[DEFEATED] Repeal "Commend The NationStates Community"

[Frisbeeteria]

DELEGATES CAN APPROVE HERE

Repeal "Commend The NationStates Community"

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC#86 | Proposed By: SkyDip

---

Description: The Security Council,

DECLARING that the opportunistic use of nations in order to capitalize on unusual events in the world should not be rewarded as is the case in SC#86,

CONDEMNING the use of this council to raise up a nation for participating in a distinctly isolated and non world affecting event as far as long-term national statistics, global events, or anything outside of one particular situation is concerned,

TAKING NOTE that the events described in SC#86 do not meet the illustrious standards of the Security Council and that The NationStates Community did not perform any world-altering or even WA-altering feats,

BELIEVING that such frivolous use of the Commendation has the effect of watering down the significance of former and future recipient's deeds and merits, many of which easily surpass those of The NationStates Community,

ASSERTING that The NationStates Community performed no great service with their actions detailed in SC#86, and that they were indeed one of many nations performing the actions of gathering and consolidating stocks,

FINDING the merits of SC#86 entirely lacking and The NationStates Community an opportunistic figurehead rather than a significant or recognizable nation,

HEREBY REPEALS SC#86.

[Eist]

Commend The NationStates Community was an awful piece of work and a stain on the SC community as a whole. I was really disappointed that the NS community felt compelled to vote for that trash. I would strongly vote FOR this. However, it needs some work. Nice 1st draft, though.

[SkyDip]

Suggestions to that end?

[Unibot III]

I would disagree. I loved 2012's April Fools. It was a fantastic, harm-warming experience and "Commend The NationStates Community" was a testament to that. It was the best way we could pay tribute to it.

I think this is unnecessary "books-cleaning" as usual from the Skydip Ambassador. Commendations should be "feel-good" documents. I much prefer "Commend The NationStates Community" over some of the more boiler-plate commendations we've seen in the WASC.

As a commended player, I don't think "Commend The NationStates Community" trivializes the WA Commendation category in general -- it was a tribute to perhaps the single most powerful demonstration of the instinctual cooperative nature of people that NationStates. For a game which often proves to us time and time again how destructive, calculative and competitive people can be...it was a day where people's faith in the cooperative spirit of people was rewarded.

I also know that behind the scenes there was a lot of blood, sweat and tears put into accomplishing what The NationStates Community did -- a lot of lobbying people and scrambling to the very end. At the last moment, the community had thought they had failed, but they were still proud of what they had accomplished and then, lord and behold, Earth couldn't transfer her shares to NewTexas ... Max Barry had blocked her from doing it with the words, "I can't let you do that" and BAM, Max Barry put his shares into The NationStates Community which led to that beautiful epilogue by Max on what had just transpired.

(There also wasn't any hard feelings against NewTexas among the lead members of The NationStates Community -- they understood and respected that NewTexas didn't have permission to invest his region's shares into The NationStates Community; they were also prepared to give their shares to NewTexas.)

[Weed]

I don't recall attitudes being very warm near the end of that. I seem to recall very harsh attacks on Texas and others.

[Mahaj]

I don't recall attitudes being very warm near the end of that. I seem to recall very harsh attacks on Texas and others.

I think there were a few who attacked Texas.

And many others who tried to put a stop to it.

[Mahaj]

SkyDip, have you ever read the logs from the TNSC chat?

[SkyDip]

SkyDip, have you ever read the logs from the TNSC chat?

Is that some common place knowledge or what? No, I haven't.

[Weed]

I don't recall attitudes being very warm near the end of that. I seem to recall very harsh attacks on Texas and others.

I think there were a few who attacked Texas.

And many others who tried to put a stop to it.

Well I will admit that I was never a part of the TNSC chat, and only saw it when it spilled into other channels.

[Unibot III]

SkyDip, have you ever read the logs from the TNSC chat?

Is that some common place knowledge or what? No, I haven't.

That was definitely made public. Max Barry linked the transcript for everyone to see: http://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2 ... index.html

It's available here: http://www.thenorthpacific.org/ipo/omg_inc.1.html

[Eist]

So be it...

Repeal "Commend The NationStates Community"

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC#86 | Proposed By: SkyDip

---

Description: The Security Council,

BELIEVING that the opportunistic use of nations in order to capitalize on peculiar events in the world should not be rewarded and showered with accolades as those in SC#86,

Peculiar events? Unusual, maybe, but it's more of a celebratory event. Rewarded and showered with accolades mean basically the same thing, remove the latter.

CONDEMNING the use of this council to raise up a nation for participating in a single, distinctly isolated, and non world affecting event and,

Single means distinct *and* isolated! It existed, so technically it did affect the world. It might not have changed nation stats, so if this is what you mean, then you should say precisely this.

TAKING NOTE that the events described in SC#86 do not meet the illustrious standards of the Security Council and that The NationStates Community did not perform any world-altering or even WA-altering feats,

You've already said this and, as above, it alter the world to an extent. The WA...not so much, but why is that relevant?

ASSURED that there are more deserving candidates of Commendation and,

This is not grounds for a repeal.

DECLARING that such frivolous use of the Commendation has the effect of watering down the significance of former and future recipient's deeds and merits, many of which easily surpass those of The NationStates Community,

'BELIEVING' would be more appropriate, and see above.

FULLY AWARE that The NationStates Community performed no great service with their actions detailed in SC#86, and that they were indeed one of many nations performing the actions of gathering and consolidating stocks,

This is the meat of the argument; it should be at the top, but, again, your "awareness" is just a belief.

DISGUSTED that such blatant hoarding of stocks would be used as material for a Commendation,

Hoarding stocks was kind of the whole point of the game. The admin *wanted* a single nation to horde stocks to beat the game. I don't think you are really disgusted that there was a campaign to give stocks to TNC. I think you'd be better off arguing that the commendation was unmeritorious, rather than you finding it sickening that a nation would *gasp* go out of its way to gain stocks--to beat a system that had desired this all along.

HEREBY REPEALS SC#86.

[Solorni]

Blood sweat and tears unibot? Just how do you guys play the game??

[Mahaj]

Blood sweat and tears unibot? Just how do you guys play the game??

Idunno, Rach, you're pretty good at the tears part.

[SkyDip]

Mahaj et al. - not sure what the point of the logs is. I don't intend to read it if that's what you're getting at.

Eist - I'll look into making some of those changes.

Rachel - pretty much yeah.

[SkyDip]

Altered the draft slightly based on some of Eist's suggestions. Which I must say I commend him for - he's usually always ready to actually offer corrects or substantive help rather than brood in a corner and write essays about his feelings.

[Unibot III]

Which I must say I commend him for - he's usually always ready to actually offer corrects or substantive help rather than brood in a corner and write essays about his feelings.

Well, if one opposes the subject, one cannot offer constructive solutions beyond telling you to drop it.

[SkyDip]

Which I must say I commend him for - he's usually always ready to actually offer corrects or substantive help rather than brood in a corner and write essays about his feelings.

Well, if one opposes the subject, one cannot offer constructive solutions beyond telling you to drop it.

Which would also not fall under "constructive" solutions.

[Sedgistan]

Blood sweat and tears unibot? Just how do you guys play the game??

Idunno, Rach, you're pretty good at the tears part.

Cut it out.

[Unibot III]

Well, if one opposes the subject, one cannot offer constructive solutions beyond telling you to drop it.

Which would also not fall under "constructive" solutions.

Given a resolution's core premise could be, in and of itself, indefensible. In that event, constructive solutions cannot be brought forth. If no constructive solutions can be brought forth, you suggest that no comments should be made, which in turn would mean no comments ought to be made if a resolution's core premise is in and of itself indefensible.

This suggests that if the resolution's core premise is in and of itself indefensible, then the debate thread ought to be devoid of criticism. Surely that's an absurdity? If a resolution is in and of itself indefensible that seems like the most important reason of all to pursue criticism of a subject?

Seems to me this is a clever loophole wherein you can avoid people criticizing your resolution on any basis that cannot be resolved (without dropping the resolution).

However, only people who wish to pursue a particular resolution, regardless of its merit, would want to avoid people criticizing their resolution on a basis that is unresolvable.

To conclude, I believe your behavior suggests you wish to pursue this proposal regardless of if the proposal is in fact warranted.

Why would someone do that? Perhaps they have the strange belief that all resolutions should be repealed? Perhaps, you have political motivations -- a dislike for the nominee, perhaps, or possibly an attempt to lure the nominee to cause a stir lobbying somewhere in the GCRs?

Should be fun, but the fact remains that you haven't rejected my counter-argument that the resolution should stay, you've only invalidly rejected my counter-argument on the basis that all criticism of repeals must be rooted in "improving" the text.

[Unibot III]

In your exclusive search for "constructive criticism", I have reviewed your proposal and found a few flaws; I propose the following edits:

Repeal "Commend The NationStates Community"

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC#86 | Proposed By: SkyDip

---

Description: The Security Council,

-snip-

DECLARING this resolution should be repealed for no particularly good reason.

ACKNOWLEDGING that this resolution ought to be kept on the books, but won't be.

HEREBY REPEALS SC#86.

[Solorni]

I've been debating this and am in favour if it

[SkyDip]

Given a resolution's core premise could be, in and of itself, indefensible. In that event, constructive solutions cannot be brought forth. If no constructive solutions can be brought forth, you suggest that no comments should be made, which in turn would mean no comments ought to be made if a resolution's core premise is in and of itself indefensible.

This suggests that if the resolution's core premise is in and of itself indefensible, then the debate thread ought to be devoid of criticism. Surely that's an absurdity? If a resolution is in and of itself indefensible that seems like the most important reason of all to pursue criticism of a subject?

Seems to me this is a clever loophole wherein you can avoid people criticizing your resolution on any basis that cannot be resolved (without dropping the resolution).

Oh please. Don't be so melodramatic. I know you love the sound of your own voice and/or keyboard, but I never said anything about not making comments at all. I simply said I appreciate Eist being ready to offer suggestions. You're pulling a Cormac and reading into it a wee bit.

However, only people who wish to pursue a particular resolution, regardless of its merit, would want to avoid people criticizing their resolution on a basis that is unresolvable.

Regardless of merit is your opinion, chap. You'd do well not to confuse that with "fact." Furthermore, you'd do well to not use that assumption to make the wild accusation I said no criticisms can be lodged against this proposal.

To conclude, I believe your behavior suggests you wish to pursue this proposal regardless of if the proposal is in fact warranted.

Correct on the former, assuming your opinion is a fact on the later.

Why would someone do that? Perhaps they have the strange belief that all resolutions should be repealed? Perhaps, you have political motivations -- a dislike for the nominee, perhaps, or possibly an attempt to lure the nominee to cause a stir lobbying somewhere in the GCRs?

Much like Commend Hippostania, the resolution in question was simply unwarranted for described merits. It's odd to see you fabricate some kind of back story just because you can't sit with the fact some people may not like the Commendation.

Should be fun, but the fact remains that you haven't rejected my counter-argument that the resolution should stay, you've only invalidly rejected my counter-argument on the basis that all criticism of repeals must be rooted in "improving" the text.

Arguing whether or not the resolution should stay is completely based on how one reads the proposal. I think it's an unwarranted and unnecessary piece of legislation which, as I've written, dilutes the effects of proper Commendations.

---

Your diatribe here is full of half-baked logic under the guise of a solid argument. Feel free to lodge all your criticisms you want. You've read far too much into my post praising Eist for actually posting suggestions.

[Unibot III]

Arguing whether or not the resolution should stay is completely based on how one reads the proposal. I think it's an unwarranted and unnecessary piece of legislation which, as I've written, dilutes the effects of proper Commendations.

---

Your diatribe here is full of half-baked logic under the guise of a solid argument. Feel free to lodge all your criticisms you want. You've read far too much into my post praising Eist for actually posting suggestions.

Your post praising Eist excludes the fact that others simply disagree with your core premise -- you never chose to engage with those who argued this ... you simply mocked them.

[SkyDip]

Your post praising Eist excludes the fact that others simply disagree with your core premise -- you never chose to engage with those who argued this ... you simply mocked them.

Because those who believe the core premise of this proposal is in err won't have their minds swayed either way. They (you) aren't bothered by the arguments made - they just disagree with repealing the original at all, ergo there's no point in my wasting time to engage said individuals.

[Eist]

Arguing whether or not the resolution should stay is completely based on how one reads the proposal. I think it's an unwarranted and unnecessary piece of legislation which, as I've written, dilutes the effects of proper Commendations.

---

Your diatribe here is full of half-baked logic under the guise of a solid argument. Feel free to lodge all your criticisms you want. You've read far too much into my post praising Eist for actually posting suggestions.

Your post praising Eist excludes the fact that others simply disagree with your core premise -- you never chose to engage with those who argued this ... you simply mocked them.

Your argument basically amounts to "You're wrong, SkyDip, they deserve their commendation". If there were additional arguments against it that you were looking for SkyDip to respond to you about, I'm sure SkyDip would have put them in the proposal.

Everyone understands why you and other UDLers are upset at this repeal proposal, but it's pretty unfair to expect someone to respond to your arguments that have next to no analysis themselves.