FAILED: Condemn Aegara

[Charlotte Ryberg]

For the record, the resolution "Condemn Aegara" was defeated 3,151 votes to 1,748, which to my opinion, is good, because I must imagine that the honoured ambassador to Aegara may have not been too keen on the wording of the resolution they may feel that they just had to repeal to end the controversy (sic)...

I yield the floor.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

I think the Aegarean ambassador was very keen about the wording.

Condemn Aegara makes for the first time in World Assembly history that three resolutions have been defeated in a row, ("Commend Anti-World Assembly", "First Tort Reform Act" and "Condemn Aegara"), and it is only one of three times in NationStates history to have done so, with a defeat stint in April 2006 ("Auto Free Trade Agreement", "Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"" and "Repeal "Banning the use of Landmines""), and a triple defeat in March 2003 ("UN, Where did it go wrong?","Self-Support", "TO PROTECT") which may have been caused by some other reason than voting (did the admins delete these?).

A quadruple defeat has never been accomplished in NS history, so keep your fingers crossed, AWA and Gatesville, because "Condemn The Axis of Evil" was just stomped on moments ago by Aegara.

[James Bluntus]

Given that the resolution was defeated shows the bias towards invaders that the WA has.

[Travancore-Cochin]

Given that the resolution was defeated shows the bias towards invaders that the WA has.

The fact that you hastily jumped to a conclusion like that shows that you've completely had no clue about what went on.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think the Aegarean ambassador was very keen about the wording.

Condemn Aegara makes for the first time in World Assembly history that three resolutions have been defeated in a row, ("Commend Anti-World Assembly", "First Tort Reform Act" and "Condemn Aegara"), and it is only one of three times in NationStates history to have done so, with a defeat stint in April 2006 ("Auto Free Trade Agreement", "Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"" and "Repeal "Banning the use of Landmines""), and a triple defeat in March 2003 ("UN, Where did it go wrong?","Self-Support", "TO PROTECT") which may have been caused by some other reason than voting (did the admins delete these?).

A quadruple defeat has never been accomplished in NS history, so keep your fingers crossed, AWA and Gatesville, because "Condemn The Axis of Evil" was just stomped on moments ago by Aegara.

I have for the next draft at vote. I am thinking that the SC should be used for a positive purpose only.

[Enn]

Given that the resolution was defeated shows the bias towards invaders that the WA has.

... And just a few days ago, we were being accused of Defender bias. Seems you just can't please everyone.

To be honest, I really don't care overmuch for the invader/defender part of NS, I prefer the forum-based UN/WA debates. That's why I've been involved in this game for so long, and even returned after more than a year's break.

What I care about is not seeing people cynically used the WA for their own purposes, for a misplaced sense of pride in being condemned. I am infinitely glad to see this defeated. Lemmings they may be, but herding them in the right direction makes a world of difference.

[A mean old man]

Given that the resolution was defeated shows the bias towards invaders that the WA has.

This makes me wonder how much attention you're paying to what goes on here in the SC.

[Reseda Island]

I agree with old Man the SC is so pro defender, and no this isn't an invader thought this is the thought of someone who has become neutral .

[The Monkye]

Whether the members of the WASC are biased or not, I think that our handling of this vote (in terms of the outcome) shows that on the whole, passing or otherwise of resolutions is determined by the quality of the argument, not just predisposed voting blocs. Misleading resolutions, or ones with ulterior motives, will be found out and dealt with appropriately. And that's a good thing.

[South Norwega]

Indeed. I'm even leaning towards saying this is a fine day for the WA, but it really isn't. Many more silly and/or petty condemnations await rebuttal (actually, there's only one, which is up for vote now, but still).

To arms, compatriots, to arms!

(This is not to say I universally oppose all condemnations, I oppose badly written and thought out condemnations)

[Reseda Island]

if a region should be condemned, do it to new earth they have someone on there who claims to rule all of nationstates. thats pretty bad

[A mean old man]

if a region should be condemned, do it to new earth they have someone on there who claims to rule all of nationstates. thats pretty bad

I've never heard of him. I'm sure he's not the first who has claimed to rule all of NationStates, or will he be the first to be laughed off by all of NationStates because of his claim.

I say, related to this thread, we reserve condemnations for those who don't actually want them, and who have also contributed to the world in an extremely negative and/or destructive way. Claiming to rule NationStates probably isn't serious enough; if he actually goes out with a powerful following to try and take over NationStates and winds up screwing up regions and disrupting communities (or, if he RP's it, causing RP'd distress to numerous nations), I'd say that'd be worthy of condemnation. I doubt the possibility of that scenario, though.

[Reseda Island]

sorry.

[A mean old man]

sorry.

Not trying to berate you; just throwing my opinion out there.

I notice a lot of my posts seem sort of angry; they really aren't... most of the time. That's just how I express myself. If I start to flip out and get really nasty (First Tort Reform Act...), that's when I'm actually getting angry.

Sorry if I sound patronizing, I'm really not trying to be.

[Reseda Island]

nah its ok Im just generally annoyed with that region right now, they decided that even though I did my job well they wanted me to retire which is why I left, and am now neutral in this invader vs defender war