PASSED: Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"

[The Republic of Lanos]

I like to ask a favor from EVERYONE, including mods.

please keep the debate floor civil before i move that delegates are allowed to carry guns and bombs on the floor to assassinate any delegate they disagree with.
Thank you for considering this.

The Republic of Lanos
WASC Member

[Ardchoille]

If you weren't frisked at the door, I shall Have Words with the Building Management.

Seriously, though, on rare occasions an RPd bomb or an assassination would be preferable to a series of posts in which players insult players. A bit of writing in which the player has to move back from his anger to invent details and work out how to achieve the maximum devastation without actually killing anyone's main character can be enough to break up an unduly heated exchange painlessly.

It has its negative side, of course: too much silliness can look as if the poster is merely mocking, rather than arguing about, the proposal or the argument that someone's put a lot of thought and effort into. But, all up, I'd rather see someone go a little bit overboard that way than have to walk up and down the aisles swinging the banhammer at angry players.

Apologies for the OT, please carry on with the proposal discussion.

[Sedgistan]

Well pardon me for the copy/paste error - perhaps you'd also like to take note that this title I placed in the description ends, then is followed by "The World Assembly,"

This takes debating to a new low, Sedgistan. I'm disappointed in what you're trying to say here. Let's be good sports.

I've already acknowledged its a copy/paste error, but it also establishes a precedent of introducing yourself at the start of a resolution, which is why it shouldn't be there.

Which also means it was purely symbolic, as the region itself was a representation of shitty proposal writing. Just as "The Security Council" is a representation of The Security Council...

It was, for the resolution - but I don't recall arguing that point.

It's not in the shadow of "the GA" - it's being discarded as being useless by a few diehard GA members. I think the same has happened as far on the SC side of the WA, has it not...?

So lets wait until the GA-SC split, and then repeal it.

Of course, that's what some people may be deceived into thinking when they see a region named "The Security Council" and a WA body called "The Security Council." I'm just making it clear to them that there's a difference, and that the region isn't, technically, any more linked to the official WA than every other region there is in the world. Did you have a different opinion?

Of course its not officially linked, but people aren't stupid. They know that the region United Nations wasn't the old NSUN, and they know that the region The Security Council isn't the body. Also, I don't see how making this clear is an argument to repeal the liberation.

Sometimes statements must be made that help support the arguments made later. It's simply writing style. Maybe you're happy with a writing style that is the creation of a dull list of accusations that finishes off with no conclusion, but I most certainly am not.[/quote]

It doesn't support any later argument though. This is an accusation without a conclusion about how it relates to repealing the resolution.

They may be "legal" - I never made any claim saying they were illegal. I also don't know why this liberation has to be tagged as "preventative" - Topid's active and we all know it.

Straw man. You know it was nothing to do with keeping the region secure, so attacking the resolution on the basis that its not needed for security is pointless.

UNDERSTANDING the World Assembly Security Council to be an organization that is run by all of the World Assembly members as a whole, and not by a small group of individuals with the same general ideology;

Unless you actually go and claim that the region The Security Council is running the organisation The Security Council, this clause seems irrelevant.

Where does it say that? This isn't saying anything about the resolution or the region, this is just an informative statement...

And just informing people that a "small group of individuals with the same general ideology" are not actually running the WASC is an argument to repeal the liberation, how?

The region is run by a small group of individuals with the same general ideology - The WA is not. It's not that difficult to comprehend.[/quote]

You're not answering the question. Your point is still not a reason to repeal the resolution. Its simply an unrelated point.

Even if this wasn't the intent, the placement of a badge on this region is the only thing this resolution is doing now, and you should be against that, shouldn't you?

Gee, that "GA-SC split" thing wasn't stated anywhere in the resolution...

No, the resolution is still showing support for the GA-SC split, and stands as a way of RPing that split.

Don't try and tell me that its name and liberation weren't aiding factors - it's got the exact same name as a body of the WA, and was put on display for the entire world to see for over 3 days when its liberation was voted on. Don't try and tell me that this didn't acquire it some recognition.

Ah, right. The name has obviously helped get people there... but why on earth does the region using the name constitute an argument to repeal the liberation?

I've said it before and I've said it again - the resolution purely symbolic and doesn't serve the purpose it was made for any more. Also, the region's got that name and isn't an accurate representation of the actual WASC. Must I repeat myself?

Nowhere in the text of the resolution does it say this is a "preventative" measure, either.[/quote]

Isn't there a certain GA mod who says 'write to the category'? You've almost written a condemnation here, and tried to squeeze it into a repeal of a liberation. How would you see the region being an accurate representation of the actual WASC? Would it have to contain every single WA member?

If I don't like to write in the same way that you do, I'm not going to do so. I like my writing style and I've heard that others like it, and I'd like to keep using it. Do you not like to see some variety every once in a while? I definitely do.

I don't mind variety, but no - I don't like your writing style. I'm also fairly sure that putting arguments after the operative clauses is generally frowned upon.

[Fotar]

Once upon a time...a few years back, I was a frequent visitor to the WA forums to voice my opinion and such. Now I remember why I left. The personal attacks and squabbling are absurd. Are we debating this proposal, or pulling each other's hair in a 'he-said, she-said' high school feud?

I am a firm believer that liberations should only be used in the utmost of desperate situations...such as a region being griefed. Since the one thing both sides seem to agree on is that the original liberation has nothing to do with security, I am fully behind repealing it. I do not believe all the extras about the (WA) Security Council being more prevalent than the General Assembly are needed, but nor do I think they are enough to sink this.

[Urgench]

Once upon a time...a few years back, I was a frequent visitor to the WA forums to voice my opinion and such. Now I remember why I left. The personal attacks and squabbling are absurd. Are we debating this proposal, or pulling each other's hair in a 'he-said, she-said' high school feud?

I am a firm believer that liberations should only be used in the utmost of desperate situations...such as a region being griefed. Since the one thing both sides seem to agree on is that the original liberation has nothing to do with security, I am fully behind repealing it. I do not believe all the extras about the (WA) Security Council being more prevalent than the General Assembly are needed, but nor do I think they are enough to sink this.

Goodness and Narnians complaining and whinging about not being able to hack lively debate, more evidence that nothing ever changes. Yawn.

[Ardchoille]

Goodness and Narnians complaining and whinging about not being able to hack lively debate, more evidence that nothing ever changes. Yawn.

Urgench, yer OT. *whips back on topic*

[Flibbleites]

This takes debating to a new low, Sedgistan. I'm disappointed in what you're trying to say here. Let's be good sports.

Lolwut? He's helping you edit the proposal. Suggesting you move this to the end.

But even in the GA there's no requirement to do so.

Keep it clean, gents, keep it clean! No gouging, no clinching, no hitting below the belt.

*Takes off belt and wraps it around his head.*

[Glen-Rhodes]

Now what would give you that idea? I make it perfectly clear in the proposal what is wrong with the resolution I want to repeal, why its symbolic value, while having been appreciated, has lost its meaning

Exactly. Passing this repeal, saying it's lost its meaning, would be saying we no longer want those gameplay separations. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that's not the case.

[A mean old man]

Now what would give you that idea? I make it perfectly clear in the proposal what is wrong with the resolution I want to repeal, why its symbolic value, while having been appreciated, has lost its meaning

Exactly. Passing this repeal, saying it's lost its meaning, would be saying we no longer want those gameplay separations. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that's not the case.

Is there ANYTHING in the original resolution that says ANYTHING about the great schism?

No, I didn't think so.

[Sedgistan]

Is there ANYTHING in the original resolution that says ANYTHING about the great schism?

No, I didn't think so.

Have you read the resolution? Of course, it can't explicitly call for the Security Council to be split from the General Assembly, as resolutions can't call for rule changes. However, its quite clear (if you read it) that the resolution is based on a desire for the split:

We the Peoples of the Security Council,

Perceiving the short history of the Security Council so far, as an unsteady beginning -- one full of uncertainty and hesitancy;

Recalling the World Assembly, and at least one historical institution before that, whose beginnings were equally as unsteady;

Aware of the difference between the Security Council and these successful establishments lies not in their ideals, but their organization;

Determining that a higher degree of self-determination, and freedom is thus necessary for a successful establishment;

Whereas the World Assembly Security Council is disregarded as an international malingerer, a distraction from the imperative directives of the General Assembly;

Distressed to hear of potential authors of Security Council Resolutions who have decided not to pursue issues of international security out of fear, and intimidation from naysayers who have been attached to the Security Council not out of preference, but because of its association with the General Assembly -- which is not unlike the relationship of a child to its older brother;

Concerned that such a fraternal shadow may cast darkness over some pressing issues in our world;

Hereby, in the name of dedication to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, liberates the Security Council.

[A mean old man]

Thank you for getting up back on topic, Sedge.

Well pardon me for the copy/paste error - perhaps you'd also like to take note that this title I placed in the description ends, then is followed by "The World Assembly,"

This takes debating to a new low, Sedgistan. I'm disappointed in what you're trying to say here. Let's be good sports.

I've already acknowledged its a copy/paste error, but it also establishes a precedent of introducing yourself at the start of a resolution, which is why it shouldn't be there.

Remembering what you and Unibot had said back in the debate over whether raiding/defending should be used in C&C resolutions, this leads me to wonder why you believed then that precedents couldn't be set then, especially by myself, but now you believe that this miniscule detail, this mistake, will create some massive string of WA resolutions following this repeal that introduce the author at the beginning of the description...

Which also means it was purely symbolic, as the region itself was a representation of shitty proposal writing. Just as "The Security Council" is a representation of The Security Council...

It was, for the resolution - but I don't recall arguing that point.

Well what point did you argue, then?

It's not in the shadow of "the GA" - it's being discarded as being useless by a few diehard GA members. I think the same has happened as far on the SC side of the WA, has it not...?

So lets wait until the GA-SC split, and then repeal it.

It's lost its symbolic meaning already, why not get it overwith now? Why prolong the matter? The GA-SC split will be coming soon enough. If you can agree that it's supposed to be repealed sooner or later (Topid has spoken of possibly repealing it a while ago), and you and "The Security Council" team were going to do it sooner or later, aren't I just saving you all some time by doing it for you?

I don't see what the big deal is.

Of course, that's what some people may be deceived into thinking when they see a region named "The Security Council" and a WA body called "The Security Council." I'm just making it clear to them that there's a difference, and that the region isn't, technically, any more linked to the official WA than every other region there is in the world. Did you have a different opinion?

Of course its not officially linked, but people aren't stupid. They know that the region United Nations wasn't the old NSUN, and they know that the region The Security Council isn't the body. Also, I don't see how making this clear is an argument to repeal the liberation.

Sometimes statements must be made that help support the arguments made later. It's simply writing style. Maybe you're happy with a writing style that is the creation of a dull list of accusations that finishes off with no conclusion, but I most certainly am not.

It doesn't support any later argument though. This is an accusation without a conclusion about how it relates to repealing the resolution.

It's there to dispel any false opinions that may have been formulated by observing the text of the previous resolution. It's relevant. The only reason for opposing this simple, entirely true statement would be if you wanted people to be fooled. That's not what you want, right?

They may be "legal" - I never made any claim saying they were illegal. I also don't know why this liberation has to be tagged as "preventative" - Topid's active and we all know it.

Straw man. You know it was nothing to do with keeping the region secure, so attacking the resolution on the basis that its not needed for security is pointless.

Not really; I've already shown you why liberations should be made for security purposes, and have already shown you the exact wording of the description of the "liberate" category itself - so I actually that's very relevant to this issue. There is no need to use the category of liberation and abuse its function in this way - if you want to make a statement, use a C/C.

UNDERSTANDING the World Assembly Security Council to be an organization that is run by all of the World Assembly members as a whole, and not by a small group of individuals with the same general ideology;

Unless you actually go and claim that the region The Security Council is running the organisation The Security Council, this clause seems irrelevant.

Where does it say that? This isn't saying anything about the resolution or the region, this is just an informative statement...

And just informing people that a "small group of individuals with the same general ideology" are not actually running the WASC is an argument to repeal the liberation, how?

It is an argument as to why the region does not accurately represent the WASC, which is what it has been made out to do in the liberation being repealed. Why do you have to make me repeat myself so often?

The region is run by a small group of individuals with the same general ideology - The WA is not. It's not that difficult to comprehend.

You're not answering the question. Your point is still not a reason to repeal the resolution. Its simply an unrelated point.

I'm not repeating myself. What I said made enough sense, and if you're not willing to accept that, that's your problem.

Even if this wasn't the intent, the placement of a badge on this region is the only thing this resolution is doing now, and you should be against that, shouldn't you?

Gee, that "GA-SC split" thing wasn't stated anywhere in the resolution...

No, the resolution is still showing support for the GA-SC split, and stands as a way of RPing that split.

This is entirely your interpretation of that resolution. Nowhere in it does it mention the GA-SC split. Nowhere. It talks of the GA's "fraternal shadow" and makes the SC look like some sad, dejected subject of the GA's abuse, which is no longer true.

If that's what you're after, commend a region that's supporting - not representing - the GA-SC split, don't mess around with the "liberate" category.

Don't try and tell me that its name and liberation weren't aiding factors - it's got the exact same name as a body of the WA, and was put on display for the entire world to see for over 3 days when its liberation was voted on. Don't try and tell me that this didn't acquire it some recognition.

Ah, right. The name has obviously helped get people there... but why on earth does the region using the name constitute an argument to repeal the liberation?

I've said it before and I've said it again - the resolution purely symbolic and doesn't serve the purpose it was made for any more. Also, the region's got that name and isn't an accurate representation of the actual WASC. Must I repeat myself?

Nowhere in the text of the resolution does it say this is a "preventative" measure, either.

Isn't there a certain GA mod who says 'write to the category'? You've almost written a condemnation here, and tried to squeeze it into a repeal of a liberation. How would you see the region being an accurate representation of the actual WASC? Would it have to contain every single WA member?

It's a repeal, not a condemnation. If it was to be a condemnation, the content would've been very, very different.

To be an accurate representation, it certainly shouldn't contain a small group of people of the same or similar ideologies, should it? We've already gone over that. I also think we've already gone over the fact that purely symbolic resolutions are currently not allowed by the moderators...

If I don't like to write in the same way that you do, I'm not going to do so. I like my writing style and I've heard that others like it, and I'd like to keep using it. Do you not like to see some variety every once in a while? I definitely do.

I don't mind variety, but no - I don't like your writing style. I'm also fairly sure that putting arguments after the operative clauses is generally frowned upon.

You don't like my writing style. I get it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Is there ANYTHING in the original resolution that says ANYTHING about the great schism?

No, I didn't think so.

The resolution was proposed to show that a consensus of players wanted the Security Council to be separated (ie liberated) from the General Assembly. Did you even read the liberation's forum topic? If you had, you would've been directed to this topic, in which you would have found this post and the posts after it.

[Sedgistan]

Remembering what you and Unibot had said back in the debate over whether raiding/defending should be used in C&C resolutions, this leads me to wonder why you believed then that precedents couldn't be set then, especially by myself, but now you believe that this miniscule detail, this mistake, will create some massive string of WA resolutions following this repeal that introduce the author at the beginning of the description...

The raiding/defending in C&C resolutions really is a different debate. If this passes, I would be allowed to start any SC resolution I propose by announcing myself.

Well what point did you argue, then?

Several... but more that the fact that the region symbolised the organisation doesn't mean it has to somehow have a similar make-up to the organisation.

It's lost its symbolic meaning already, why not get it overwith now? Why prolong the matter? The GA-SC split will be coming soon enough. If you can agree that it's supposed to be repealed sooner or later (Topid has spoken of possibly repealing it a while ago), and you and "The Security Council" team were going to do it sooner or later, aren't I just saving you all some time by doing it for you?

I don't see what the big deal is.

I didn't say that the "TSC team" were going to repeal it - I don't think it was discussed. Why prolong the matter - because the argument still stands - we still need the SC split to allow it to function better.

It's there to dispel any false opinions that may have been formulated by observing the text of the previous resolution. It's relevant. The only reason for opposing this simple, entirely true statement would be if you wanted people to be fooled. That's not what you want, right?

Or perhaps I oppose it because its unnecessary? Can you come up with an example of someone who has/had a false opinion about the region being the organisation, or is this clause based on speculation?

Not really; I've already shown you why liberations should be made for security purposes, and have already shown you the exact wording of the description of the "liberate" category itself - so I actually that's very relevant to this issue. There is no need to use the category of liberation and abuse its function in this way - if you want to make a statement, use a C/C.

Using a C&C resolution would have been 'abuse' (your term) in the same way. Liberations are generally for security purposes, but you've yet to come up with a reason why they always have to be. The description isn't enough, as thats not a binding rule.

I'm not repeating myself. What I said made enough sense, and if you're not willing to accept that, that's your problem.

As above, the region doesn't have to have a similar make-up/ideology/whatever to the organisation for it to symbolise it.

This is entirely your interpretation of that resolution. Nowhere in it does it mention the GA-SC split. Nowhere. It talks of the GA's "fraternal shadow" and makes the SC look like some sad, dejected subject of the GA's abuse, which is no longer true.

If that's what you're after, commend a region that's supporting - not representing - the GA-SC split, don't mess around with the "liberate" category.

Go and read my post above, it can't call for rule changes, but 'liberation' is to be interpreted as liberating the SC from the GA. The resolution gives a load of reasons to do that.

Also, why can one type of resolution be used differently than intended, but not another?

It's a repeal, not a condemnation. If it was to be a condemnation, the content would've been very, very different.

Well I don't doubt you'd enjoy writing a condemnation of TSC, but you've included several cricitisms of it.

To be an accurate representation, it certainly shouldn't contain a small group of people of the same or similar ideologies, should it? We've already gone over that. I also think we've already gone over the fact that purely symbolic resolutions are currently not allowed by the moderators...

Before the liberation, the WFE described how TSC was being oppressed by the GA. That was what made it more than just symbolic.

[Martyrdoom]

Can you come up with an example of someone who has/had a false opinion about the region being the organisation, or is this clause based on speculation?

Well I can think of a few

[A mean old man]

Can you come up with an example of someone who has/had a false opinion about the region being the organisation, or is this clause based on speculation?

Well I can think of a few

I can also think of a potential several thousand who might be and who never post here.

[A mean old man]

Is there ANYTHING in the original resolution that says ANYTHING about the great schism?

No, I didn't think so.

The resolution was proposed to show that a consensus of players wanted the Security Council to be separated (ie liberated) from the General Assembly. Did you even read the liberation's forum topic? If you had, you would've been directed to this topic, in which you would have found this post and the posts after it.

Oh, please - we're talking about the writing of the resolution to be repealed here, not the discussions people had about ideas that may have spawned after the resolution's writing. If it isn't in the original text, it's not part of the resolution's meaning.

[Sedgistan]

Can you come up with an example of someone who has/had a false opinion about the region being the organisation, or is this clause based on speculation?

Well I can think of a few

I can also think of a potential several thousand who might be and who never post here.

You honestly think that people are stupid enough to mistake a region with the name "The Security Council" for the body of the WA called the "Security Council"?

Were you not also one of those people who thought I was being dismissive when I said not all natives would be able to write liberation resolutions?

[A mean old man]

Remembering what you and Unibot had said back in the debate over whether raiding/defending should be used in C&C resolutions, this leads me to wonder why you believed then that precedents couldn't be set then, especially by myself, but now you believe that this miniscule detail, this mistake, will create some massive string of WA resolutions following this repeal that introduce the author at the beginning of the description...

The raiding/defending in C&C resolutions really is a different debate. If this passes, I would be allowed to start any SC resolution I propose by announcing myself.

"If this passes." No, you could do that anyway, even if this didn't pass and even if this was never created.

Well what point did you argue, then?

Several... but more that the fact that the region symbolised the organisation doesn't mean it has to somehow have a similar make-up to the organisation.

I tend to disagree. Regions cannot represent anything other than regions. As I said, had it been promoting the end of the GA's "bullying" of the SC, it'd be entirely different, and this would be acceptable.

It's lost its symbolic meaning already, why not get it overwith now? Why prolong the matter? The GA-SC split will be coming soon enough. If you can agree that it's supposed to be repealed sooner or later (Topid has spoken of possibly repealing it a while ago), and you and "The Security Council" team were going to do it sooner or later, aren't I just saving you all some time by doing it for you?

I don't see what the big deal is.

I didn't say that the "TSC team" were going to repeal it - I don't think it was discussed. Why prolong the matter - because the argument still stands - we still need the SC split to allow it to function better.

I definitely remember Topid saying something about repealing this resolution at some point, whether it was in these forums or in TSC's. I may go take a look around.

Um... the schism's happening anyway, whether this resolution (which still does not have anything to do with it) is in action or not...

Not really; I've already shown you why liberations should be made for security purposes, and have already shown you the exact wording of the description of the "liberate" category itself - so I actually that's very relevant to this issue. There is no need to use the category of liberation and abuse its function in this way - if you want to make a statement, use a C/C.

Using a C&C resolution would have been 'abuse' (your term) in the same way. Liberations are generally for security purposes, but you've yet to come up with a reason why they always have to be. The description isn't enough, as thats not a binding rule.

Because they have a gameplay function. C&Cs do not. That's what I was trying to say and what you're trying to ignore.

I'm not repeating myself. What I said made enough sense, and if you're not willing to accept that, that's your problem.

As above, the region doesn't have to have a similar make-up/ideology/whatever to the organisation for it to symbolise it.

Already addressed further up.

This is entirely your interpretation of that resolution. Nowhere in it does it mention the GA-SC split. Nowhere. It talks of the GA's "fraternal shadow" and makes the SC look like some sad, dejected subject of the GA's abuse, which is no longer true.

If that's what you're after, commend a region that's supporting - not representing - the GA-SC split, don't mess around with the "liberate" category.

Go and read my post above, it can't call for rule changes, but 'liberation' is to be interpreted as liberating the SC from the GA. The resolution gives a load of reasons to do that.

Also, why can one type of resolution be used differently than intended, but not another?

Or you could commend a region promoting the GA-SC schism, as I suggested, and not promote the abuse the gameplay function of liberations.

It's a repeal, not a condemnation. If it was to be a condemnation, the content would've been very, very different.

Well I don't doubt you'd enjoy writing a condemnation of TSC, but you've included several cricitisms of it.

No, I've made observations of its lack of diversity, lack of need for the functions of a liberation, etc., which are based on fact - they're not criticisms of it.

To be an accurate representation, it certainly shouldn't contain a small group of people of the same or similar ideologies, should it? We've already gone over that. I also think we've already gone over the fact that purely symbolic resolutions are currently not allowed by the moderators...

Before the liberation, the WFE described how TSC was being oppressed by the GA. That was what made it more than just symbolic.

That's all the resolution did, and it asked that the SC be safe from the GA's mean ol' iron fist.

[A mean old man]

Can you come up with an example of someone who has/had a false opinion about the region being the organisation, or is this clause based on speculation?

Well I can think of a few

I can also think of a potential several thousand who might be and who never post here.

You honestly think that people are stupid enough to mistake a region with the name "The Security Council" for the body of the WA called the "Security Council"?

Apparently this one needs convincing.

My friend, "The Clairvoyant One," who is a rather intelligent person and helped me found and build my region, and who participates in WA affairs but does not get involved in the forums here to discuss them, thought that this was a liberation of the actual WASC until I had a conversation with him months ago about it. He wasn't happy.

Were you not also one of those people who thought I was being dismissive when I said not all natives would be able to write liberation resolutions?

Eh?

[Sedgistan]

"If this passes." No, you could do that anyway, even if this didn't pass and even if this was never created.

True, but I was rather hoping there's be a ruling that you can't announce yourself at the start, unless its to place a co-author there.

I tend to disagree. Regions cannot represent anything other than regions. As I said, had it been promoting the end of the GA's "bullying" of the SC, it'd be entirely different, and this would be acceptable.

You were happy for the region "Shitty Proposal Writing" to represent shitty proposal writing beforehand. That region was even against shitty proposal writing, while The Security Council's WFE said it was being oppressed by the GA.

Um... the schism's happening anyway, whether this resolution (which still does not have anything to do with it) is in action or not...

Repealing the resolution would suggest the players no longer supported the schism.

Because they have a gameplay function. C&Cs do not. That's what I was trying to say and what you're trying to ignore.

And what? They have a gameplay function, yes - but why does that mean that shouldn't be used for other things too?

Or you could commend a region promoting the GA-SC schism, as I suggested, and not promote the abuse the gameplay function of liberations.

Could've, but this worked just as well. I don't see how its abuse, and why liberation resolutions can't be used for other things simply because they have a gameplay function.

No, I've made observations of its lack of diversity, lack of need for the functions of a liberation, etc., which are based on fact - they're not criticisms of it.

Kalibarr & Martyrdoom both have nations there - they're raiders. Hardly a lack of diversity. And you fail to address the point that just because a region's name is used to symbolise the organisation doesn't mean that the region itself has to be a carbon copy of the World Assembly.

Before the liberation, the WFE described how TSC was being oppressed by the GA. That was what made it more than just symbolic.

That's all the resolution did, and it asked that the SC be safe from the GA's mean ol' iron fist.[/quote]

Right, and now that its still not safe, you're reapealing it why?

[Sedgistan]

Apparently this one needs convincing.

My friend, "The Clairvoyant One," who is a rather intelligent person and helped me found and build my region, and who participates in WA affairs but does not get involved in the forums here to discuss them, thought that this was a liberation of the actual WASC until I had a conversation with him months ago about it. He wasn't happy.

Well now thats explained to him, whats the problem?

Were you not also one of those people who thought I was being dismissive when I said not all natives would be able to write liberation resolutions?

Eh?[/quote]

You thought I was calling people stupid because they can't write a liberation resolution. By saying that people can't see the difference between a region and an international body, you're definitely saying you think those people are stupid.

[Kalibarr]

Kalibarr & Martyrdoom both have nations there - they're raiders. Hardly a lack of diversity. And you fail to address the point that just because a region's name is used to symbolise the organisation doesn't mean that the region itself has to be a carbon copy of the World Assembly.

The point is it is mostly defenders pushing a defender agenda.

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

I've already acknowledged its a copy/paste error, but it also establishes a precedent of introducing yourself at the start of a resolution, which is why it shouldn't be there..

Oh I don't think it sets such a bad precedent.

[Kalibarr]

I've already acknowledged its a copy/paste error, but it also establishes a precedent of introducing yourself at the start of a resolution, which is why it shouldn't be there..

Oh I don't think it sets such a bad precedent.

Hey, I'd vote for it.

[A mean old man]

"If this passes." No, you could do that anyway, even if this didn't pass and even if this was never created.

True, but I was rather hoping there's be a ruling that you can't announce yourself at the start, unless its to place a co-author there.

You mean this ruling?

I tend to disagree. Regions cannot represent anything other than regions. As I said, had it been promoting the end of the GA's "bullying" of the SC, it'd be entirely different, and this would be acceptable.

You were happy for the region "Shitty Proposal Writing" to represent shitty proposal writing beforehand. That region was even against shitty proposal writing, while The Security Council's WFE said it was being oppressed by the GA.

Apparently you're having a bit of a problem with your memory, sedge - I had it representing shitty proposal writing, just as "The Security Council" was representing the WASC, however Ardchoille made a ruling then that no more "symbolic" regions would be suitable for WA purposes, and that the region would have to be tweaked into being something condemnable for gameplay reasons, such as promoting shitty proposal writing.

Um... the schism's happening anyway, whether this resolution (which still does not have anything to do with it) is in action or not...

Repealing the resolution would suggest the players no longer supported the schism.

You really like to ignore me, don't you? No matter, I'll just say again that this resolution has nothing to do with said schism.

Because they have a gameplay function. C&Cs do not. That's what I was trying to say and what you're trying to ignore.

And what? They have a gameplay function, yes - but why does that mean that shouldn't be used for other things too?

Um... because THAT'S NOT THEIR FUNCTION?

Or you could commend a region promoting the GA-SC schism, as I suggested, and not promote the abuse the gameplay function of liberations.

Could've, but this worked just as well. I don't see how its abuse, and why liberation resolutions can't be used for other things simply because they have a gameplay function.

Already answered above.

No, I've made observations of its lack of diversity, lack of need for the functions of a liberation, etc., which are based on fact - they're not criticisms of it.

Kalibarr & Martyrdoom both have nations there - they're raiders. Hardly a lack of diversity. And you fail to address the point that just because a region's name is used to symbolise the organisation doesn't mean that the region itself has to be a carbon copy of the World Assembly.

Do Kali and Martyr have WA nations there? No. Do certain defender-sympathizers often have WA nations there? Yes. We're talking about the WA, here, sedge. This is a WA matter.

Before the liberation, the WFE described how TSC was being oppressed by the GA. That was what made it more than just symbolic.

That's all the resolution did, and it asked that the SC be safe from the GA's mean ol' iron fist.

Right, and now that its still not safe, you're reapealing it why?

What do you mean "it's still not safe? People use the SC all the time! Don't I always hear about how popular (functional) liberation resolutions are over and over again? Isn't there always plenty of lively debate here in these forums? The SC is FINE! (as far as being safe from the GA goes...) The GA isn't threatening it!