FAILED: Condemn Aegara

[Philimbesi]

So how am I supposed to vote? I've been following your lead on SC resolutions. I guess I'll abstain too.

Sorry didn't realize I had followers... Right! Fine! Let me find the WeCouldReallyCareLessAboutCAndC's ^TM Rubric Raider\Defender Edition

-50 points for mentioning the region that reminds me of salad dressing
+50 points for not mentioning nazi's
-25 points for not mentioning nazi zombies
-25 points for not mentioning penguins
-50 points as there's something I like better in the queue.
-25 points as it's a condemnation where the nation who is getting the condemnation thinks the condemnation is a good thing for the nation getting the condemnation
-20 points for making me type condemnation that many times.
+20 points because I spelled it right the first time.

-125 Total score, as it's is below zero, we are AGAINST.

[Topid]

-50 points as there's something I like better in the queue.

Now, the only question that matters is if Phil means my proposal or Elktown's.

[Chevodonia]

The possibly that this is a self-condemnation is pathetic. Chevodonia wants no part in any ego-stroking.

[Golgoglot]

The possibly that this is a self-condemnation is pathetic. Chevodonia wants no part in any ego-stroking.

Agreed. Golgoglot casts its vote against this Condemnation.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

So how am I supposed to vote? I've been following your lead on SC resolutions. I guess I'll abstain too.

Sorry didn't realize I had followers... Right! Fine! Let me find the WeCouldReallyCareLessAboutCAndC's ^TM Rubric Raider\Defender Edition

-50 points for mentioning the region that reminds me of salad dressing
+50 points for not mentioning nazi's
-25 points for not mentioning nazi zombies
-25 points for not mentioning penguins
-50 points as there's something I like better in the queue.
-25 points as it's a condemnation where the nation who is getting the condemnation thinks the condemnation is a good thing for the nation getting the condemnation
-20 points for making me type condemnation that many times.
+20 points because I spelled it right the first time.

-125 Total score, as it's is below zero, we are AGAINST.

Oh good, I hate abstaining. WE ARE AGAINST!

[Travancore-Cochin]

I will vote AGAINST, on the grounds of this being an attempt at self-glorification.

[Philimbesi]

Now, the only question that matters is if Phil means my proposal or Elktown's.

Liking a proposal =/= supporting one.

[The Rich Port]

The Rich Port will vote FOR this resolution. Everything stated is in a very good order. The crimes against the WA by Aegara are clear, obvious, and, henceforth, to be duly noted.

[A mean old man]

The Rich Port will vote FOR this resolution. Everything stated is in a very good order. The crimes against the WA by Aegara are clear, obvious, and, henceforth, to be duly noted.

...and yet you fail to realize that this resolution was written by Aegara himself and is only being voted on because he wants a little condemnation icon next to his name.

[Community Property]

OOC: The rest of you will disagree will likely me, but tough.

This should have been declared illegal as a patent Fourth Wall violation (“he”, referring to the player, instead of “it” or “they”, in reference to the nation, etc.). To be sure, most of you seem to see the SC as nothing but a huge, walking Fourth Wall violation, but it never had to be that and should not have been allowed to become that; if possible, it should be rescued from further treatment as one.

Beyond the Fourth Wall violation (which Community Property will treat as grounds for voting against this Resolution, even if it doesn’t make the thing illegal in and of itself), there is the further fact that the Resolution was submitted on behalf of the nation to be condemned as a means of mocking and undermining the authority and legitimacy of the Security Council; indeed, several nations are trying to use this Resolution as a means of shaming the Security Council into withdrawing from any further involvement in Raider/Defender issues - a clear attack on this body itself.

It may well come to pass that Aegara will be condemned: But let it be for attempting to cynically undermine the World Assembly and the Security Council and not for the reasons given. Moreover, if and when that condemnation is written, let it be a proper condemnation that respects the IC/OOC boundaries that are an established part of the NS world.

[Todd McCloud]

Why not someone write a repeal for it, stating he tried to glorify himself, etc? That way, he gets no badge, and anyone looking over the SC resolutions will understand why.

[Flibbleites]

OOC: The rest of you will disagree will likely me, but tough.

This should have been declared illegal as a patent Fourth Wall violation (“he”, referring to the player, instead of “it” or “they”, in reference to the nation, etc.). To be sure, most of you seem to see the SC as nothing but a huge, walking Fourth Wall violation, but it never had to be that and should not have been allowed to become that; if possible, it should be rescued from further treatment as one.

Slight problem with that, there are no fourth wall violations in the SC.

[A mean old man]

Not a repeal, but I think it works.

The ACTUAL Condemn Aegara!

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING Aegara as delegate of Grand Central, an oversized region whose recruitment tactics are deceptive and have won them numerous mindless drones to use in an army which they will obviously be using in their petty squabble with the defender organization "10000 Islands," though they fail to inform the drones of this detail;

NOT GIVING a shit about his repeal of Commend 10000 Islands, as the original resolution "10000 Islands" was really a piece of crap and had to be repealed anyway;

ALSO NOT GIVING a shit about this whole monopolization of the WASC by TITO and Aegara's Grand Central, as these are two fairly small private interest groups whose populations, despite being large for regions and organizations, barely come close to being a large fraction of the overall world and WA populations;

LAUGHING at his conceited and selfish attempt to write and pass his own condemnation simply because he likes the little condemnation icon, and wants to use it to increase his popularity among raiders;

SPITTING on his massive ego and telling him to get the hell off his high horse;

HEREBY SUPPORTS this proposal to condemn Aegara but does not get it passed, therefore further depriving him of the condemnation icon he wants so badly.

EDIT: A mean old man also hurls a piss-filled water ballon at "Commend FASTERCAT," The commendation-type parallel C&C to this one. If the only thing people are going to use the SC for is the fueling of their own egotistical desires and for promoting their regions, then I don't know why the SC exists. That's what the "Gameplay" forum is for.

[Community Property]

Slight problem with that, there are no fourth wall violations in the SC.

OOC: Another unwritten exception to the rules of WA play? Well, I can’t say I’m surprised.

My view is that if there’s no Fourth Wall in the Security Council, well, then, there should be. Indeed, there’s no good reason for not having one, and a million good reasons to put one there - not the least of which is the fundamental absurdity of having part of the game of NationStates be about the players behind the game and not the game itself.

It seems as though the fact that the Security Council deals with politics has lead people (including some mods) to assume that it has to be OOC and - worse, self-consciously OOC. So when do we start deleting RP-based C&C resolutions and warning or banning people for posting IC in the Security Council forum? When do we start Commending and Comdemning people over what’s on their MySpace page, for their posts in General, or over what they just did with Twitter? And, while we’re at it, shouldn’t we get rid of Liberate resolutions, since those deal with a game function, an therefore have no place in an OOC process?

It’s not too late to reverse this trend. Just because the Security Council does different things than the World Assembly doesn’t mean it has to function in a completely different way, with no overlap at all between the two. Taking that approach detracts significantly from the potential of the game.

The more I see of this, the more I think people want Max to get rid of the Security Council, and are just trying to make sure that it becomes an annoyance to everyone and fails so that will happen.

EDIT: In the meantime, let’s Commend Reppy because She’s a Goddess, and Condemn those who refuse to worship Her. That would make more sense that what’s to come if we follow this road.

[Flibbleites]

Slight problem with that, there are no fourth wall violations in the SC.

OOC: Another unwritten exception to the rules of WA play? Well, I can’t say I’m surprised.

Well, the SC really doesn't have a ruleset at this point, pretty much the only rules are no commending a mod for modding, no tit for tat condemnations (and presumably commendations too) and nothing that should be handled by a mod.

My view is that if there’s no Fourth Wall in the Security Council, well, then, there should be. Indeed, there’s no good reason for not having one, and a million good reasons to put one there - not the least of which is the fundamental absurdity of having part of the game of NationStates be about the players behind the game and not the game itself.

Believe me, you're not the only one who wishes the SC would be IC, you'll never see any of my characters in the SC at this point simply because there's no way for them to wrap their heads around the concept of a "player" who is all powerful and able to pull a nation's strings like some sort of puppet.

It seems as though the fact that the Security Council deals with politics has lead people (including some mods) to assume that it has to be OOC and - worse, self-consciously OOC. So when do we start deleting RP-based C&C resolutions and warning or banning people for posting IC in the Security Council forum? When do we start Commending and Comdemning people over what’s on their MySpace page, for their posts in General, or over what they just did with Twitter? And, while we’re at it, shouldn’t we get rid of Liberate resolutions, since those deal with a game function, an therefore have no place in an OOC process?

Well, right now the SC is kind of a weird hybrid of IC and OOC.

It’s not too late to reverse this trend. Just because the Security Council does different things than the World Assembly doesn’t mean it has to function in a completely different way, with no overlap at all between the two. Taking that approach detracts significantly from the potential of the game.

Well there are people who are trying to change the SC, there are several condemnations being drafted that deal with RP stuff.

[The Palentine]

Oh great...another pissing contest between raiders and their ilk. Against!

[The Palentine]

Now, the only question that matters is if Phil means my proposal or Elktown's.

Liking a proposal =/= supporting one.

Thats beautiful, old bean.

[Voyencre]

OOC: The rest of you will disagree will likely me, but tough.

This should have been declared illegal as a patent Fourth Wall violation (“he”, referring to the player, instead of “it” or “they”, in reference to the nation, etc.). To be sure, most of you seem to see the SC as nothing but a huge, walking Fourth Wall violation, but it never had to be that and should not have been allowed to become that; if possible, it should be rescued from further treatment as one.

Beyond the Fourth Wall violation (which Community Property will treat as grounds for voting against this Resolution, even if it doesn’t make the thing illegal in and of itself), there is the further fact that the Resolution was submitted on behalf of the nation to be condemned as a means of mocking and undermining the authority and legitimacy of the Security Council; indeed, several nations are trying to use this Resolution as a means of shaming the Security Council into withdrawing from any further involvement in Raider/Defender issues - a clear attack on this body itself.

It may well come to pass that Aegara will be condemned: But let it be for attempting to cynically undermine the World Assembly and the Security Council and not for the reasons given. Moreover, if and when that condemnation is written, let it be a proper condemnation that respects the IC/OOC boundaries that are an established part of the NS world.

If this does pass, this seems like the most logical justification for a repeal. The resolution does these things, but until the final judgement it made, Voyencre will take this resolution for what it's worth.

[The Asylum Manager]

This is exactly why it's good to read the forum where the proposal is being debated because my initial feeling was voting FOR, but after having read this thread, I follow my region delegate and vote AGAINST. Unfortunately, I too fear most WA members won't do what I just did and just follow thei r(and it was even even mine) gut feeling.

[A mean old man]

Why not someone write a repeal for it, stating he tried to glorify himself, etc? That way, he gets no badge, and anyone looking over the SC resolutions will understand why.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=27899

[Voyencre]

Soooo backwards. This is what the WA is coming to. Repealing and passing just because of personal vendettas and stupid egotistical leaders. People need to take it seriously or it will end up in the trash with the UN. I personally would rather not have to live through the reformation of another international legislative body.

[Flibbleites]

Soooo backwards. This is what the WA is coming to. Repealing and passing just because of personal vendettas and stupid egotistical leaders. People need to take it seriously or it will end up in the trash with the UN. I personally would rather not have to live through the reformation of another international legislative body.

Actually the UN was destroyed due to a disastrous collision with RL. Since there is no RL organization called the World Assembly, I doubt we'll have that particular problem again.

[Todd McCloud]

Soooo backwards. This is what the WA is coming to. Repealing and passing just because of personal vendettas and stupid egotistical leaders. People need to take it seriously or it will end up in the trash with the UN. I personally would rather not have to live through the reformation of another international legislative body.

Actually the UN was destroyed due to a disastrous collision with RL. Since there is no RL organization called the World Assembly, I doubt we'll have that particular problem again.

I hate to be "that guy", but I think you understand what he meant. And I echo his concerns.

[The Rich Port]

The Rich Port will vote FOR this resolution. Everything stated is in a very good order. The crimes against the WA by Aegara are clear, obvious, and, henceforth, to be duly noted.

...and yet you fail to realize that this resolution was written by Aegara himself and is only being voted on because he wants a little condemnation icon next to his name.

Okay, I withdrew my vote. What the HECK is going on with this? And how does any of this make any logical sense? Why would the nation of Aegara want to do that?

[Reseda Island]

and the pro defender biased continues