Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 6:47 am
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
[FAILED THEN PASSED] Repeal "Liberate Dank Memes"
Page 2 of 5
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 6:47 amPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:57 amWe're live. Looking forward to hopefully getting this to vote
Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 2:39 pmFull support for this.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:04 pmWe're now on the vote!
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:37 pmI'd like to thank TNP for the rough start with this 
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:46 pmTim-Opolis wrote:I'd like to thank TNP for the rough start with this
I read their opinion, and it's because you were "crediting" the regions and bringing attention to them, and that the repeal could have been improved and taken a lot more time. "We're in no hurry," they seemed to say.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:41 pmThe Atlae Isles wrote:Tim-Opolis wrote:I'd like to thank TNP for the rough start with this
I read their opinion, and it's because you were "crediting" the regions and bringing attention to them, and that the repeal could have been improved and taken a lot more time. "We're in no hurry," they seemed to say.
Yeah I don't really agree with that line of thought. Naming Nazi Europa and HYDRA Command in this particular resolution serves to differentiate the fact that while they both are (or were in HYDRA's case) invader regions, they aren't exactly pals. What would you call them without names, "raiders, and other raiders"? "occupying invaders and fascists"?
I certainly agree with the merit of not advertising for invading powers, my resolution SC #210 never names the invading power at all. However for this particular resolution I think it has its uses.
On another note, I've heard some concerns about this resolution concerning the less than positive light in which it portrays La Navasse. Normally I might take exception to calling the author out in such a fashion, but La Navasse names himself multiple times in the original resolution so I see no reason why the repeal shouldn't at least address him.
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:13 amI admit, I do wonder why this resolution is failing. It seems perfectly fine.
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:56 amShemiki wrote:I admit, I do wonder why this resolution is failing. It seems perfectly fine.
TNP's early stomp against may have influenced the individual vote. I've passed on my recommendations to BBB to put the TWP vote "For" the repeal.
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:26 amAltmoras wrote:The Atlae Isles wrote:I read their opinion, and it's because you were "crediting" the regions and bringing attention to them, and that the repeal could have been improved and taken a lot more time. "We're in no hurry," they seemed to say.
Yeah I don't really agree with that line of thought. Naming Nazi Europa and HYDRA Command in this particular resolution serves to differentiate the fact that while they both are (or were in HYDRA's case) invader regions, they aren't exactly pals. What would you call them without names, "raiders, and other raiders"? "occupying invaders and fascists"?
I certainly agree with the merit of not advertising for invading powers, my resolution SC #210 never names the invading power at all. However for this particular resolution I think it has its uses.
On another note, I've heard some concerns about this resolution concerning the less than positive light in which it portrays La Navasse. Normally I might take exception to calling the author out in such a fashion, but La Navasse names himself multiple times in the original resolution so I see no reason why the repeal shouldn't at least address him.
I take offence at that "were"
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:06 amMcMannia Times Six wrote:
I take offence at that "were"
Do you take it times six?
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:08 amI fully agree and support the Repealing of "Liberate Dank Memes"
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:03 pmThe Atlae Isles wrote:Tim-Opolis wrote:I'd like to thank TNP for the rough start with this
I read their opinion, and it's because you were "crediting" the regions and bringing attention to them, and that the repeal could have been improved and taken a lot more time. "We're in no hurry," they seemed to say.
Yeah, that's nonsense ofc, like most of TNP's opinions.
Nobody will ever read the appeal again once it has passed. It's hardly an advertisement.
And this was not even remotely rushed. It had a full drafting discussion then Tim literally just left it sitting here for ages.
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:43 pmWhat I'm most confused about is why no one seems to be bothering to argue against this bill in this thread. Obviously people don't like it, but no one's putting forward arguments to explain why in the place where it would be most relevant.
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:30 pmHaving spoken to TNP and knowing what changes would gain their vote, I'm confident we can get this with ease on a Take II
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:49 pmI don't usually post here but I shall considering that I am somewhat being discussed.
I simply choose not to post my arguments here but I do read the threads in their entirety. Should there be a resolution I find that I would support but I object to the contents I do my best to ensure my concerns are known to the author.
That being said, I have had a discussion with Tim and while I have not seen his draft should this resolution fail, my concerns have been assuaged and he has suggested wording I personally find acceptable.
I simply choose not to post my arguments here but I do read the threads in their entirety. Should there be a resolution I find that I would support but I object to the contents I do my best to ensure my concerns are known to the author.
That being said, I have had a discussion with Tim and while I have not seen his draft should this resolution fail, my concerns have been assuaged and he has suggested wording I personally find acceptable.
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:40 pmIf this really is a stop to the original owner reclaiming it and it isnt actually liberation. Im voting for if it actually is a liberation movement im voting against.
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:18 pmMcMannia Times Six wrote:Altmoras wrote:
Yeah I don't really agree with that line of thought. Naming Nazi Europa and HYDRA Command in this particular resolution serves to differentiate the fact that while they both are (or were in HYDRA's case) invader regions, they aren't exactly pals. What would you call them without names, "raiders, and other raiders"? "occupying invaders and fascists"?
I certainly agree with the merit of not advertising for invading powers, my resolution SC #210 never names the invading power at all. However for this particular resolution I think it has its uses.
On another note, I've heard some concerns about this resolution concerning the less than positive light in which it portrays La Navasse. Normally I might take exception to calling the author out in such a fashion, but La Navasse names himself multiple times in the original resolution so I see no reason why the repeal shouldn't at least address him.
I take offence at that "were"
A simple glance at the region page is enough to remember that HYDRA Command is a thing of the past.
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:40 amAltmoras wrote:McMannia Times Six wrote:
I take offence at that "were"
A simple glance at the region page is enough to remember that HYDRA Command is a thing of the past.
I would request you folks take discussion about a long-dead organization, outside of matters specifically related to its mention in the draft, to the Gameplay forum. Perhaps McMannia can find Hydra's thread somewhere around Page 20.
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:42 amTim-Opolis wrote:Altmoras wrote:
A simple glance at the region page is enough to remember that HYDRA Command is a thing of the past.
I would request you folks take discussion about a long-dead organization, outside of matters specifically related to its mention in the draft, to the Gameplay forum. Perhaps McMannia can find Hydra's thread somewhere around Page 20.
I didn't want to gravedig.
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:15 amAltmoras wrote:A simple glance at the region page is enough to remember that HYDRA Command is a thing of the past.
Wasnt talking about Hycom
Tim-Opolis wrote:I would request you folks take discussion about a long-dead organization, outside of matters specifically related to its mention in the draft, to the Gameplay forum
Will do
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:26 pmI am directing Oroqus to vote "Yes" for this Repeal.
Simply put, there is no reason for a Liberation of a essentially trophy region to hold.
I do not mind the less-than-positive light the Repeal puts me in - it is true I was instrumental in causing the need for such a Liberation. >_>
A further explanation: if I hadn't not listened to TGW on how to refound DankMemes, they would've helped, and the Liberation would've most likely been unnecessary. Instead, I didn't listen, I was shunned by defenders, and I went to write the Liberation as a last resort.
Simply put, there is no reason for a Liberation of a essentially trophy region to hold.
I do not mind the less-than-positive light the Repeal puts me in - it is true I was instrumental in causing the need for such a Liberation. >_>
A further explanation: if I hadn't not listened to TGW on how to refound DankMemes, they would've helped, and the Liberation would've most likely been unnecessary. Instead, I didn't listen, I was shunned by defenders, and I went to write the Liberation as a last resort.
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:25 amCheck-o-slow-vakki-uh wrote:What I'm most confused about is why no one seems to be bothering to argue against this bill in this thread. Obviously people don't like it, but no one's putting forward arguments to explain why in the place where it would be most relevant.
Well, there aren't any valid arguments to post.
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:27 pm"Repeal "Liberate Dank memes"" was defeated 9,265 votes to 5,098.
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:36 pmWe'll be back in a few weeks with a draft that TNP will vote for. I could re-up it right now, but I like to give the delegates some time between being battered by my campaign telegrams.