PASSED: Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"

[Kalibarr]

Your missing the point of the repeal, it's not about the GA/SC split, it's about the badge being misused, it's about the people who likely believe The Security Council, the region, is the WASC. It's about the Defender Agenda being cooked up in the region and the implications of self importance by certain members of the region. They clearly do no see the liberation as a way to "keep the delegate in line", or even to split the SC from the GA, they see it as a justification for what their doing there, a symbol of their domination of the SC.

And if the repeal was about ham sandwiches, it would still have the effect of saying that we don't want the SC and GA to be split, because that is was the liberation was about. Which brings me to another point: since this repeal doesn't address what the liberation was about, it ought to be illegal.

Well that's the real issue isn't it. Who's to say what's a 'correct' interpretation and what's not.

The clear evidence. The intent and purpose of the liberation was in no way a secret, and it's not at all difficult to search the forums.

It's not about that, it's about him using the badge as a trophy, if we take it away it shows our disenchantment with what he's been doing.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's not about that, it's about him using the badge as a trophy, if we take it away it shows our disenchantment with what he's been doing.

If you want to express your anger, condemn him. Don't repeal a liberation with arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the liberation.

[A mean old man]

It's not about that, it's about him using the badge as a trophy, if we take it away it shows our disenchantment with what he's been doing.

If you want to express your anger, condemn him. Don't repeal a liberation with arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the liberation.

Unfortunately, as I have been rather annoyed by the attempts to take this thread off topic by a few members of the opposition , I'd have to agree with Glen-Rhodes to an extent on this one - let's not make this about Unibot. I know many of us are frustrated with what he's been doing lately and how he's been concealing things from us WA members (and, supposedly, fellow "TSC" members... yeah, right), and I agree with what you've said, Kalibarr, but this repeal isn't about him or his intent behind liberation resolutions (any of the ones he has written and passed). This repeal is about the wording, expired symbolic value, and inaccuracy of the resolution it is targeting.

[A mean old man]

...and though one could argue that my referring to the badge placed on the region would be an argument against Unibot's intent behind the resolution, I'll have to dispel that suspicion. No, that is simply describing how the only real function of this resolution now is the placement of said badge on the region's page (and the useless liberation of this secure region), and how this is going against what the most influential members of this region stand against and can therefore be considered hypocritical of them to allow.

If you think about it, I'm doing them a favor by removing this badge - no one will be able to accuse them of being hypocrites based on their stance against badge-snatching.

[Krioval]

It's not about that, it's about him using the badge as a trophy, if we take it away it shows our disenchantment with what he's been doing.

If you want to express your anger, condemn him. Don't repeal a liberation with arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the liberation.

Oh, trust me, I'm already all over that. That said, do you honestly think that the admins are going to suddenly reverse their decision to separate the voting queues because of a repeal of a pointless liberation? Do you honestly invest so little faith in their ability to discern why a proposal is being advanced? For that matter, do you honestly think that the admins are so focused on each and every resolution to pass that they predicate their actions on the fickleness of the popular vote? I like to think that the admins know why both sides want to see the queues separated by now, and that they hardly need a bogus liberation resolution to clue them in on the discontent on both sides of the supposed GA/SC split. Thus, the "great schism" is a red herring.

"Liberate The Security Council" has no impact on NS outside of its rapidly-becoming-irrelevant symbolic value. Liberations should be repealed when they are no longer useful, and it is obvious to me that this particular liberation meets that criterion. Thus, it should be repealed.

[Whamabama]

this has personal vendetta written all over it.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

...and though one could argue that my referring to the badge placed on the region would be an argument against Unibot's intent behind the resolution, I'll have to dispel that suspicion. No, that is simply describing how the only real function of this resolution now is the placement of said badge on the region's page (and the useless liberation of this secure region), and how this is going against what the most influential members of this region stand against and can therefore be considered hypocritical of them to allow.

If you think about it, I'm doing them a favor by removing this badge - no one will be able to accuse them of being hypocrites based on their stance against badge-snatching.

So why didn't you bring this up before you spontaneously went all energizer-bunny-crazy in the LotL thread? You said you had it written months ago.

I think that this is a personal vendetta, and you're really just trying to deflect it away from that point to get more support.

The liberation is useless OOC, but IC it still stands. It is a historical document, a testament of the schism, a founding document to a good humored, new and more independent Security Council.

As opposed to this repeal, which is rooted in the fundamentals of backstabbing, cold hearted politics.

[A mean old man]

this has personal vendetta written all over it.

Thought it had been made clear that this was not about any personal conflict. In fact, I've been trying to keep anything about any sort of personal conflict between myself and Unibot or any other members of TSC so as to keep this debate civil and relevant to the topic at hand. If you'd take the time to read the pages of debate before this one, you'd realize that.

[A mean old man]

...and though one could argue that my referring to the badge placed on the region would be an argument against Unibot's intent behind the resolution, I'll have to dispel that suspicion. No, that is simply describing how the only real function of this resolution now is the placement of said badge on the region's page (and the useless liberation of this secure region), and how this is going against what the most influential members of this region stand against and can therefore be considered hypocritical of them to allow.

If you think about it, I'm doing them a favor by removing this badge - no one will be able to accuse them of being hypocrites based on their stance against badge-snatching.

So why didn't you bring this up before you spontaneously went all energizer-bunny-crazy in the LotL thread? You said you had it written months ago.

I had forgotten about it, and now that I have gotten involved in SC affairs again, it has reminded me that I've wanted to repeal this resolution.

I think that this is a personal vendetta, and you're really just trying to deflect it away from that point to get more support.

If that's your interpretation of this situation or your attempt at bringing this proposal down, feel free to keep arguing it. It's already been disproved, and the practical value of the repeal already been clearly set out for all to see.

The liberation is useless OOC, but IC it still stands. It is a historical document, a testament of the schism, a founding document to a good humored, new and more independent Security Council.

Except that its text has nothing to do with the great schism. I'm not sure why you keep advertising your resolution as a "historical document" - it's a poorly written and poorly-thought-out liberation that has no functional use and a dead symbolic meaning.

As opposed to this repeal, which is rooted in the fundamentals of backstabbing, cold hearted politics.

As I said, this is simply wrong. The practical value has been displayed. If you don't want to argue it, I don't know what there is left for you to do besides make attacks at my integrity as you are doing.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That said, do you honestly think that the admins are going to suddenly reverse their decision to separate the voting queues because of a repeal of a pointless liberation?

As far as I can, the coding isn't finished. If we say we don't want it anymore (by, I don't know, saying that "the symbolic value of this resolution, while well-meaning, is currently lost, as the Security Council has most certainly overcome the challenges of its early age"), I don't see why they would continue coding it. Especially considering that the only reason they are doing it is because we said we wanted it.

I like to think that the admins know why both sides want to see the queues separated by now, and that they hardly need a bogus liberation resolution to clue them in on the discontent on both sides of the supposed GA/SC split. Thus, the "great schism" is a red herring.

Really? Until the liberation was proposed and passed, I remember Pyth, Kandarin et al. saying that there wasn't any great demand for separate queues and concurrent voting. In fact, them saying such is why I said, "Do we need to pass a resolution, or something?" Lo and behold, we passed a resolution, and now it's in the works.

"Liberate The Security Council" has no impact on NS outside of its rapidly-becoming-irrelevant symbolic value. Liberations should be repealed when they are no longer useful, and it is obvious to me that this particular liberation meets that criterion. Thus, it should be repealed.

Under arguments that mostly have no bearing on the liberation itself. All of the arguments here are about outside factors. The only seemingly relevant argument is that the region isn't under threats of raiding; but the liberation wasn't to protect it from raiding, so that argument isn't even valid.

The only thing mentioned that has any bearing is that the Security Council has "overcome the challenges of its early age", which says, in other word, "The things that lead to the liberation aren't a problem anymore". Those 'things' are the wants for (a) separate queues and (b) concurrent voting.

[Sedgistan]

The liberation is useless OOC, but IC it still stands. It is a historical document, a testament of the schism, a founding document to a good humored, new and more independent Security Council.

Except that its text has nothing to do with the great schism. I'm not sure why you keep advertising your resolution as a "historical document" - it's a poorly written and poorly-thought-out liberation that has no functional use and a dead symbolic meaning.

You're about the only person who believes that the resolution was nothing to do with the great schism. It was even born in the thread on that split. Your head is stuck very firmly in the sand.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Don't worry... (laughs) don't worry. I'm not gonna do... what you all think i'm gonna do, which is just FLIP OUT!! (he throws his arms in the air and shakes, sending papers flying) But let me just say, as I ease out of the WASC, that I helped build... I'm sorry, but it is a FACT... that there is such a thing... as manners. A way of treating people. (a pause, he nods, looks around, sees the fish tank) These fish have manners. These fish have manners. In fact, they're coming with me. I'm starting a new Security Council, and the fish are coming with me. You can (chuckle) call me sentimental, but the fish are coming with me.

(he takes a long beat scooping two goldfish into a plastic baggie)
Now. If you come with me, this will be the moment of something new, and fun, and inspiring in this GOD FORSAKEN politics. And we will do it together. So... who's coming with me? who's coming with me and (he points at the baggie, thinks) flipper, here? Huh? (he makes little finger gestures) Who's coming with me? WHO'S COMING WITH ME? (A beat, everyone in the office stares in silence) This is embarrassing. (a slight pause)

[Kalibarr]

Don't worry... (laughs) don't worry. I'm not gonna do... what you all think i'm gonna do, which is just FLIP OUT!! (he throws his arms in the air and shakes, sending papers flying) But let me just say, as I ease out of the WASC, that I helped build... I'm sorry, but it is a FACT... that there is such a thing... as manners. A way of treating people. (a pause, he nods, looks around, sees the fish tank) These fish have manners. These fish have manners. In fact, they're coming with me. I'm starting a new company, and the fish are coming with me. You can (chuckle) call me sentimental, but the fish are coming with me.

(he takes a long beat scooping two goldfish into a plastic baggie)
Now. If you come with me, this will be the moment of something new, and fun, and inspiring in this GOD FORSAKEN business. And we will do it together. So... who's coming with me? who's coming with me and (he points at the baggie, thinks) flipper, here? Huh? (he makes little finger gestures) Who's coming with me? WHO'S COMING WITH ME? (A beat, everyone in the office stares in silence) This is embarrassing. (a slight pause)

[Glen-Rhodes]

Now, if only somebody would just show me the money.

[Sedgistan]

*stands up*

I will go with you

EDIT: Right now?

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

*stands up*

I will go with you

EDIT: Right now?

(points dramatically) Dorothy, thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Yes, right now.

[Oh my Days]

If this is just being repealed because it is viewed as a useless resolution, then I disagree because I think that it was a clever way of bringing about an IC split between the two councils, but if it can be shown that this is a positive change for the Security Council, then I would support it.

[Sedgistan]

Just hand me those fish...

[Whamabama]

this has personal vendetta written all over it.

Thought it had been made clear that this was not about any personal conflict. In fact, I've been trying to keep anything about any sort of personal conflict between myself and Unibot or any other members of TSC so as to keep this debate civil and relevant to the topic at hand. If you'd take the time to read the pages of debate before this one, you'd realize that.

You tried to but lets see, you get pissed off at him, post a private conversation with him even, and then submit a repeal for one of his resolution right after all this, and you want us to think it's not a personal vendetta? LOL good luck with that, like I said it has personal vendetta written all over it. Even if your motivation was otherwise, which I doubt. Your sense of timing is way off.

[A mean old man]

this has personal vendetta written all over it.

Thought it had been made clear that this was not about any personal conflict. In fact, I've been trying to keep anything about any sort of personal conflict between myself and Unibot or any other members of TSC so as to keep this debate civil and relevant to the topic at hand. If you'd take the time to read the pages of debate before this one, you'd realize that.

You tried to but lets see, you get pissed off at him, post a private conversation with him even, and then submit a repeal for one of his resolution right after all this, and you want us to think it's not a personal vendetta? LOL good luck with that, like I said it has personal vendetta written all over it. Even if your motivation was otherwise, which I doubt. Your sense of timing is way off.

People get pissed off at one another all the time here. This is hardly the first time I've had a clash with Unibot. Did I submit a proposal last time that "attacked him" (as this proposal is most certainly not doing?)? Of course not. It's silly to accuse me of doing this simply as a result of some random squabble.

[Fotar]

For someone who wasn't around on the forums for the 'Great Schism', can someone explain to me what the 5 pages of arguing have been about? Its quite confusing to me...I just can't understand what there is to get sooooo upset about. The resolution AMOM is trying to repeal, as far as I can tell, is outdated and worthless. So why keep it?

And do us all a favor, and if you can't explain it to me without personal attacks and a slew of 'he said she said'...then either don't bother, or just telegram me...to avoid the flames. In the mean time...I suggest everyone take 24 hours off...get a big, tasty milkshake, go for a walk...do whatever you need to do to calm down a bit. And then lets see if we can't have some sensible discussion about this.

And please don't take the fish...they were quite a nice touch to the decor....

[Kalibarr]

If I must...
*eats fish*

[Sedgistan]

For someone who wasn't around on the forums for the 'Great Schism', can someone explain to me what the 5 pages of arguing have been about? Its quite confusing to me...I just can't understand what there is to get sooooo upset about. The resolution AMOM is trying to repeal, as far as I can tell, is outdated and worthless. So why keep it?

The 'great schism' has yet to happen. Its a separation of the Security Council and the General Assembly, so that they have their own pages on the NationStates site, and so that they can each vote on a resolution of their own at the same time. Both remain part of the World Assembly.

Some of the arguments for the schism are detailed in "Liberate The Security Council", though there are many more. The resolution was done to introduce this schism/show support for it/RP it.

Since the schism hasn't happened yet, some of us think it'd be inappropriate to repeal this liberation. Once it has happened, then a repeal should be considered.

[Fotar]

The 'great schism' has yet to happen. Its a separation of the Security Council and the General Assembly, so that they have their own pages on the NationStates site, and so that they can each vote on a resolution of their own at the same time. Both remain part of the World Assembly.

Some of the arguments for the schism are detailed in "Liberate The Security Council", though there are many more. The resolution was done to introduce this schism/show support for it/RP it.

Doesn't that go against this from the FAQ's:

WA proposals cannot address the rules or mechanics of the game, nor can they ask for new features.

[Sedgistan]

It was phrased so that it could've been referring to the region, and it never explicitly called for a technical change, just that The Security Council be 'liberated' - which meant be liberated from the General Assembly.