NationStates

Liberiteria wrote:He brings a pack of unsubstantiated lies before the SC and is shown to be the buffoon he is yet again.

Knock off the personal attacks or be warned for flaming. There wasn't even a pretense of in-character abuse there, and we won't put up with attacks on other players.

Let's examine this.

The Great Destruction wrote:

APPALLED that Lazzarania has chosen to destroy an active and influential community of well over 100 resident nations such as The Royal Alliance,

RECOGNIZING that some of those resident nations have existed there in The Royal Alliance for nearly a year,

FURTHER DISMAYED by the fact that Lazzarania has chosen to destroy The Royal Alliance’s regional message board in an attempt to hide its history,

NOTING that Lazzarania has endeavoured to wipe any incriminating evidence from The Royal Alliance’s message board by deletion,

Do you have any evidence of what was deleted?

The Great Destruction wrote:

UNDERSTANDING that Lazzarania is in fact the founder of The Royal Alliance and retains the ability and the right to remove residents and suppress entries in the regional message board,

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that Lazzarania wished to move its attentions to another region,

Right. So they're closing down a region and moving on. Doesn't sound very condemnation-worthy.

The Great Destruction wrote:

PROCLAIMING that even with the above concessions, regional destruction of this level is atrocious and verges on the brink of genocide,

APPALLED that the region was given no option to manage the region under new leadership and too little time to organize a mass exodus,

REMINDED that the nation of Lazzarania has had a history of creating a sphere of propaganda and discrimination which demonstrate the cavalier attitude with which Lazzarania will abuse its powers to suit the nations own agenda,

DISCOURAGED at the nation of Lazzarania’s elitist attitude, putting the rights of all other nations below its own,

FURTHER REMINDED that all countries have a right to their own beliefs, customs, and ideals, and a right to voice them, a right that the nation of Lazzarania scoffed at,

PROPOSING that it is the responsibility of the World Assembly to discourage regional and world powers from abusing their abilities,

BELEIVING that a condemnation from the World Assembly will chasten the nation of Lazzarania into recanting its immoral and domineering ways,

The World Assembly hereby condemns the nation of Lazzarania.

Truth be told, I don't think this condemnation really is worth it. Just from whatever limited evidence I could gather, it seems more like the region is being closed down by Lazzarania than anything else.

I stand against this.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

The Great Destruction wrote:As for the arguments about certain actions being legal. Most Condemnations are for actions which are perfectly legal. i.e. invasions, etc.

Vinage casually grinned, " 'tis why most of the time I vote against them."

Delegate Vinage wrote:
Vinage casually grinned, " 'tis why most of the time I vote against them."

Perhaps then you have missed the point of having a condemnation to begin with. If it were only about game illegalities then we wouldn't need them to express "shock and dismay". The mods would do that for us.

OOC: Condemnations have to be about matters that are 'legal', that's in the rules: 'Illegal' actions one reports to the Mods, instead...

It could be possible to cite illegal actions in SC proposals, though it's tricky. One example that could be allowed (if worded correctly) would be mentioning in a Liberation resolution that the target region was invaded using multies.

I was under the impression that in-character condemnations were assigned to nations that broke hundreds of in-character laws at the expense of others, while the ooc player didn't do anything wrong.

Also as Rule 4 encourages in-character use of the SC it seems to imply to me that roleplay condemnations are more preferred, at least by the rules. Regardless of all of that though, this particular condemnation proposal still lacks pretty much any foundation in reality.

I don't think that the "we've done it before!" argument holds up here. I also don't think that The Great Destruction's insistences that a crime has been committed hold water. There's no damages.

Lazzarania wrote:

The Great Destruction wrote:Yes. It is leagle for Lazz to eject nations. But forcing mass Exodus at the drop of a hat is definitely condemnable.

Which is something I haven't done. I've been through this with you before. For your idea to have any validity, there would have to be a rule in place that states that regions must be kept open and Founders must spend their time over a lengthy period closing them down. You have zero right trying to dictate to the Founders in NS. A player can leave a region at the drop of a hat, and a Founder can decide to close his region any time he/she pleases.

Bottom line. None of your reasoning will ever make sense, because the whole proposal is based on personal grievances. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I'm almost inclined to vote yes on this resolution because you seem like an unpleasant individual who engages in ad hominem attacks against his opponents. That's not the smart thing to do when you're defending an argument and makes the it seem weak. As for my vote I shall remain undecided.

This measure has been defeated 7,029 votes to 2,128.

Unified Provinces wrote:

Lazzarania wrote:
Which is something I haven't done. I've been through this with you before. For your idea to have any validity, there would have to be a rule in place that states that regions must be kept open and Founders must spend their time over a lengthy period closing them down. You have zero right trying to dictate to the Founders in NS. A player can leave a region at the drop of a hat, and a Founder can decide to close his region any time he/she pleases.

Bottom line. None of your reasoning will ever make sense, because the whole proposal is based on personal grievances. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I'm almost inclined to vote yes on this resolution because you seem like an unpleasant individual who engages in ad hominem attacks against his opponents. That's not the smart thing to do when you're defending an argument and makes the it seem weak. As for my vote I shall remain undecided.

I say! Really, old boy? Almost inclined? Jolly good show, old bean! Yes, rather! "Not the smart thing to do", by Jove? Let me do some heavy-duty introspection - give me 1.2 milliseconds. Right ho! I don't give a rodent's backside what you think. Pip! Pip!

Oh noes!! Your mad dizzing skillz have defeated me! You've only proved my point

This thread is being put out of its misery.