NATION

PASSWORD

DEFEATED: Condemn Gatesville

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Unibot » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:41 pm

So you think just because players lighten the mood of heavy debates with rp antics and some silliness in the Strangers Bar that we should give over a huge chunk of the WA game mechanics to fluff and favouritism ?


Fluff and Favoritism goes a long way in diplomacy - but you know that.

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Urgench » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:52 pm

Unibot wrote:
So you think just because players lighten the mood of heavy debates with rp antics and some silliness in the Strangers Bar that we should give over a huge chunk of the WA game mechanics to fluff and favouritism ?


Fluff and Favoritism goes a long way in diplomacy - but you know that.



What fucking diplomacy ? The diplomacy of "oh we love Kandarin they're so nice to people on offsite forums" ?
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Unibot » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:57 pm

You and me both know that the C&C's can be used for much more than that example.

If you think its time to write an actually diplomatically sweeping Commendation or Condemnation - I suggested you do so, and I'd gladly give a thumbs up to it (if I agreed with the message of course).

User avatar
Artistic Differences
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Jun 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Why does Gatesville deserve to be condemned?

Postby Artistic Differences » Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:28 pm

We, the People's Republic of Artistic Differences, have researched Gatesville and can find no valid reason to condemn this country. Do certain members of the WA want to condemn Gatesville simply because they disagree with Gatevillian politics, or did we miss something horrible that Gatesville has done? We, the People's Republic of Artistic Differences, want to make informed decisions regarding our world. Thank you, and long live the PRAD!

User avatar
Absolvability
Diplomat
 
Posts: 857
Founded: Apr 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Absolvability » Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Urgench wrote:I've explained to you what Urgench's position on the political ramifications are, but again, currently C&Cs are just a weapon in the hands of large regions and well organised alliances to pat each other on the back or to mark out those they don't like. Without qualified majority voting Urgench could never see C&Cs as anything but political fluff and favouritism.

Whatever. We always end up in debate. I'm just wondering why you didn't vote ICly, to be honest. And vote no... considering all the things you're saying. I don't really care how much you appreciate the role played intricacies that a condemnation may or may not have. The point is that it's a crappy resolution.

Jey wrote:Absolvability, if you knew anything about NationStates, you'd know about Yelda. You'd know about Kenny.

Awww, Jey. You just lost my vote for your commendation man. I don't give a damn about you, Yelda, or Kenny. I know about NationStates. I can operate fully within it without having to appeal to some high-school group of game veterans.

At any rate, I was very careful not to make any concrete accusations. I certainly pointed out some coincidences that, for good reason, would make one suspicious. I also said that he shouldn't get forumbanned. This is the first time we've spoken. It doesn't hurt me at all to say that this will be the last.

Kenny wrote:Uhhh... no. Funny you should raise such suspicions this weekend, however, when all the mods who actually know us are gone. So maybe I will get that forumban after all?

Maybe you'll get forumbanned? Maybe Yelda will... I hope not. Surely you won't. Yelda isn't your puppet. I'd think the mods wouldhave access to that information.
Antonius Veloci
Ambassador of The Event Horizon of Absolvability

User avatar
Weylara
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1420
Founded: May 09, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Weylara » Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:44 pm

If you look at gatesville's factbook entry, they support the resolution.

User avatar
Jey
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Jul 01, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Jey » Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:14 pm

Absolvability wrote:Awww, Jey. You just lost my vote for your commendation man. I don't give a damn about you, Yelda, or Kenny. I know about NationStates. I can operate fully within it without having to appeal to some high-school group of game veterans.

At any rate, I was very careful not to make any concrete accusations. I certainly pointed out some coincidences that, for good reason, would make one suspicious. I also said that he shouldn't get forumbanned. This is the first time we've spoken. It doesn't hurt me at all to say that this will be the last.


This isn't a courtroom. You "pointed out some coincidences" because you thought it was the same player. There's no getting around that.

And your statement that you "don't give a damn about me, Yelda, or Kenny" shows that your next one is completely false: you don't know about NationStates. If you did, you would have some respect for these "high-school group of game veterans", because they helped to make the quality of UN/WA discussion and legislation as high and as intelligent as it is today (or was, perhaps). They have forgotten more about this game than you will ever know. And I have enough respect for them, and all the other great contributors out there to even hesitate to include myself in that list. I don't.

You know, when I first joined NationStates, I lurked for a hell of a long time. You know why? Because I wanted to understand this game before I started contributing on any significant level. Maybe that paid off, because I was never ignorant enough to accuse two of the most prolific players in this game of being puppets of one another.
Last edited by Jey on Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Allied Empire of Jey (Jey Wiki - Featured Article) See also: Jevian, Universitus University - FAs
NSwiki Bureaucrat
Delegate: United Nations
Member: UN Old Guard
UN Resolutions: 125, 138, 139(C), 153, 157(C), 161(C), 166(S), 176, 191, 199, 213, 240, 244
WA Resolutions: 77(GA)

User avatar
Absolvability
Diplomat
 
Posts: 857
Founded: Apr 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Absolvability » Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:14 pm

Jey wrote:This isn't a courtroom. You "pointed out some coincidences" because you thought it was the same player. There's no getting around that.

Fine. I was wrong. The point is I had reasons to think so. And I provided them because I don't like to toss around unfounded accusations. I was wrong. It doesn't hurt me to say this because this particular point has little to do with what I've been saying all along.

Jey wrote:If you did, you would have some respect for these "high-school group of game veterans", because they helped to make the quality of UN/WA discussion and legislation as high and as intelligent as it is today (or was, perhaps).

I've been active in the game for as long as I've been here. That's about all you can expect of me, isn't it? If I don't know much about Kenny it's because, primarily, he seems to provide for the amusement side of this game. I haven't seen a lot of contribution on his part in the debate category. And like I said, I've NEVER seen you before Jey. Or Yelda. So really... am I supposed to come in here and respect people that OTHER people respect for the simple fact that other people respect them? Get over yourself. I don't know how intelligent things used to be, but I haven't seen a lot of intelligence over the course of this altercation.


Jey wrote:You know, when I first joined NationStates, I lurked for a hell of a long time. You know why? Because I wanted to understand this game before I started contributing on any significant level.

I know enough about this game. I have perfectly valid reasons for opposing this resolution, and I've had perfectly valid reasons for doing most everything I've done, notwithstanding the first week or two where, admittedly, I did not know much about the game. It seems I made enough enemies in that time that now whenever I reach a disagreement with somebody it is chalked up to me being a 'noob' or 'stupid.' I will not show respect to these people beyond what they show me.
Antonius Veloci
Ambassador of The Event Horizon of Absolvability

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Ardchoille » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:50 pm

CUT. IT. OUT!

Fercryin'outloud, people, this thread is not the place to debate various styles of IC/OOC. This is the first debate in a new forum, on a topic of a sort that forum will have to deal with repeatedly. I am aware that RPers will find it hard to stay IC to debate some gameplay matters. This does not mean that you have the right to spam, as QoD was doing before I deleted the post, or flame, as Yelda did (Yelda banned 24 hours).

If you can't discuss THE TOPIC IC, then discuss it OOC, as WA players have done fequently on draft proposals. If you can't discuss it all without hauling it off-topic, then don't post.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Ardchoilleans
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 118
Founded: Jul 19, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Ardchoilleans » Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:38 pm

I would prefer to see this proposal voted down because of the imprecision of its language. Gatesville either is a region, or it is not: it cannot be both a condemnable region and a "pretended 'region' ".

I contend that all resolutions passed by this body -- which speaks, as does the General Assembly, for the multiverse -- should be as accurate and honest as we can make them. This does not mean, though, that we must always opt for overburdened solemnity in our affairs. I applaud the writer's attempt to inject a little light-heartedness into our activities, and regret only that in doing so he overstepped the ...

*receives urgent note from messenger*

... I am informed that the President for Life of Archoille, who does not sit in this chamber and has not been present for any of the debate, has nonetheless already cast Ardchoille's vote in favour of this proposal, on the grounds that "we shouldn't pass up a chance to give Gatesville a black eye, since they stand completely opposed to our government's internationalist policies ". There seems little more for me to say at this point.

-- Walter Arbuthnot, wizard.

*exit, furiously*
This nation is Ardchoille playing, not modding, orright?

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:00 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:(Snip) Now, as for our standing in the resolution, I am going to say...

I am going to say... Thank you for now and see you later because I'm hungry.


Ms Sarah Harper has made a decision after days of thinking, and has cast four of her votes FOR.

User avatar
Stash Kroh
Envoy
 
Posts: 208
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Stash Kroh » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:35 am

Ms. Adelinda Gliemann walked into the new Security Council lobby, and sat down at the table with her country's name on it, which happened to be directly across from the Unibotian Ambassador, she had thought surely they would organize the desks in alphabetical order instead of putting her right in front of the Unibot table - whose country, Stash Kroh had been recently liberated from, with a Drunken Witch's curse. To say the least - it was awkward, the Unibotian ambassador, a goofy seventeen year old with acne scars and food stains under his lips, kept given her a weird stare. Either she was throughly embarrassing him and his country with her appearance at the assembly, or he was just flirting with her - She couldn't be sure which.

It didn't matter, she flicked the brown locks from her forehead and began her first declaration as the Official Stash Kroh Ambassador...

"I first would like to applaud, the Kennyite diplomat for a particularly good read that made me chuckle - at least twice. Unlike some of the other ambassadors here, I don't particularly care what facts are lacking in the proposal - or the fact that you specifically call this dangerous terrorist organization, a 'pretended "region"' which is though untrue, a particularity good example of snobbish international institution's penmanship. Which I think we need to see more of! Therefore we have already casted our vote in favor of the proposal which aims to be a well deserved slap on the wrist for one of the Assembly's most notorious opponents".
Last edited by Stash Kroh on Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ambassador Adelinda Gliemann
The Clockwork Forge of Stash Kroh
WA Security Council Liaison

User avatar
Cookesland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 368
Founded: Jan 01, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Cookesland » Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:38 am

Richard had not been in the new Security Council chambers, having been constructed while he was in the bar. Numerous delegates were already debating over the Condemnation of the Gatesville Region. He walking largely unnoticed by the others and took his seat.

"It is about time that some one took it on themselves and speak out against those chimerical rougue states seeking to subvert our interests. We thank the Kennyite Ambassdor for the development of this much needed piece of legislation. I believe this will be a stepping stone to pave over the dangerous walkway of Nationalism, perpetuated by this vile region. We wholly support this condemnation and I gladly cast Cookesland's vote as FOR."

Richard York
WA Ambassador

User avatar
Zemnaya Svoboda
Diplomat
 
Posts: 819
Founded: Jan 06, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Zemnaya Svoboda » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:59 am

Cookesland wrote:Richard had not been in the new Security Council chambers, having been constructed while he was in the bar. Numerous delegates were already debating over the Condemnation of the Gatesville Region. He walking largely unnoticed by the others and took his seat.

"It is about time that some one took it on themselves and speak out against those chimerical rougue states seeking to subvert our interests. We thank the Kennyite Ambassdor for the development of this much needed piece of legislation. I believe this will be a stepping stone to pave over the dangerous walkway of Nationalism, perpetuated by this vile region. We wholly support this condemnation and I gladly cast Cookesland's vote as FOR."

Richard York
WA Ambassador


Elena walked up to Richard's seat and greeted him, "Hello Mr York, I'm the representative of the Соединенные Штаты, and I believe that this resolution is actually an attempt by pro-Nationalist forces to undermine this institution by causing rhetorical overreach. This resolution is phrased in a pro-Nationalist manner, and erects a straw man of an Assembly position against the very existence of National Sovereignty. Indeed it even 'admits' an intention to 'control every nation,' when the World Assembly clearly has no power or intention to regulate non-member nations. I fear that passing this resolution would help Nationalists everywhere by giving them a straw man world-statist position to 'defend' against. For these reasons my government has agreed to vote against this Resolution. Mr York, do you believe that it is in the interests of your nation to support that?"

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:18 pm

Absolvability wrote:*snip*


Just to note, even a little bit of research would've let you know that Yelda and Kenny are not the same person. Do that before you make any future "suggestions" perhaps? Or not, whatever.

I will never take the Condemn and Commend category of resolutions seriously, and while you folks are free to do so, I will consistently support such satirical resolutions in the future. Given the free time, I'll even write a few.

This is amusing, as is this "debate". I hope to see many more.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Pope Lexus X
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Apr 21, 2005
Iron Fist Consumerists

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Pope Lexus X » Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:17 pm

Honoured WA Ambassadors,

This is my first time entering into a WA debate on the on-site forum (never liked the Jolt forum, so I stayed away), so please forgive me if I come across as ignorant/arrogant or both!

I served in the region of Gatesville as it's Foreign Affairs Advocate twice, and Intelligence Advocate once. From an insiders perspective, I know that the myths surrounding the region, how it has influenced the affairs of many regions and created a hegemony which ruled over of many great regions; the pacifics and nation-made regions alike. Many of the myths were surprisingly true, and while this gives an incentive to condemn this region, I could argue that you only need to look at it now to see that this course of action is incorrect.

Gatesville is a shadow of its former self. A region which had over a thousand nations down to a little over a hundred, and its leaders have failed numerous times to save it. Many nations failed to stop Gatesville when it was powerful. Kicking now that it is down seems a little pathetic to me. Condemning it may well provide an incentive for Gatesville to rise again. I doubt this, but anything is possible. It would at the very least be a final victory for them to be recognised by this body for having opposed it.

All of that said, Gatesville has only harmed one region to my knowledge, that did not deserve it. It fought to provide a basis of activity. Gates the God gave his region propaganda, patriotism and created a truly spectacular force in this world. It shows, in its fullest form, our own creative genius; how something tiny and insignificant can be built by us and cause such a great effect, and I would go so far as to call that effect a positive one. It brought us activity. The central regions to this world, the pacifics, were lulled into inactive states. WA Delegates of this regions failed to lead nations in their dominions. One thing Gatesville did was to make these delegates wake up, if only temporarily in some cases. If the means justify the ends, then Gatesville was truly great. That, however, is up to each individual to decide, not an assembly.

When Gatesville really fought the WA and the UN before it (I assume I can say UN without fear of legal action..), bills were really debated regionwide. This region made nations think. Certainly, joining a "cause" was "cool" and resolutions were defeated which should not have been, but people always had a choice, and they chose to question what was proposed to them. For that reason alone, Gatesville deserves not a condemnation, but a commendation. I have presented my thoughts, and I hope they are respected or torn apart respectfully.

Many thanks for listening to this old fool. ^_^
Last edited by Pope Lexus X on Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~Pope Lexus X~

User avatar
San Guillermo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 633
Founded: Sep 29, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby San Guillermo » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:32 pm

As the representative to the WA for the United Kingdom of Santos Rivera and San Guillermo, I could not find a viable reason to vote for the condemnation of Gatesville. It seems that they have been an active force in the past of this wonderful organization, but whatever feuds they have had with the organization seems to have fallen into memory. If there was a very tumultuous event that affected the organization that had to do with Gatesville, then it gets my vote, but until I know what that is, then I will have to vote against this resolution.

Don William Carlos Lacalesto, Jr.
Representative to the World Assembly, The United Kingdom of Santos Rivera and San Guillermo
The United Kingdom of Santos Rivera and San Guillermo, in union the United Rivera
The Factbook
HM Michael the First
King of the United Rivera

* PM de Alcantara on Morsi ousting: "The people of Egypt know what is right for their country, and we will support them in whatever they do."
* Mercedes mayor receives criticism after "Honey" remarks
* Headline editor to reader: "I can't believe you read this s***!"
* Filming to start on Verde, a film about the revolution of 1985
* FLAG REQUESTS now taken, for a limited time! Please, keep it simple.
YOU JUST LOST. Ha!

User avatar
Balawaristan
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Sep 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Balawaristan » Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:52 am

Whether the recipient of condemnation takes joy in the condemnation is of no consideration. Were that the case, and the acts of condemnation and commendation oriented only towards stimulating some subjective state in the recipient, the applicability of these motions would be severely restricted. Following that line of reasoning, just as we should not condemn because of the chance the recipient might take joy in the attention, neither should we commend because of the chance the recipient may feel modesty about his accomplishments, and we should not seek to put them on the spot.

It is clear that condemnation, like punishment, is not intended to produce some desired response. We may take the analogy of a violent criminal. Should we not condemn his actions, and even put him in prison, on the off chance that he wants to go to jail anyway, likes the attention of a trial, and we are only boosting his ego and popularity? This is absurdity.

Condemnation and commendation constitute a valuable instrument for this international assembly to take principled stands on the compelling matters of our day, and we should view it as such. It may provide the grounds for individual nations or regions to reconsider certain matters, working the expressed, formal consensus of the international community into the calculus of their decisions. But, taken as itself, it is only the expression of consensus. For one, I take this as a very valuable thing, and one from which much good may come, and I will earnestly argue against any who regard a principled stand on behalf of humanity as trifling, and seek instead to impose the undue burdens of utility of effect and condemn our words as "irrelevant." An expression of moral consensus on the matters of our day is anything but irrelevant.

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal
Ambassador,
The Green Workers' Republic of Balawaristan

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5602
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:05 pm

Your pal Minyos disagrees with you:

Minyos wrote:I'm not going to be a party to the new WA Security Council Commend/Condemn feature. It's infantile, and honestly, the WA-clique can award themselves "Commendations" and hand out "Condemnations" willy-nilly. Some may be justified, some may not be. I won't be endorsing ANY Commendation nor Condemnation. If any come to vote (and some will over the next week or two), I'll be voting AGAINST all of them - on principle. There is absolutely nothing to stop abuse of this functionality by power-blocs within and without of the World Assembly, and I firmly believe that a region or nation should stand on its merits or detractions as is. WA-sanctioned demerit points or gold stars to individual nations or regions are unpalatable, not to mention paternalistic.

At any rate, this has failed. We're holding a tailgate Victory Party out in the parking lot to celebrate. You can come, if you bring your own beer, and bring your own beef. And leave all that veggie crap at home. If you wanna munch on tofu and pretend you just saved an animal, do it in Berkeley. 8)
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:32 pm

Official announcement from Ms. Sarah Harper, chairing at this moment: The resolution "Condemn gatesville" was defeated 3,320 votes to 1,485, so to date a Commend and Condemn resolution has yet to come into fruition, at the time where the guidelines were still being discussed. Since there is no General Assembly proposal yet at quorum it is likely we'll be debating in respect to the region of Macedon commencing at 10AM BST tomorrow.
Last edited by Charlotte Ryberg on Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Qumkent » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:46 pm

Balawaristan wrote:Whether the recipient of condemnation takes joy in the condemnation is of no consideration. Were that the case, and the acts of condemnation and commendation oriented only towards stimulating some subjective state in the recipient, the applicability of these motions would be severely restricted. Following that line of reasoning, just as we should not condemn because of the chance the recipient might take joy in the attention, neither should we commend because of the chance the recipient may feel modesty about his accomplishments, and we should not seek to put them on the spot.

It is clear that condemnation, like punishment, is not intended to produce some desired response. We may take the analogy of a violent criminal. Should we not condemn his actions, and even put him in prison, on the off chance that he wants to go to jail anyway, likes the attention of a trial, and we are only boosting his ego and popularity? This is absurdity.

Condemnation and commendation constitute a valuable instrument for this international assembly to take principled stands on the compelling matters of our day, and we should view it as such. It may provide the grounds for individual nations or regions to reconsider certain matters, working the expressed, formal consensus of the international community into the calculus of their decisions. But, taken as itself, it is only the expression of consensus. For one, I take this as a very valuable thing, and one from which much good may come, and I will earnestly argue against any who regard a principled stand on behalf of humanity as trifling, and seek instead to impose the undue burdens of utility of effect and condemn our words as "irrelevant." An expression of moral consensus on the matters of our day is anything but irrelevant.

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal
Ambassador,
The Green Workers' Republic of Balawaristan




What consensus honoured Ambassador ? A condemnation or a commendation need only be passed with a simple majority, meaning that half or indeed more of the membership of the WA may completely disagree with the commendation or commendation in question.

The idea that either commendations of condemnations may be considered to express the consensus opinion of the WA without achieving the affirmation of a more than substantial majority of its membership is laughable.


Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Balawaristan
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Sep 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Balawaristan » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:15 pm

Qumkent wrote:What consensus honoured Ambassador ? A condemnation or a commendation need only be passed with a simple majority, meaning that half or indeed more of the membership of the WA may completely disagree with the commendation or commendation in question.

The idea that either commendations of condemnations may be considered to express the consensus opinion of the WA without achieving the affirmation of a more than substantial majority of its membership is laughable.


Yours,


Most Esteemed Ambassador,

I find your stance to be entirely reasonable, and certainly mean no disrespect, but I must ask once question to clarify my understanding of your position:

If simple majority does not constitute a sufficiently compelling consensus to issue a mere statement of condemnation or commendation by this hallowed international body, how can it possibly be sufficient to enact actual policies with sweeping effects throughout the member nations and the broader world?

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Qumkent » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:34 pm

Balawaristan wrote:
Qumkent wrote:What consensus honoured Ambassador ? A condemnation or a commendation need only be passed with a simple majority, meaning that half or indeed more of the membership of the WA may completely disagree with the commendation or commendation in question.

The idea that either commendations of condemnations may be considered to express the consensus opinion of the WA without achieving the affirmation of a more than substantial majority of its membership is laughable.


Yours,


Most Esteemed Ambassador,

I find your stance to be entirely reasonable, and certainly mean no disrespect, but I must ask once question to clarify my understanding of your position:

If simple majority does not constitute a sufficiently compelling consensus to issue a mere statement of condemnation or commendation by this hallowed international body, how can it possibly be sufficient to enact actual policies with sweeping effects throughout the member nations and the broader world?




The difference is subtle but profound.

A commendation is the opinion of the WA, unqualified as "the opinion of a simple majority of those members who voted" and once expressed this opinion is a fixed point.

A law such as a resolution of the old kind can be justified if only passed by a simple majority because it never pretends to be the expressed will of the entire membership, indeed it can be argued that a simple majority is preferable in this case because it makes it easier to seek the repeal of an unjust or poorly conceived resolution, which not having received the support of anything like the entire membership or a real majority of it can be expected to be repealed with far less difficulty undoing and repairing the damage caused with far greater expectation of support.

The difference is in the pretension of a condemnation or a commendation to being the actual opinion of the WA when in fact it isn't, and yet it carries that pretension as a part of it's weight and purpose.

If the definition of a Condemnation or a Commendation were changed to explain that in fact it represented nothing more than a simple majority of those members which voted then this would not be an issue.


Yours,
Last edited by Qumkent on Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5602
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:54 pm

Take it to another thread please.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: AT VOTE: Condemn Gatesville

Postby Urgench » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:09 pm

Why because this one is so focused on the oh so serious business of the condemnation of Gatesville ? :lol:


I wont breath another word ;)
Last edited by Urgench on Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads