DEFEATED: Condemn Gatesville

[Glen-Rhodes]

Simply because it's satire does not mean you should vote against it. In fact, I see no reason why anybody would vote against it. ... Well, there's always the chance that some Quodite office clerk is going to impale you with a letter-opener. But, that's what? a 1 in 10 chance?

Dr. B. Castro
Unofficial Security Council Representative
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[New Rockport]

The fact that gatesville doesn't want to follow any of the current resolutions while making a point of being a member is the entire basis for this condemnation.

If that were the case, New Rockport would not be averse to this condemnation. However, the resolution cites as a basis for this condemnation, "...concern for those nations and regions, particularly gatesville, but many others also, that push this strange and foreign concept of 'national sovereignty,' and oppose resolutions for that reason..." This resolution goes beyond the laudable goal of condemning Gatesville for violating WA resolutions while maintaining WA membership. This resolution also expresses disapproval of national sovereignty as a basis for opposing WA resolutions, and that is something that the Republic of New Rockport cannot endorse.

...if a nation fundamentally objects to the resolutions presently enforced by the WA, they have three choices: repeal, accept or resign.

Actually, as I am sure my esteemed colleague from Meekinos is aware, there is a fourth choice: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=ESAT

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

[The Animal Union]

The Animal Union realizes that Gatesville should not be condemned because of it's political reasonings. As a matter of fact, the WA probably doesn't even HAVE the right to control every nation! Gatesville brings a good point in this respect. The Animal Union will fight against this proposal tooth-and-nail, and will fight to defend the minority nations' rights.

[Draegos]

The Philosophical Conundrum of Draegos raises several questions. First off, what grounds should we condemn said country? For not liking the World Assembly? For wanting to bring down these hallowed halls? Members and Delegates, we would like to say that this action of condemnation is not worth it. We would not be doing them anything save giving them fame, or infamy in this case. Their doings have mostly been vocal, not actual. There is no actual threat of destruction because one region does not like us. I say that we postpone this, only for the time being, until said region acts upon us. It is unbecoming of us to simply charge in and condemn those who do not like us. Also, if gatesville has the right to be condemned, then why not Animal Union? God knows he's declared war on so many World Assembly nations that he HAS to merit some sort of prize for it. No offense, of course, to the delegate of Animal Union.

Also, such an action would only add to their fame, or infamy in this case. We are better off ignoring them, at least for the time being.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, it is not a law. But it is a proposal that wishes for an international backing in order to condemn a region. It is just as important as a law and should be shown adequate respect. Satire has no place in quorom.

Dude, I don't know if you've noticed this, but the whole fucking game is satire. Had you read Jennifer Government, you might have known. Or maybe you have read JG, and you're just clueless? I don't know. Were you this mortally offended when your own government "instituted 'traveller reservations' across the country," when it classified all people as "male, female, or genderqueer," or when it forced MPs into cardboard-box housing? What about the first time your ambassador was defenestrated? Did the mods have to scold you for filing a frivolous GHR?

Look, I hope this resolution fails too. As far as I am concerned, all of these C&Cs are a waste of time, and only when they all fail miserably will the admins realize what a mistake they've made. But it really is stupid to vote against a resolution in a satirical game just because you think we should all be pompous jerks with no sense of humor.

[Absolvability]

I don't know. Were you this mortally offended when your own government "instituted 'traveller reservations' across the country," when it classified all people as "male, female, or genderqueer," or when it forced MPs into cardboard-box housing? What about the first time your ambassador was defenestrated? Did the mods have to scold you for filing a frivolous GHR?

Offended? Why would I be? I make the decisions. I'm aware that this game exaggerates everything in order to affirm the simple fact that no answer will ever be the 'correct' one. The traveler reservations house volunteers that, presumably, have no other place to go. This keeps them off a farmers fields... as was the broached 'issue' in the first place. Genderqueer isn't what I'd refer to transexuals as... but it was the only option that recognized their right to do what they want to do. I don't really give a damn what you THINK when you read the information on my page.

At any rate, I don't enjoy dismissing issues. I only do so when I feel as though I've already solved a particular problem with a past issue. So my 'stats' don't rise as quickly as I'd like... but I feel it is more realistic to occasionally pick something that isn't strictly acceptable to me.

I don't see what this has to do with writing legislation though. Yes, players write issues, but not me. And not the majority I suspect. Point being... we recieve issues that OTHER people write. There is no vote that I'm aware of. We get what we get.

The WA is different. It comes with responsibility. Satire has a place, but not in official documentation. I don't care if it's IC, OOC, WA, GP, or whatever the hell else. How does the VAST voting body know that you are being satirical? We don't. And I'm not going to 'take your word for it' when whatever lasting effects this will have will be stapled to a regions page.

You condemn Gatesville for thinking that the WA wants to rule over everybody. By doing so you, in part, prove them correct. To say that anyone of deviant belief deserves condemning. You condemn them for claiming national sovereignty in contest to various resolutions. Who the hell hasn't played that card before? Fast and often. The satire is just an instrument of bad taste. I don't care so much about the satire as I do the bad taste.

Look, I hope this resolution fails too. As far as I am concerned, all of these C&Cs are a waste of time, and only when they all fail miserably will the admins realize what a mistake they've made.

You're part of the problem. You're abusing the process so that moderators might see how it can be abused. You probably think that's pretty clever. I think it's abuse of the process.

[Meekinos]

If that were the case, New Rockport would not be averse to this condemnation. However, the resolution cites as a basis for this condemnation, "...concern for those nations and regions, particularly gatesville, but many others also, that push this strange and foreign concept of 'national sovereignty,' and oppose resolutions for that reason..." This resolution goes beyond the laudable goal of condemning Gatesville for violating WA resolutions while maintaining WA membership. This resolution also expresses disapproval of national sovereignty as a basis for opposing WA resolutions, and that is something that the Republic of New Rockport cannot endorse

For that reason, we have suggested that New Rockport learn the history of gatesville, whose entire vendetta against the now defunct/dissolved UN, current WA, was on the ground of national sovereignty violations. The phrase was included as a direct poke. Gatesville is pro-national sovereignty, that has never been disputed. The same region has always been against an international body, whose entire purpose is to create better conditions both nationally and internationally. It does clearly cross into national jurisdiction, and that is what they object to.

Actually, as I am sure my esteemed colleague from Meekinos is aware, there is a fourth choice: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=ESAT

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

It seems that this only relates to the now defunct UN. It doesn't appear to relate to the current WA, so what is the point of this?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You're part of the problem. You're abusing the process so that moderators might see how it can be abused. You probably think that's pretty clever. I think it's abuse of the process.

No, that's not why I wrote this proposal. I wrote it to try to have fun with something many of us had a serious problem with. I campaigned to get it to quorum to give the admins more time to iron out the rules before Todd's proposals got to vote. I didn't bother withdrawing it because I didn't want the first C&C to be about the color scheme in someone's WFE. Although, I really don't need to justify myself to you, the same person who was defying and breaking the rules like it was some kind of sport when he first started playing a couple months ago.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

...if a nation fundamentally objects to the resolutions presently enforced by the WA, they have three choices: repeal, accept or resign.

Actually, as I am sure my esteemed colleague from Meekinos is aware, there is a fourth choice: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=ESAT

Since we're all entitled to just one WA nation, the "fourth choice" would actually require resigning at some point, would it not?

[Ballotonia]

Gatesville isn't what it used to be. They're a mere shadow of their former evil selves. As such, they do not deserve to be condemned, they should have to work at it a bit harder from now on and then maybe in the future they'll be worthy.

Ballotonia

[Glen-Rhodes]

It seems that this only relates to the now defunct UN. It doesn't appear to relate to the current WA, so what is the point of this?

Well, it's a rather clever tactic that Glen-Rhodes has thought of using some time before. Essentially, Glen-Rhodes would declare a building a sovereign nation. Through that sovereign nation, which is really just a puppet, Glen-Rhodes would be able to have a say and a vote in the World Assembly without having to actually comply with any of the resolutions.

Dr. B. Castro
Unofficial Security Council Representative
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Unibot]

Kuno Krugner walked into the new Security Council, amazed at all of the 'shiny things' hanging from the ceiling, and the desk with his name on it - embedded in Gold.

Ambassador Kuno Krugner - Unibot

Kuno went red in the cheeks, "Ambassador Kuno Krugner ", he liked the sound of it. How a high school dropout, paperboy clerk had become the Ambassador of a nation while working a summer job was above his train of thought - but that didn't matter, he was an Ambassador, and that was what counted!

He sat down in the fresh, comfy Ambassador chair - took a deep breath and made his first statement as an official ambassador whilst his voice croaked in puberty.

"Well 'like' I dig the satire and everything. But couldn't it go a little 'like' deeper. There's a shit load of things wrong with Gatesville, who are undoubtedly one of are greatest foes and a threat to 'like' international relations abroad. But I think 'like' this resolution doesn't go deep enough into it, and 'like' calling them a pretend 'region' isn't very 'like' nice. I'm awaiting an even more 'satirical' and in depth condemenation from the Security Council before I give 'like' the thumbs up because an infamous enemy like Gatesville deserves much worse that this proposal - this only goes skindeep. But I must 'like' applaud the Kennyite ambassador for his effort"

(OOC: I think the problem is that it was written before the metagaming rules were thrown out, and you were still trying to follow them with the whole 'pretend' region stuff. I'd like to see a redraft.)

[Rutianas]

It seems that this only relates to the now defunct UN. It doesn't appear to relate to the current WA, so what is the point of this?

Well, it's a rather clever tactic that Glen-Rhodes has thought of using some time before. Essentially, Glen-Rhodes would declare a building a sovereign nation. Through that sovereign nation, which is really just a puppet, Glen-Rhodes would be able to have a say and a vote in the World Assembly without having to actually comply with any of the resolutions.

Dr. B. Castro
Unofficial Security Council Representative
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

This is precisely the tactic that the Imperial Empire has considered for some time. We even have such a nation that we would use for such a situation.

Oh, and we do support this proposal. We may be National Sovereignists at time, but we don't always use that as strictly our only argument.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

(OOC: I think the problem is that it was written before the metagaming rules were thrown out, and you were still trying to follow them with the whole 'pretend' region stuff. I'd like to see a redraft.)

It's already at vote; it cannot be withdrawn or redrafted.

[Unibot]

OOC: You can't redraft it later and propose it again if it fails to make it to vote?

[Jey]

The Jevian Delegation rises in support of the Resolution "Condemn Gatesville" that has been proposed before the new World Assembly Security Council. We certainly recognize and respect the satirical history of international legislation (though admittedly, this resolution's author has been the greatest contributor to satirical legislation), and are not put off by the language of this proposal. We would have thought that the residents of Gatesville, and all who know her political leanings, would somewhat embrace, tongue-in-cheek, a World Assembly condemnation. Perhaps this is not the case.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian WA Representative

[New Rockport]

Actually, as I am sure my esteemed colleague from Meekinos is aware, there is a fourth choice: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=ESAT

It seems that this only relates to the now defunct UN. It doesn't appear to relate to the current WA, so what is the point of this?

True, the particular example of ESAT related to the UN. However, there appears to be no barrier under the current WA rules to prevent a nation from using a similar puppet.

Since we're all entitled to just one WA nation, the "fourth choice" would actually require resigning at some point, would it not?

Indeed it would, if a nation is already a WA member.

...we have suggested that New Rockport learn the history of gatesville, whose entire vendetta against the now defunct/dissolved UN, current WA, was on the ground of national sovereignty violations. The phrase was included as a direct poke.

The problem, however, is that this resolution also directly pokes "...those nations and regions, particularly gatesville, but many others also...," labeling them as "dangerous," "traitors," and "interlopers."

Gatesville is pro-national sovereignty, that has never been disputed.

True, but then again, so is the World Assembly. Please see Section I of World Assembly Resolution #2, which states:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

This resolution labels the principle of national sovereignty, long established in international law, as a "strange and foreign concept." It labels not just Gatesville, but all nations that oppose resolutions that violate this important principle, as "dangerous...interlopers and traitors." It must therefore be defeated.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Gatesville is pro-national sovereignty, that has never been disputed.

True, but then again, so is the World Assembly. Please see Section I of World Assembly Resolution #2, which states:

*snipped* - see below

This resolution labels the principle of national sovereignty, long established in international law, as a "strange and foreign concept." It labels not just Gatesville, but all nations that oppose resolutions that violate this important principle, as "dangerous...interlopers and traitors." It must therefore be defeated.

You would do well not to lecture me about national sovereignty; I was one of its most stalwart defenders long before your funny little country came into existence. The resolution is satire. There's nothing wrong with that. The moderators have repeatedly stated as such, and the UN and the WA have both had a long history of satirical resolutions. WA Res. #2 is not at issue here, mostly because I do not dispute it, but you have been misreading it:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

The WA does indeed support the concept of national sovereignty, but only as a default position in the absence of WA legislation on any given subject. It still reserves the right to modify that sovereign authority as it sees fit (and this is nothing new). So your assertion that the WA is "pro-national sovereignty" is patently false. And as you have clearly been misreading the Rights and Duties resolution, is it also possible you could be misreading the document in front of us right now? I'd say it is.

[TannerFrankLand]

I don't really think we should condemn anyone for thinking somthing, or having a belief, unless it's somthing dangerous like those of NAZI EUROPE.

Isn't it possible this proposal will help them by getting the word out that they think that way, allowing nations who agree to join them. We've made them more powerful within the WA?

[Milks Empire]

His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor Charles I of the Milks Family Domains, stands up from his seat in the general assembly room:

My friends, and my enemies alike... Surely you recognize something like this as something that should not be before us? I wholeheartedly condemn this frivolous waste of our time and of World Assembly resources.

[[violet]]

Look, I hope this resolution fails too. As far as I am concerned, all of these C&Cs are a waste of time, and only when they all fail miserably will the admins realize what a mistake they've made.

I thought you proposed it expecting it to pass, so you could then say, "Ha! See, C&Cs are so stupid, WA members will even vote for joke ones!" Which was kind of clever, because Gatesville is probably condemn-worthy, but not for the reasons you listed in the resolution. And the first one up was always likely to attract a for-vote from people just interested to see what it would do.

Except we're actually getting intelligent debate about it, and (at time of writing) the vote is 2-to-1 against.

[Parthenon]

Someone condemn me please! Thanks!

[Ballotonia]

Someone condemn me please! Thanks!

First do something noteworthy which earns you such distinction

Ballotonia

[Parthenon]

Someone condemn me please! Thanks!

First do something noteworthy which earns you such distinction

Ballotonia

Well, I was a member of the GDODAD...

[Ballotonia]

Well, I was a member of the GDODAD...

Current players aren't likely to know the organizations I used to be in myself, and won't stand a chance of knowing an ancient RP org like GDODAD. IMHO, C&C's shouldn't be used to award people for stuff they did a long time ago. What have you done lately which makes you worthy TODAY?

That's also why I responded the way I did regarding this Gatesville condemnation proposal. There was a time they surely deserved a badge (and which party has the most political clout would end up determining which badge they'd get) but not anymore. Days of yore are gone, what's new... ?

Ballotonia