Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:58 amNationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
[DEFEATED] (Not by me) Liberate The East Pacific
Page 5 of 5
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:58 amPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:04 pmPraise Talos.
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:08 pmLibTEP is once and for all, history. We* won, lads and lassies. Good work.
* The against won. The for did not.
* The against won. The for did not.
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:17 pmThank goodness, I can toss my repeal draft in the trash now.
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:20 pmYokiria wrote:Thank goodness, I can toss my repeal draft in the trash now.
Nah... Leave it up so the unsuspecting can still comment on it two weeks from now.
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:25 pmUnibot III wrote:Does the last clause satisfy Rule III?
“ The Security Council, by the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations thereof, does hereby, in the name of the ever-knowing Violet, Liberate The East Pacific.”
There’s that strange Violet reference, sure, but there’s also another problem with the operative clause. The operative clause predicates action upon the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations, but it’s entirely possible that a resolution, notwithstanding this clause, can pass *without* the support of Delegates or member nations at large. Not all delegates are created equally in terms of endorsements and member-nations don’t always vote in line with delegates.
Per moderator precedent, it is legal insofar as that is the exact wording of SC 247, the first liberation.
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:05 amCatching up on some stuff:
Precedent doesn't necessarily make it legal (it could have been missed first time or the rules changed since) but yes, the clause was legal. The "advice and consents" and "in the name of" parts are just irrelevant fluff.
Security Council rules are deliberately minimalist. Yes, there is a rule on joke proposals, but not against "proposals that just happen to be funny", and Moderation errs towards interpreting proposals as "legal funny" rather than "illegal joke". It's up to World Assembly members to determine the majority of their standards for the SC, not the mod team.
United Massachusetts wrote:Unibot III wrote:Does the last clause satisfy Rule III?
“ The Security Council, by the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations thereof, does hereby, in the name of the ever-knowing Violet, Liberate The East Pacific.”
There’s that strange Violet reference, sure, but there’s also another problem with the operative clause. The operative clause predicates action upon the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations, but it’s entirely possible that a resolution, notwithstanding this clause, can pass *without* the support of Delegates or member nations at large. Not all delegates are created equally in terms of endorsements and member-nations don’t always vote in line with delegates.
Per moderator precedent, it is legal insofar as that is the exact wording of SC 247, the first liberation.
Precedent doesn't necessarily make it legal (it could have been missed first time or the rules changed since) but yes, the clause was legal. The "advice and consents" and "in the name of" parts are just irrelevant fluff.
Security Council rules are deliberately minimalist. Yes, there is a rule on joke proposals, but not against "proposals that just happen to be funny", and Moderation errs towards interpreting proposals as "legal funny" rather than "illegal joke". It's up to World Assembly members to determine the majority of their standards for the SC, not the mod team.
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:10 pmLMAOOOOOO I missed it, a buncha people got all salty bc I called their livelihood a useless and broken organization. Maybe get a life outside of NS and don't be so offended.
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:27 pmI think this thread has had its due. Locking it.