[DEFEATED] Commend Christian Democrats

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Aaaand people are stacking against it.

*Monty Burns voice*

Excellent!

[Wallenburg]

For the most part, this resolution is written well enough, and the arguments are compelling. However, one clause confuses me. You say that CD leads Right to Life. How can they do that if they aren't even in Right to Life?

Anyone who is voting against this is someone who refuses to see through their own hatred of a particular conservative ideology. Especially when considering the fact that Christian Democrats has authored so many WA Resolutions, and most of the people who have voted against have authored none. He has contributed to this game in such an extensive manner, it would be horrific to NOT commend him.

Or perhaps they disagree that the stated items merit commendation. Or perhaps they didn't read the resolution. In addition, authoring resolutions does not make you a good player. We have plenty of terrible resolutions in the books, some of them still unrepealed. Author count is irrelevant; what you must consider is the quality of the resolutions written.

[Europe and Oceania]

We voted against this.

We strongly oppose any and ALL totalitarian theocrats of any religion.

[Greater Cesnica]

Aaaand people are stacking against it.

*Monty Burns voice*

Excellent!

But why tho.

[Greater Cesnica]

For the most part, this resolution is written well enough, and the arguments are compelling. However, one clause confuses me. You say that CD leads Right to Life. How can they do that if they aren't even in Right to Life?

Anyone who is voting against this is someone who refuses to see through their own hatred of a particular conservative ideology. Especially when considering the fact that Christian Democrats has authored so many WA Resolutions, and most of the people who have voted against have authored none. He has contributed to this game in such an extensive manner, it would be horrific to NOT commend him.

Or perhaps they disagree that the stated items merit commendation. Or perhaps they didn't read the resolution. In addition, authoring resolutions does not make you a good player. We have plenty of terrible resolutions in the books, some of them still unrepealed. Author count is irrelevant; what you must consider is the quality of the resolutions written.

By Right to Life, perhaps it meant the actual, you know, Right to Life philosophy.

[Wrapper]

By Right to Life, perhaps it meant the actual, you know, Right to Life philosophy.

The proposal links directly to the region Right to Life.

[Greater Cesnica]

By Right to Life, perhaps it meant the actual, you know, Right to Life philosophy.

The proposal links directly to the region Right to Life.

Touche.

[Imperium Anglorum]

most of the people who have voted against have authored none

Most of the people voting for have also authored none. In fact, I would say that the people voting for have had less achievement than those voting against – they aren't even large delegates – if that is the metric of propriety.

[Greater Cesnica]

most of the people who have voted against have authored none

Most of the people voting for have also authored none. In fact, I would say that the people voting for have had less achievement than those voting against – they aren't even large delegates – if that is the metric of propriety.

Yet another Touche. Are you for or against this?

[United Areas of Conservatives]

This is the first time I think I have ever voted to commend a right-winged nation. Probably also the last.

We voted for.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Are you for or against this?

I am against, in a solely personal capacity. I will not, however, vote on the resolution, as this is not a resolution having any real effect on or relevance for Europe, and therefore, a vote on it would break neutrality under current interpretations of the neutrality provisions in statute.

[Folik]

We voted against and are disappointed that this is being considered.

[Wallenburg]

I'm afraid I have only just noticed this, but isn't this clause:

Applauding Christian Democrats' service as Speaker of the Assembly in the now defunct Founderless Regions Alliance, which served as a premier force to protect the most vulnerable among us, communities whose founder has fallen victim to Violet's wrath,

illegal according to precedent?

Mentions of Violet should be clearly as the deity (which "Lady Violet" is not), and only in vague terms (e.g. the "Violet-given right" from Commend SP). You should not attribute specific mod/admin actions to Violet, as then it's quite clearly referring to the site admin, thus it's not properly IC and is referring to NS as a game/site.

Mods/admins should otherwise be referred to the as Secretariat or not at all. You can mention mod actions without having to ascribe them to anyone "punished for their violations of international norms/standards/regulations/whatever".

We've never pretended that referring to mod actions/rules violations is simple in proposals. For a start, allowing it is purely at mod discretion, and the phrasing is tricky too. It's why there's the advice to get a ruling on it first.

[Nearly Finland]

I'm voting for this commendation, but if anyone's got a good reason I should change my vote, please reply.

[Lexicor]

Fallen to Violet's [God's] wrath? Seems like a legal usage to me.

[States of Glory]

I'm afraid I have only just noticed this, but isn't this clause:

Applauding Christian Democrats' service as Speaker of the Assembly in the now defunct Founderless Regions Alliance, which served as a premier force to protect the most vulnerable among us, communities whose founder has fallen victim to Violet's wrath,

illegal according to precedent?

Mentions of Violet should be clearly as the deity (which "Lady Violet" is not), and only in vague terms (e.g. the "Violet-given right" from Commend SP). You should not attribute specific mod/admin actions to Violet, as then it's quite clearly referring to the site admin, thus it's not properly IC and is referring to NS as a game/site.

Mods/admins should otherwise be referred to the as Secretariat or not at all. You can mention mod actions without having to ascribe them to anyone "punished for their violations of international norms/standards/regulations/whatever".

We've never pretended that referring to mod actions/rules violations is simple in proposals. For a start, allowing it is purely at mod discretion, and the phrasing is tricky too. It's why there's the advice to get a ruling on it first.

That precedent is used so rarely that I forgot all about it. Still, even if it does make the resolution-at-vote illegal, it's rather moot anyway as the superdelegates have their stomping boots on.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I'm afraid I have only just noticed this, but isn't this clause:

illegal according to precedent?

That precedent is used so rarely that I forgot all about it. Still, even if it does make the resolution-at-vote illegal, it's rather moot anyway as the superdelegates have their stomping boots on.

Would seem to me that the clause in question does not attribute specific mod/admin actions to Violet, just generalised wrath.

However as SoG has pointed out even if it is illegal it's moot. It's getting stomped on.

[Gnejs]

The Prosaic Union has voted FOR this resolution.

[Phydios]

We voted against and are disappointed that this is being considered.

"Would you care to elaborate?"

[Drasnia]

Umm, why was I mentioned in this without recognizing the contributions of other OPs of the spoiler thread like Ballotonia or Golgothastan?

[Wallenburg]

Fallen to Violet's [God's] wrath? Seems like a legal usage to me.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

[Unibot III]

I'm afraid I have only just noticed this, but isn't this clause:

illegal according to precedent?

That precedent is used so rarely that I forgot all about it. Still, even if it does make the resolution-at-vote illegal, it's rather moot anyway as the superdelegates have their stomping boots on.

The precedent quoted probably is enough to protect the clause's legality. "God's wrath" / "Violet's wrath" - I'll admit though, I had totally forgotten about that chestnut.

[Toin]

The Right Honourable John Storm MP

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
PROSPERITY S1AW 00A

Commons Letter

2 August 2017

His Excellency's Government

To the World Assembly,
After a bill proposed by a Commoner from New Bexley, legislation officially SUPPORTING came into effect early this afternoon, with 28 Commoners supporting this bill and 2 Commoners denouncing this bill. Personally, I fully support United Massachusetts efforts in commending Christian Democrats. The President officially supports this bill as well.

The Right Honourable John Storm MP
Speaker of the House of Commons
Member of Parliament for Seaton

[United Massachusetts]

Umm, why was I mentioned in this without recognizing the contributions of other OPs of the spoiler thread like Ballotonia or Golgothastan?

So people trying to find the thread didn't look for CD's name. I'm sorry.

For the most part, this resolution is written well enough, and the arguments are compelling. However, one clause confuses me. You say that CD leads Right to Life. How can they do that if they aren't even in Right to Life?

Through their subsidiary, Culture of Life.

[United Massachusetts]

I find it odd how most of the people bothering to post here are for this resolution