NationStates

Juroain wrote:Nova, no one can understand you. It is not clear.

Provide some ACTUAL evidence and links to posts where this happened, NOT THE DAMNED RESOLUTIONS, actual posts where these actions took place.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Castelo Quintas wrote:2-There is absolutely no proofs whatsoever on the following subjects:
"Further Deplores that the Hippostanian Army violated GA RES. #27 by authorizing troops to violently attack protesters in a foreign country"
"Deplores the fact that The Republic of Hippostania has violated GA RES. #2, Section 3 by refusing to ‘refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState’ by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Longfort and participating in the conquest of Falsea"

Does this mean I can start gassing, bombing and burning civilians with my military too? Or deposing democratically elected governments in favour of dictatorial and paedophilic puppets?

Yo dudechen, direct thine eyes here.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

BELIEVING that it is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to comply to the letter of every mandate, law, and sub-council given power in these halls,

You really don't know much about the expectations of the GA, do you?

AGAINST.

No, I wouldn't say it's my strong suit.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Castelo Quintas wrote:2-There is absolutely no proofs whatsoever on the following subjects:
"Further Deplores that the Hippostanian Army violated GA RES. #27 by authorizing troops to violently attack protesters in a foreign country"
"Deplores the fact that The Republic of Hippostania has violated GA RES. #2, Section 3 by refusing to ‘refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState’ by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Longfort and participating in the conquest of Falsea"

Does this mean I can start gassing, bombing and burning civilians with my military too? Or deposing democratically elected governments in favour of dictatorial and paedophilic puppets?

Were you not free to do so beforehand? And, if you really wanted to, would the WA laws in place have stopped that?

I appreciate how this has devolved into nothing but the slippery slope of all WA members will turn anarchic and start firing nukes at each other should this piece of non-binding legislation pass.

Juroain wrote:Nova, no one can understand you. It is not clear.

Provide some ACTUAL evidence and links to posts where this happened, NOT THE DAMNED RESOLUTIONS, actual posts where these actions took place.

Excuse my Google-English, please. Tell me what part you do not understand.

1. This resolution does not say that Hippostania is innocent. This resolution says that we must lift the condemnation claiming other reasons.

1. 1. Therefore: this resolution does not make Hippostania innocent.

1. 2. There will be TWO resolutions confirming that Hippostania is guilty. One was enough.

This resolution does not help Hippostania. What does this resolution?

2. This resolution says "is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to Comply to the letter of mandates." This undermines the authority of WA.

From now on, it is fully realistic not comply the resolutions of WA. Our own mandate will affirm this.

Personally, or the fudge biggest I've seen, or is it on purpose.

Novaterra wrote:Excuse my Google-English, please. Tell me what part you do not understand.

1. This resolution does not say that Hippostania is innocent. This resolution says that we must lift the condemnation claiming other reasons.

1. 1. Therefore: this resolution does not make Hippostania innocent.

1. 2. There will be TWO resolutions confirming that Hippostania is guilty. One was enough.

Except you're forgetting the entire point of this proposal is to repeal the Condemnation.

Novaterra wrote:This resolution does not help Hippostania. What does this resolution?

I wasn't aware it was supposed to.

Novaterra wrote:2. This resolution says "is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to Comply to the letter of mandates." This undermines the authority of WA.

From now on, it is fully realistic not comply the resolutions of WA. Our own mandate will affirm this.

Personally, or the fudge biggest I've seen, or is it on purpose.

I've been over this enough times, I think I'm going to stop addressing it after this. The SC does not make laws. It gives out badges. This is not a WA law.

SkyDip wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: You really don't know much about the expectations of the GA, do you?

AGAINST.

No, I wouldn't say it's my strong suit.

By that, he meant that yes - all WA members are not only expected to, but are obligated to abide by all laws passed by it. You even get the snazzy little telegram stating that the laws of your nation have changed immediately following the passage of a resolution. While role-playing non-compliance certainly doesn't warrant a condemnation, I can't, in good faith, support a resolution that relies on the argument that non-compliance is okay.

Sciongrad wrote:

SkyDip wrote:No, I wouldn't say it's my strong suit.

By that, he meant that yes - all WA members are not only expected to, but are obligated to abide by all laws passed by it. You even get the snazzy little telegram stating that the laws of your nation have changed immediately following the passage of a resolution. While role-playing non-compliance certainly doesn't warrant a condemnation, I can't, in good faith, support a resolution that relies on the argument that non-compliance is okay.

Yes, I realize what he meant, Sciongrad (Connopolis?).

SkyDip wrote:

Novaterra wrote:Excuse my Google-English, please. Tell me what part you do not understand.

1. This resolution does not say that Hippostania is innocent. This resolution says that we must lift the condemnation claiming other reasons.

1. 1. Therefore: this resolution does not make Hippostania innocent.

1. 2. There will be TWO resolutions confirming that Hippostania is guilty. One was enough.

Except you're forgetting the entire point of this proposal is to repeal the Condemnation.

Novaterra wrote:This resolution does not help Hippostania. What does this resolution?

I wasn't aware it was supposed to.

Novaterra wrote:2. This resolution says "is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to Comply to the letter of mandates." This undermines the authority of WA.

From now on, it is fully realistic not comply the resolutions of WA. Our own mandate will affirm this.

Personally, or the fudge biggest I've seen, or is it on purpose.

I've been over this enough times, I think I'm going to stop addressing it after this. The SC does not make laws. It gives out badges. This is not a WA law.

YYou are not the judge who interprets the resolutions. You do not decide what is legal precedent and what is not. You can only speak ex cathedra and underestimate the arguments of others, but that does not make you the authority.

You can say that the Security Council resolutions of the World Assembly are simple medals. This does not make it, is not your jurisdiction.

You can write "is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to Comply to the letter of mandates." in a resolution. Once approved, it will be true. This is the biggest botched I've seen, or is it on purpose.

On the other hand, you say that you already explained enough. I am still waiting for an argument yours end up being not a fallacy or that does not contradict your own explanations.

I appreciate a 19-day old nation lecturing someone who has passed four previous Security Council resolutions on what it is or is not under purview as much as the next guy, but please - do not presume to tell me how the SC works. That's simply laughable.

SkyDip wrote:I appreciate a 19-day old nation lecturing someone who has passed four previous Security Council resolutions on what it is or is not under purview as much as the next guy, but please - do not presume to tell me how the SC works. That's simply laughable.

I do not pretend to teach anything. I pretend that you do not assume you're single judge of what is and is not in WA. Even a novice like me can distinguish what's medal and what is not.

By the way I have more than 19 days having common sense. Obviously your case is different.

Many of us have defended this position. Hope you have a personal argument to disqualify each. Until now, you still do not give valid arguments.

Novaterra wrote:

SkyDip wrote:I appreciate a 19-day old nation lecturing someone who has passed four previous Security Council resolutions on what it is or is not under purview as much as the next guy, but please - do not presume to tell me how the SC works. That's simply laughable.

I do not pretend to teach anything. I pretend that you do not assume you're single judge of what is and is not in WA. Even a novice like me can distinguish what's medal and what is not.

By the way I have more than 19 days having common sense. Obviously your case is different.

Many of us have defended this position. Hope you have a personal argument to disqualify each. Until now, you still do not give valid arguments.

I just resigned from the WA. Clearly, you need a better understanding of WA mechanics as well.

SkyDip wrote:

Novaterra wrote:I do not pretend to teach anything. I pretend that you do not assume you're single judge of what is and is not in WA. Even a novice like me can distinguish what's medal and what is not.

By the way I have more than 19 days having common sense. Obviously your case is different.

Many of us have defended this position. Hope you have a personal argument to disqualify each. Until now, you still do not give valid arguments.

I just resigned from the WA. Clearly, you need a better understanding of WA mechanics as well.

You disqualifies much -also contradict yourself, use fallacies, etc.. - but argues nothing.

You have convinced me of one thing: you are an expert doing sloppy.

Summary. Other cases deserve attention of WA, but anyone is interested this.

The text does not rehabilitate Hippostania. It is clear from the text that Hippostania is acting against the mandates WA. It introduces just a novelty:

It is fully not realistic comply the resolutions of WA.

You've expressed your love for that a few times now, thanks. Again, thank you for your inexperienced judgement on what makes a proposal clean or sloppy.

If we really want a reductionist argument, I just have to say "scoreboard." I'm not the only one who thought this proposal needed repealing.

SkyDip wrote:You've expressed your love for that a few times now, thanks. Again, thank you for your inexperienced judgement on what makes a proposal clean or sloppy.

If we really want a reductionist argument, I just have to say "scoreboard." I'm not the only one who thought this proposal needed repealing.

See pulling rank.
See WA member's habit of voting completely irrationally.
Also, Mr. Ex-Ambassador may consider his level of obtrusiveness when he condescends the Ambassador from the Most Serene Republic of Novaterra on their usage of the English language. I for one am able to understand what he means.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

SkyDip wrote:You've expressed your love for that a few times now, thanks. Again, thank you for your inexperienced judgement on what makes a proposal clean or sloppy.

If we really want a reductionist argument, I just have to say "scoreboard." I'm not the only one who thought this proposal needed repealing.

See pulling rank.
See WA member's habit of voting completely irrationally.
Also, Mr. Ex-Ambassador may consider his level of obtrusiveness when he condescends the Ambassador from the Most Serene Republic of Novaterra on their usage of the English language. I for one am able to understand what he means.

Indeed. I don't count myself among that rank.

SkyDip wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:See pulling rank.
See WA member's habit of voting completely irrationally.
Also, Mr. Ex-Ambassador may consider his level of obtrusiveness when he condescends the Ambassador from the Most Serene Republic of Novaterra on their usage of the English language. I for one am able to understand what he means.

Indeed. I don't count myself among that rank.

SkyDip wrote:Again, thank you for your inexperienced judgement on what makes a proposal clean or sloppy.

Key word bolded for ya. Just because you passed a few nearly inconsequential pieces of words (to the roleplaying verse at least) doesn't grant you the right to condescend.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

SkyDip wrote:Indeed. I don't count myself among that rank.

SkyDip wrote:Again, thank you for your inexperienced judgement on what makes a proposal clean or sloppy.

Key word bolded for ya. Just because you passed a few nearly inconsequential pieces of words (to the roleplaying verse at least) doesn't grant you the right to condescend.

Thank you - I had almost forgotten my stance on Novaterra in those five minutes.

SkyDip wrote:You've expressed your love for that a few times now, thanks. Again, thank you for your inexperienced judgement on what makes a proposal clean or sloppy.

If we really want a reductionist argument, I just have to say "scoreboard." I'm not the only one who thought this proposal needed repealing.

It would be useless you to use the scoreboard. Until now you have not been able to find an argument nor citing mine.

You are entrenched in that WE have no reason -we are several- because you have a lot of experience, you know more than anyone else and are the only one capable of validating legal precedents of an argumentation.

You should ask to the World Assembly the appointment of Supreme Court Justice. If you have not already ordered.

Sciongrad wrote:

SkyDip wrote:No, I wouldn't say it's my strong suit.

By that, he meant that yes - all WA members are not only expected to, but are obligated to abide by all laws passed by it. You even get the snazzy little telegram stating that the laws of your nation have changed immediately following the passage of a resolution. While role-playing non-compliance certainly doesn't warrant a condemnation, I can't, in good faith, support a resolution that relies on the argument that non-compliance is okay.

That may all be true, but my snark was aimed more at the GA than at Skyrim; specifically, the Compliance Commission's tyrannical bent and insistence that members follow all GA statutes, no matter how boneheaded, moronic or unreasonable (or even contradictory). So yeah, maybe in the realm of "RL reasonableness," members shouldn't be expected to follow all the GA's screwy laws, but the GA expects it all the same, and then some.

I would also add a proviso that roleplaying noncompliance, while a touchy subject in the WA forums, is definitely not unheard of in the Diplomacy forums, so...yeah. Refereeing II/NS actions according to GA conventions is not always good.

REALIZING that many nations which hold membership in the World Assembly are in violation, intentionally or otherwise, of some laws passed by the General Assembly,

BELIEVING that it is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to comply to the letter of every mandate, law, and sub-council given power in these halls,

Sorry for breaking in during a heated debate, but I have to say that this is probably one of the worst reasons I have ever seen to repeal a condemnation. Like, these two lines should at least have been completely removed before the proposal went to vote. I personally cannot comprehend why that type of proposal has garnered so many votes.

It's literally saying "we have so many rules that it's unrealistic to think everyone will follow them, so his transgressions are ok"

I know there are better reasons stated later in the proposal - notably that his transgressions were horribly over-exaggerated and that his actions indicated he wanted the condemnation in the first place - but that is precisely why these two lines should have been omitted. If the proposal passes in its current state, it's probably the most embarrassing testament to "no one takes the WA srsly"

Since when do people not get speeding tickets because the judge says "there are so many laws, we can't have expected them to have followed everything, even if they were doing 45 in a 25."

Idk if these two lines were argued over earlier, but if they weren't, they probably should have been.

EDIT: Wow, apparently my concern is the very topic of the current discussion.

Virana wrote:<snip>

Indeed - welcome into the fray! You've got your RP nations on that side, and SC regulars on this side.

Virana wrote:EDIT: Wow, apparently my concern is the very topic of the current discussion.

Of course, that is the issue. Several we say it. The proposal makes no change to the guilt / innocence of Hippostania. It introduces just a novelty: It is fully not realistic comply the resolutions of WA.

We come and say. Then comes Mr. Self Sufficiency deploying smokescreens. The Super-Senator never enters real debate of arguments. He did not stoop to that with inferiors.

Neither seems to he want others do: he resolve it quickly. He has used against you the appeal to authority fallacy: Those who know (CS) think otherwise. He has also used other fallacies: tu quoque, bandwagon, ad hominem, strawman ... In fact, the exhibition is based on the appeal to nature fallacy.

The most illustrious dignitary that he is, does not make sloppy mistakes. Perhaps the bet should be: How much do you bet to pass a resolution defended only with fallacies and contradictions?

SkyDip wrote:I appreciate how this has devolved into nothing but the slippery slope of all WA members will turn anarchic and start firing nukes at each other should this piece of non-binding legislation pass.

OOC: From the OOC perspective aforementioned two clauses are wrong because technically compliance is mandatory, and from the IC perspective they are unacceptable because it will mean the official declaration that the World Assembly doesn't anymore expect mandatory compliance with its resolutions and accepts the role of purely symbolic organization.

Passing of this abominable Trojan Horse will become the greatest victory of NatSov camp in the history of NationStates.

We have to remember that the World Assembly has no real power when it comes to the internal affairs of nations. Now am I saying that member states shouldn't be expected to follow its provisions? No, I am simply stating that there is no way for the World Assembly to enforce its laws and therefore is a suggestive body. But this does not make it powerless, the World Assembly still retains the power to dictate international law, law that applies to the interactions between nations, and therefore has the power to promote world peace.

Now, I do not completely disagree with the concerns of this body regarding the wording in the text; it should have been deeply considered before being sent to vote. But this does not affect the fact that this condemnation needs to be repealed and that we cannot go about condemning every nation that violates a provision of the World Assembly.

SkyDip wrote:I appreciate a 19-day old nation lecturing someone who has passed four previous Security Council resolutions on what it is or is not under purview as much as the next guy, but please - do not presume to tell me how the SC works. That's simply laughable.

Wow really? Nice way for a veteran to speak to a newbie, who is using a translator to get his point across. You really amaze me sometimes. So where would you like your cookie? Would you like some milk with it too?

SkyDip wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Key word bolded for ya. Just because you passed a few nearly inconsequential pieces of words (to the roleplaying verse at least) doesn't grant you the right to condescend.

Thank you - I had almost forgotten my stance on Novaterra in those five minutes.

No you just set the ignore cannon on full-auto.

Just in case I forgot to mention, I vote nay on this.

Cheers on your next fruitless endeavour.

Auriga wrote:We have to remember that the World Assembly has no real power when it comes to the internal affairs of nations.

Theoretically the WA gnomes possess some means to enforce the WA decisions, but it is not very clear how far their powers are reaching.

Auriga wrote:Now, I do not completely disagree with the concerns of this body regarding the wording in the text; it should have been deeply considered before being sent to vote. But this does not affect the fact that this condemnation needs to be repealed and that we cannot go about condemning every nation that violates a provision of the World Assembly.

Even if you believe that the Condemnation of Hippostania should be repealed it does not mean that it should be done via this specific Repeal. This Repeal will not only remove the Condemnation of Hippostania, but also tarnish one of the core principles of the WA - the mandatory implementation of its resolutions.