedgistan, such as the seizing of important positions within the Rejected Realms and other regions for itself, and believing its ambition could spread out all over the World,' as a silly game Mahaj. Is it time to repeal it? Sure. But I think you need more justification than just 'the use of the Security Council as a tool to play silly games'; as not everyone at the time viewed it as silly, nor have you illustrated why it was silly.

None of them are backed up by anything.

Sedge and CG have also admitted it to being mutual backpatting.

Heck, it was known even *then* that it was silly.

by **Frattastan** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:11 pm

"Concerned by the powerhungry acts of Sedgistan, such as the seizing of important positions within the Rejected Realms and other regions for itself, and believing its ambition could spread out all over the World"

Yeah, go tell Southern Bellz this is silly and unsubstantiated.

by **Mahaj** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:37 pm

Frattastan wrote:"Concerned by the powerhungry acts of Sedgistan, such as the seizing of important positions within the Rejected Realms and other regions for itself, and believing its ambition could spread out all over the World"

Yeah, go tell Southern Bellz this is silly and unsubstantiated.

This resolution was first off passed before the coup.

Second of all, if such a coup was condemnable, a condemn sedgistan should actually talk about it.

If you use the TSP events as justification for this, you cheapen what happened there.

by **Unibot II** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:25 pm

AWARE that this resolution lacks substance to justify a condemnation;

Elaborate on this, like mentioning the forum color change and stuff. I agree it was totally undeserving.

RECOGNIZING that Condemn Sedgistan was drafted after an agreement between Crazy Girl and Sedgistan, where it was agreed upon that Sedgistan would draft a commendation for Crazy Girl and in turn receive a condemnation;

From what I understand "Condemn Sedgistan" was practice for Crazy Girl before she became a "SC" Mod (she ultimately has stuck to the Gameplay subforum anyway).

I think there should be a clause explaining that Sedgistan's commendation was removed for serious allegations of region couping and censoring, therefore a condemnation that seems to make light or jest of Sedgistan as a "trouble maker" is not appropriate anymore.

by **Sedgistan** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:46 pm

Unibot II wrote:From what I understand "Condemn Sedgistan" was practice for Crazy Girl before she became a "SC" Mod (she ultimately has stuck to the Gameplay subforum anyway).

Well that certainly isn't true - she's been involved in nearly every SC ruling that's happened since she was modded.

by **Unibot II** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:13 pm

So your post here, ignoring my statement, is confirmation that the entire resolution was basically just a one-time practice for a mod that knew nothing about the SC, which you admit, has been involved with almost every single SC rules discussion?

This seems disconcerting, when there are much more experienced SC players who have to live with these rules.

by **New Rogernomics** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:00 pm

Unibot II wrote:So your post here, ignoring my statement, is confirmation that the entire resolution was basically just a one-time practice for a mod that knew nothing about the SC, which you admit, has been involved with almost every single SC rules discussion?

This seems disconcerting, when there are much more experienced SC players who have to live with these rules.

'She's been involved in nearly every SC ruling that's happened since she was modded'' does not mean that CG 'knew nothing about the SC'. If you have an issue with the quality of a mod, then shouldn't that be for the moderation forum not the Security Council? :eyebrow:

/Not a mod.

by **Crushing Our Enemies** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:28 pm

Mahaj wrote:DISGUSTED by the use of the Security Council as a tool to play silly games;

I'm sure we can all agree that NationStates is not about playing silly games.

by **Sedgistan** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:18 am

Unibot II wrote:So your post here, ignoring my statement, is confirmation that the entire resolution was basically just a one-time practice for a mod that knew nothing about the SC, which you admit, has been involved with almost every single SC rules discussion?

This seems disconcerting, when there are much more experienced SC players who have to live with these rules.

The only part of your statement that is correct is that Crazy girl has been "involved with almost every single SC rules discussion". That is, of course, the only thing my previous post actually said - the rest of your post was entirely made up.

To set things straights (for those at least prepared to listen), Crazy girl knew how the SC worked prior to writing this resolution. She has an extensive and detailed knowledge of the rules and history of the SC, and frequently takes part in behind the scenes discussions on rules and rulings. Given your record of deleted proposals, it doesn't seem unfair to say that she knows the rules better than you do.

On a further note, sending a "friendly" telegram ending in a smiley face, asking for help with some other aspect of the game, whilst being incredibly rude in another forum, is not the kind of behaviour that endears you to people. The moderator team has become increasingly fed up with your conduct on this site - something you'll be aware of, since our previous telegram to you made clear that if you break the rules again, your (current) main nation will be deleted as punishment.

At this point, you should be concentrating on how better to play by the rules, rather than playing out personal vendettas, and attempting to antagonise others. You can make a start on this by returning to debating the proposal at hand, rather than continuing your snide commentary on Crazy girl's abilities as a moderator. If you have genuine complaints about her conduct as a mod - backed up with evidence - you know where to take them.

by **Euronion** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:26 am

Though Euronion is not a member of the Security Council, we feel it appropriate to mention that when Euronion was a member, we voted for the Condemnation of Sedgistan for very legitimate reasons, mainly moderator malpractice that I had witnessed first hand. I've seen Sedgistan very few times on the forums, and when I do it is generally to do a fair and balanced ruling. He or she has also been friendlier in my experience, than he or she was a year ago. Though we think that this does not erase the original malpractice for which Sedgistan was condemned.

by **Mahaj** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:09 am

Crushing Our Enemies wrote:
Mahaj wrote:DISGUSTED by the use of the Security Council as a tool to play silly games;

I'm sure we can all agree that NationStates is not about playing silly games.

Indeed.

Euronion wrote:Though Euronion is not a member of the Security Council, we feel it appropriate to mention that when Euronion was a member, we voted for the Condemnation of Sedgistan for very legitimate reasons, mainly moderator malpractice that I had witnessed first hand. I've seen Sedgistan very few times on the forums, and when I do it is generally to do a fair and balanced ruling. He or she has also been friendlier in my experience, than he or she was a year ago. Though we think that this does not erase the original malpractice for which Sedgistan was condemned.

There's nothing genuine about moderator malpractice in this resolution.

Changing a forum color is not condemnable, and I hope you don't view it as malpractice.

by **The Great Destruction** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:57 pm

We all know that Sedge's condemnation was bunk. But as I understand it, this is one of those proposals that was left alone because of its historic value and humorous nature. The arguments posed to remove this may be rationalized but I find them petty. Now I'm normally a big supporter of shit disturbing, (with this appears to be), but I can't bring myself to support this proposal even from the perspective of wanting the SC to be taken seriously.

Note to readers:Also from the viewpoint of the SC IC, the fact that Sedge is a mod has nothing to do with his condemnation. I believe any argument consisting of his modly history has no bearing here and should be ignored as out of character for the SC.

by **Skyrim Diplomacy** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:47 am

I'm on the fence with this one. While the condemnation in question clearly lacks the substance the SC usually looks for from such an action, this condemnation (along with the Commendation of The Skeleton Army) almost has enough comical value to stand. I could be persuaded either way, really. I don't really see an explicit need to repeal this, however, which is what I'm leaning towards ATM.

by **Mahaj** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:01 pm

The Great Destruction wrote:We all know that Sedge's condemnation was bunk. But as I understand it, this is one of those proposals that was left alone because of its historic value

Historical value? There is no historical value in this resolution. None. Whatsoever.

and humorous nature.

Some what humorous, sure, but its still a bad condemnation.

The arguments posed to remove this may be rationalized but I find them petty. Now I'm normally a big supporter of shit disturbing, (with this appears to be), but I can't bring myself to support this proposal even from the perspective of wanting the SC to be taken seriously.

I don't see my arguments as petty, I see them as entirely realistic.

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:I'm on the fence with this one. While the condemnation in question clearly lacks the substance the SC usually looks for from such an action,

You tried to condemn Raxus Caedus Turn for, among other things, forum and region destruction. Consider what it says that along with that condemnation, stands this one. Consider, since that one failed, what it says, that that condemnation which you see as a rebuke of such heinous acts, failed to pass, while this one stands.

this condemnation (along with the Commendation of The Skeleton Army) almost has enough comical value to stand. I could be persuaded either way, really.

The Skeleton Army did things that hadn't really been done before. Sedge's condemnation is for... nothing. If you believe that Sedge has done enough bad actions to deserve a condemnation, then this is not the rebuke you want.

I don't really see an explicit need to repeal this, however, which is what I'm leaning towards ATM.

You don't see a need to repeal this, but yet this? hrmmmm?

by **Skyrim Diplomacy** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:15 pm

Mahaj wrote:You tried to condemn Raxus Caedus Turn for, among other things, forum and region destruction. Consider what it says that along with that condemnation, stands this one. Consider, since that one failed, what it says, that that condemnation which you see as a rebuke of such heinous acts, failed to pass, while this one stands.

*I tried so hard....but in the end it didn't matter....*

And you opposed said condemnation of Turn based on forum and region destruction. But you support the repeal of this one? :eyebrow:

Backwards logic is backwards.

Mahaj wrote:The Skeleton Army did things that hadn't really been done before. Sedge's condemnation is for... nothing. If you believe that Sedge has done enough bad actions to deserve a condemnation, then this is not the rebuke you want.

Wait, you're telling me Sedge wasn't the first to change TRR forums pink?

VOTE EARNED, MY FRIEND.

Mahaj wrote:You don't see a need to repeal this, but yet this? hrmmmm?

Which was based on an erroneous Liberation badge reapplication, and you know it. After which I flailed for a bit and appropriately dropped after learning the badge was reapplied. Let's not pretend that was my most ardent battle. I was in error there, and withdrew almost immediately after learning such. Apples to oranges here, really. There, I was under the impression the Liberation was now useless and inactive. Not so much the case, here.

by **Mahaj** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:39 pm

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:
Mahaj wrote:You tried to condemn Raxus Caedus Turn for, among other things, forum and region destruction. Consider what it says that along with that condemnation, stands this one. Consider, since that one failed, what it says, that that condemnation which you see as a rebuke of such heinous acts, failed to pass, while this one stands.

*I tried so hard....but in the end it didn't matter....*

And you opposed said condemnation of Turn based on forum and region destruction. But you support the repeal of this one? Backwards logic is backwards.

Well you admitted that the points I questioned were all made up garbage. There's no need for made up garbage. This condemnation here too contains, well, garbage.

Mahaj wrote:The Skeleton Army did things that hadn't really been done before. Sedge's condemnation is for... nothing. If you believe that Sedge has done enough bad actions to deserve a condemnation, then this is not the rebuke you want.

Wait, you're telling me Sedge wasn't the first to change TRR forums pink? VOTE EARNED, MY FRIEND.

To change the color of a forum? No. And if so, who gives a crap?

But if you /really/ think its condemnable, feel free to start writing Condemn Mahaj right now.

Mahaj wrote:You don't see a need to repeal this, but yet this? hrmmmm?

Which was based on an erroneous Liberation badge reapplication, and you know it. After which I flailed for a bit and appropriately dropped after learning the badge was reapplied. Let's not pretend that was my most ardent battle. I was in error there, and withdrew almost immediately after learning such. Apples to oranges here, really. There, I was under the impression the Liberation was now useless and inactive. Not so much the case, here.

Wasn't the impression I got from your OP there, but okay.

by **Crazy girl** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:29 am

Why Mahaj, you say the nicest things.

And lets not forget the real reason this thread exists. To up Mahaj's resolution count. This repeal is basically one big +1 :lol:

by **TannerFrankLand** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:43 am

Crazy girl wrote:Why Mahaj, you say the nicest things.

And lets not forget the real reason this thread exists. To up Mahaj's resolution count. This repeal is basically one big +1

*gets out the popcorn*
Oooooh, snaaap.
*bites tongue*

Heh, anyway, I'm personally probably going to vote against the repeal, I don't particularly like this resolution or find it funny at all, but I do not like the new attitude in the SC of uber seriousness. Jokeish proposals used to be great activity and interesting/clever debates for the SC. I don't think we should repeal a resolution just because it was a joke.

by **Mahaj** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:15 am

Crazy girl wrote:Why Mahaj, you say the nicest things.

<3

And lets not forget the real reason this thread exists. To up Mahaj's resolution count. This repeal is basically one big +1

Ahahahahano.

by **The Great Destruction** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:23 am

Crazy girl wrote:Why Mahaj, you say the nicest things.

And lets not forget the real reason this thread exists. To up Mahaj's resolution count. This repeal is basically one big +1

Ha, true but when I make those acusations I get hatemail. lol

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote: Backwards logic is backwards.

Totalogies are totalogies, my friend.

Mahaj, You seem so adamant, but I still don't understand why we should repeal this condemnation. Are the statements it makes untrue? Are they unworthy? If so show me. (calling it garbage and showing why it is garbage are two different things.

by **Mahaj** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:22 pm

The Great Destruction wrote:
Crazy girl wrote:Why Mahaj, you say the nicest things.

And lets not forget the real reason this thread exists. To up Mahaj's resolution count. This repeal is basically one big +1

Ha, true but when I make those acusations I get hatemail. lol

If I made that accusation I'd get deleted

Mahaj, You seem so adamant, but I still don't understand why we should repeal this condemnation. Are the statements it makes untrue? Are they unworthy? If so show me. (calling it garbage and showing why it is garbage are two different things.

I'll show you.

Dismayed by how Sedgistan abuses this power to nag other nations into dealing with its dirty work, infringing on their sovereignty by telling them what to do,

There's no real evidence to back this up, not to mention that condemning someone for telling them what to do would lead to every military leader getting condemned. Its not really an argument.

Horrified by how Sedgistan has changed the interior of the Rejected Realms forum to the color pink, despite knowing how this would affect the other participants, and completely disregarding their opinions,

Oh look. He changed the color of an offsite forum. He didn't destroy it. He didn't gather IPs and share them. He didn't pornspam. He changed the color. This is... so insignificant.

Appalled by the insults the Sedgistan government has thrown occasionally towards other rulers, including the Queen of Crazy Girl, and the unsubstantiated rumors it has spread about them,

Now, sure, Sedge isn't always the nicest guy, but did we ever really get any proof for this? Has anyone seen anything? Heard any rumors (other than when they pretended to get engaged)? No. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Concerned by the powerhungry acts of Sedgistan, such as the seizing of important positions within the Rejected Realms and other regions for itself, and believing its ambition could spread out all over the World,

On the one hand, this seems like a condemnable activity. On the other hand, its exactly like every 13 year old who gets involved in a GCR.

Also noting how Sedgistan simply leaves a position unattended to further its agenda in its search for more power,

See above.

Observing that Sedgistan feels it is superior to all surrounding nations, and its citizens perceive themselves as better than inhabitants of other nations,

I'll readily admit that Sedge can be pompous, but this is kind of a joke clause in a joke resolution.

Concluding that Sedgistan is a threat to other nations, due to its arrogant and powerhungry nature, and therefore deserves to be condemned,

From an in-character perspective, Sedgistan isn't really arrogant or powerhungry, its more just... there. Certainly not worth condemning.

by **Skyrim Diplomacy** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:29 pm

Mahaj wrote:<big ol' snip>

All the arguments therein make sense to me. It's scary how often we are...*shudder*...agreeing nowadays. This has my support as of now.

by **Mahaj** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:57 pm

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:
Mahaj wrote:<big ol' snip>

All the arguments therein make sense to me. It's scary how often we are...*shudder*...agreeing nowadays. This has my support as of now.

Sweet!

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME >.>

[ PASSED] Repeal Condemn Sedgistan

[ PASSED] Repeal Condemn Sedgistan

Who is online