[PASSED] Repeal Liberate Iran

[Jakker]

Thank you kindly to the authors for adding TBH to the new draft. This version looks a lot better. Full support!

[Kromerov]

We've learned two important things from this repeal effort:

• Fendas are looking to refound Iran, rightly confident that they will pass this resolution; and
• Jakker is clearly collecting unemployment since there is no other way he would have had time to make that post.

I have never laughed so hard in my life, congrats

[Wallenburg]

Not a fan of the decision not to draft, nor the promotion of TBH. I'll have to seriously mull this over.

[Kromerov]

On a submission note, I think adding the Black Hawks on the proposal is a bad idea. Since at least in my opinion, it gives them unneeded advertisement they don't deserve

[Tinhampton]

...I think adding the Black Hawks on the proposal is a bad idea. Since at least in my opinion, it gives them unneeded advertisement they don't deserve

Not a fan of the decision not to draft, nor the promotion of TBH...

Once upon a time - I mean four years ago - it was virtually impossible to give unwarranted attention to anybody through the Security Council unless you were writing an obvious bandwagony resolution like Condemn Nazi Europa. Some time after Jocospor's mass recruitment, this definition was expanded to include anything mentioning the CCD or their allies in a glowing light; a bit after that, to include anything mentioning CCD and friends at all; a bit after that, to include Fossils and Friends. It is, seemingly, now virtually impossible to make reference to any controversial member of the community (including explicitly calling out raiders), whether or not in resistance to them, without being accused of fetishising them.

I've complained about this before. Do I have to do so again? This shift in attitude is unsurprising - after all, the BBC has now effectively deemed Little Britain unsuitable for modern audiences despite piloting it in 2003 - but disappointing

[Kuriko]

Not a fan of the decision not to draft, nor the promotion of TBH. I'll have to seriously mull this over.

Not drafting it was a necessity, since we had to give TBH as little time to react as possible. It was supposed to go to vote right after Commend COE, but Noah surprised us all with his quick submission of 9003. As to adding TBH, I wasn't a fan either but we would have lost the vote of TNP because they perceived the first submission as a subtle condemnation of their Iran raid in January if we hadn't made it more pointed.

On a submission note, I think adding the Black Hawks on the proposal is a bad idea. Since at least in my opinion, it gives them unneeded advertisement they don't deserve

I agree.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

...I think adding the Black Hawks on the proposal is a bad idea. Since at least in my opinion, it gives them unneeded advertisement they don't deserve

Not a fan of the decision not to draft, nor the promotion of TBH...

Once upon a time - I mean four years ago - it was virtually impossible to give unwarranted attention to anybody through the Security Council unless you were writing an obvious bandwagony resolution like Condemn Nazi Europa. Some time after Jocospor's mass recruitment, this definition was expanded to include anything mentioning the CCD or their allies in a glowing light; a bit after that, to include anything mentioning CCD and friends at all; a bit after that, to include Fossils and Friends. It is, seemingly, now virtually impossible to make reference to any controversial member of the community (including explicitly calling out raiders), whether or not in resistance to them, without being accused of fetishising them.

I've complained about this before. Do I have to do so again? This shift in attitude is unsurprising - after all, the BBC has now effectively deemed Little Britain unsuitable for modern audiences despite piloting it in 2003 - but disappointing

Completely agree with this sentiment, we should have many, many more CCD references within the Security Council.

For the record, I was also pleasantly surprised to see a native submit this resolution. Regardless of the TBH mention, CCD will support this repeal attempt.

[Wallenburg]

Not a fan of the decision not to draft, nor the promotion of TBH. I'll have to seriously mull this over.

Not drafting it was a necessity, since we had to give TBH as little time to react as possible. It was supposed to go to vote right after Commend COE, but Noah surprised us all with his quick submission of 9003. As to adding TBH, I wasn't a fan either but we would have lost the vote of TNP because they perceived the first submission as a subtle condemnation of their Iran raid in January if we hadn't made it more pointed.

I am more or less aware of the reasons for these things. That's why I haven't automatically committed myself to voting against this, as I normally would.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Not a fan of the decision not to draft, nor the promotion of TBH. I'll have to seriously mull this over.

Not drafting it was a necessity, since we had to give TBH as little time to react as possible. It was supposed to go to vote right after Commend COE, but Noah surprised us all with his quick submission of 9003. As to adding TBH, I wasn't a fan either but we would have lost the vote of TNP because they perceived the first submission as a subtle condemnation of their Iran raid in January if we hadn't made it more pointed.

Was the concern that we would have more time to prepare for the refound, or that we would organize to raid the region immediately before the passage of resolution, thereby requiring fendas to pass another Liberation? Or a bit of both? Just curious, I assume it's more the latter since the former doesn't seem like a practical concern.

[Kuriko]

Not drafting it was a necessity, since we had to give TBH as little time to react as possible. It was supposed to go to vote right after Commend COE, but Noah surprised us all with his quick submission of 9003. As to adding TBH, I wasn't a fan either but we would have lost the vote of TNP because they perceived the first submission as a subtle condemnation of their Iran raid in January if we hadn't made it more pointed.

Was the concern that we would have more time to prepare for the refound, or that we would organize to raid the region immediately before the passage of resolution, thereby requiring fendas to pass another Liberation? Or a bit of both? Just curious, I assume it's more the latter since the former doesn't seem like a practical concern.

The main point was to give you all as little time as possible to topple delegates approving the proposal. It would have gone to vote while you were still occupied in SecFanatics, but Commend 9003 was submitted way sooner than I thought. There was an attempt at last night's major, and today's minor, to topple the proposal from queue by TBH that probably would have succeeded if Iramerica hadn't sent another campaign. Not drafting here and submitting it ASAP so it could go to vote after Commend COE was supposed to prevent that but didn't work out.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Was the concern that we would have more time to prepare for the refound, or that we would organize to raid the region immediately before the passage of resolution, thereby requiring fendas to pass another Liberation? Or a bit of both? Just curious, I assume it's more the latter since the former doesn't seem like a practical concern.

The main point was to give you all as little time as possible to topple delegates approving the proposal. It would have gone to vote while you were still occupied in SecFanatics, but Commend 9003 was submitted way sooner than I thought. There was an attempt at last night's major, and today's minor, to topple the proposal from queue by TBH that probably would have succeeded if Iramerica hadn't sent another campaign. Not drafting here and submitting it ASAP so it could go to vote after Commend COE was supposed to prevent that but didn't work out.

Makes sense, I'm stuck in the old way of thinking where a submitted Lib proposal is a fait accompli.

[Lord Dominator]

if Iramerica hadn't sent another campaign.

Isn't it illegal to send two campaigns (at least from the same person), or did you send the first one?

[Kuriko]

if Iramerica hadn't sent another campaign.

Isn't it illegal to send two campaigns (at least from the same person), or did you send the first one?

I sent the first, Iramerica sent the second. Last I checked that was legal to do because we're different people.

[Lord Dominator]

Isn't it illegal to send two campaigns (at least from the same person), or did you send the first one?

I sent the first, Iramerica sent the second. Last I checked that was legal to do because we're different people.

Sounds good

[Tinhampton]

Now at vote. You'd think we were voting on Condemn Francos Spain here, but the below is simply the result of a very early stomp by Aumeltopia:

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Now at vote. You'd think we were voting on Condemn Francos Spain here, but the below is simply the result of a very early stomp by Aumeltopia:

(Image)

smh WA Elite at it again.

[Aumeltopia]

Now at vote. You'd think we were voting on Condemn Francos Spain here, but the below is simply the result of a very early stomp by Aumeltopia:

(Image)

I'm clearly no defender anymore, it took me a full 13 seconds.

[WayNeacTia]

Now at vote. You'd think we were voting on Condemn Francos Spain here, but the below is simply the result of a very early stomp by Aumeltopia:

(Image)

smh WA Elite at it again.

Yet you voted for it. Seems a tad suspicious if you ask me. I somehow just don't believe you are quick enough to snatch the eventual refound though.

Now at vote. You'd think we were voting on Condemn Francos Spain here, but the below is simply the result of a very early stomp by Aumeltopia:

Unsure as to how Francos Spain is relevant here, but meh. Also that is not a "stomp" Tin. A stomp would be voting against. This is a "prop".

[Praeceps]

I've never heard it called "prop", I've only heard and used "stack".

[WayNeacTia]

I've never heard it called "prop", I've only heard and used "stack".

There is the word I was looking for.

[Federated Commonwealth of Selstville]

In simple words, why should my nation vote for this res?
And on the other hand of the spectrum, if you’re on the against camp, persuade me too?
Being a relatively new member, I would like some advice on which stand I should take?

[All Wild Things]

In simple words, why should my nation vote for this res?
And on the other hand of the spectrum, if you’re on the against camp, persuade me too?
Being a relatively new member, I would like some advice on which stand I should take?

Iran is a mostly inactive wasteland of a region, and has been for several years. For some reason, raiders get a kick from repeatedly raiding it, and defenders feel obliged to try and stop them.
Iramerica was involved in Iran when it was active, but got exiled somehow (someone else has the details).
Iramerica wants to make Iran great again, but has no real chance at present.

If this Liberation doesn't go through, Iran will continue to be a battleground for years to come, and Iramerica will be unhappy, forever wanting to reclaim control.

If the Liberation does go through, one of two things will happen:
1) It goes wrong, and raiders take the name Iran as a trophy. Iramerica is still unhappy, but at least they get a sense of closure.
2) It goes well, and Iramerica has to put in a lot of hard work to make it a success.

If you vote against, Iran will be one of those things you hear about on and off for years to come. Kind of like the real life news reports about troubles in the Middle East.

If you vote for, whatever the outcome, you're unlikely to hear of Iran again.

I'm in the 'for' camp, simply to give Iramerica some closure either way.

[Grey County]

I vote for this resolution and I wish you luck