Thank you for getting up back on topic, Sedge.
Sedgistan wrote:A mean old man wrote: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 If you can agree that it's supposed to be repealed sooner or later (Topid has spoken of possibly repealing it a while ago), and you and "The Security Council" team were going to do it sooner or later, aren't I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.