NationStates

What is this nonsense?

Seriously.

How did you think anyone would support this?

Tinhampton wrote:

Comfed wrote:Very disappointed to see regional delegates rely on stomping once again to crush proposals they don’t like.

Most of the against votes appear to be coming from TEP, XKI, LKE and whatever abbreviation Enadia's using today. Many major delegates have not voted yet; regardless, thank you for your continued faith in this proposal.

You made the conscious decision to make things political when you interfered with a resolution you had no business being involved with. Now you reap what you sow.

Wayneactia wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Most of the against votes appear to be coming from TEP, XKI, LKE and whatever abbreviation Enadia's using today. Many major delegates have not voted yet; regardless, thank you for your continued faith in this proposal.

You made the conscious decision to make things political when you interfered with a resolution you had no business being involved with. Now you reap what you sow.

For the record, that's not the reason we're voting it down in TEP.

Our position is largely that, although stats-based C&Cs are a valid form of resolution, and although the target may even merit it, the resolution isn't really constructed in a proper format to justify passing this. The proposal reads like a forum posts that's going through a list of observations which would not have any real weight. There's impressive #1, 2, and 3 rank badges on this nation, but it's sidetracked and distracted from by mentioning that it's in the 60s in some stats and four thousanth in fishing. Well, I'm 15th in the world in fishing and that's more of a novelty than anything.

I like to view SC resolutions as things that tell a good story. Something that builds the idea of what a nation does or is and whether or not its legacy and tales of adventure are IC good or evil. This condemnation does not provide that, it's just like reading the nation's auto-generated text on its front page. So, basically, IMO it's possible to condemn Borland, just probably not like this.

How did this even come to a vote? Against.

The Novakian Empire wrote:How did this even come to a vote? Against.

Because WA campaign.

Genuine question from someone who rarely engages in WA debates: is it normal for the WA to condemn a nation based on their stats (e.g. extremely high poverty, nonexistent civil rights, extreme corruption, etc.)? Or is a resolution like this generally considered nonsense and a waste of time?

At some point, I feel you may find that stamps can't buy everything.

Kronomia wrote:Genuine question from someone who rarely engages in WA debates: is it normal for the WA to condemn a nation based on their stats (e.g. extremely high poverty, nonexistent civil rights, extreme corruption, etc.)? Or is a resolution like this generally considered nonsense and a waste of time?

It has been done before, but the standards are pretty high for it.

The Federal Republic of North Saitama, whilst noting flaws pointed-out, votes AGAINST this resolution, as a nation that also embraces free market economics and economic deregulation. We believe that, rather, deregulated markets are to be commended and celebrated, not condemned.

Refuge Isle wrote:Our position is largely that, although stats-based C&Cs are a valid form of resolution, and although the target may even merit it, the resolution isn't really constructed in a proper format to justify passing this. The proposal reads like a forum posts that's going through a list of observations which would not have any real weight. There's impressive #1, 2, and 3 rank badges on this nation, but it's sidetracked and distracted from by mentioning that it's in the 60s in some stats and four thousanth in fishing. Well, I'm 15th in the world in fishing and that's more of a novelty than anything.

I like to view SC resolutions as things that tell a good story. Something that builds the idea of what a nation does or is and whether or not its legacy and tales of adventure are IC good or evil. This condemnation does not provide that, it's just like reading the nation's auto-generated text on its front page. So, basically, IMO it's possible to condemn Borland, just probably not like this.

We are not yet ready to cast our vote on this resolution, but we feel that the East Pacifican position has merit.

We are particularly concerned with this clause:

HORRIFIED at the realisation that any semblance of a judicial branch has been abolished, which - when combined with the fifth-rudest and sixth-most armed populace in the world, undoubtedly a byproduct of mandatory military service for citizens - has led to Northern Borland recording the second-highest death rate, 11th-highest crime rate and 132nd-highest youth crime rate of all nations;

We are not convinced that this is solely or even primarily a result of the North Borlandian judiciary, or lack thereof. 36% of North Borlandians die of either cancer or heart disease, which seems to us more much likely to be linked to the Allied Corporate Empire's obesity rates and high levels of soft drink and pizza consumption described in the following clause. Meanwhile, North Borland's leading cause of death (56%) is listed as "disappearance", and while this indeed can be linked to the Allied Corporate Empire's lack of judiciary, we believe that it is simply because of a high rate of extrajudicial executions -- an ironic contrast to North Borland's international activities "defending suspects in regional trials".

We are open to reasoned counterarguments before casting our vote.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

Hi, I am sorta new to the WA. Can I ask, why is this Condemnation targeting the stats of the nation in question? I do not believe the stats of one's account usually reflects the beliefs of the person using it, as it is mostly out of control of the player what stats one gains when answering issues.

Other than that this is not valid for condemation. I am totally against it. You are a great delegate but this wont work for me. Stats can change. This nation has done nothing wrong.

The New State of Wales wrote:Hi, I am sorta new to the WA. Can I ask, why is this Condemnation targeting the stats of the nation in question? I do not believe the stats of one's account usually reflects the beliefs of the person using it, as it is mostly out of control of the player what stats one gains when answering issues.

Condemnations aren’t always “bad”. The second “Condemn the Black Hawks” was the essentially a badge of honour for being so good at raiding. This isn’t always true, but in this case it is.

This is a laughable proposal, one that most reasonable WA members realize fits the bill for a large chunk of the nations in the game. I wouldn't make a post about this but it's particularly insulting to get a telegram decrying all the "negative" stats people play this game to obtain (when Tinhampton shares many of these high metrics!), let alone the real world implications of "stanning" Amy Coney Barrett. Try harder.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:You made the conscious decision to make things political when you interfered with a resolution you had no business being involved with. Now you reap what you sow.

For the record, that's not the reason we're voting it down in TEP.

It is a fortunate side effect though.

Comfed wrote:

The New State of Wales wrote:Hi, I am sorta new to the WA. Can I ask, why is this Condemnation targeting the stats of the nation in question? I do not believe the stats of one's account usually reflects the beliefs of the person using it, as it is mostly out of control of the player what stats one gains when answering issues.

Condemnations aren’t always “bad”. The second “Condemn the Black Hawks” was the essentially a badge of honour for being so good at raiding. This isn’t always true, but in this case it is.

Perhaps you should learn to read a statement before responding to it. You have an unfortunate habit of not doing this. Nowhere in that post did the poster state anywhere that they believe the nation itself is bad. They questioned the validity of condemning based purely on stats.

Wayneactia wrote:

Comfed wrote:Condemnations aren’t always “bad”. The second “Condemn the Black Hawks” was the essentially a badge of honour for being so good at raiding. This isn’t always true, but in this case it is.

Perhaps you should learn to read a statement before responding to it. You have an unfortunate habit of not doing this. Nowhere in that post did the poster state anywhere that they believe the nation itself is bad. They questioned the validity of condemning based purely on stats.

I was referring to this:

The New State of Wales wrote:I do not believe the stats of one's account usually reflects the beliefs of the person using it

I haven't been playing close attention to this game outside my region Capitalist Paradise (where I am the most influential). Why Northern Borland is being insulted with this resolution is beside me.
NB has contributed so much to this game and the idea that he be condemned is outrageous. The BS of the World Assembly allowing things like this to get to a general vote is a problem with our system.

I'm happy to help with the commend NB resolution.

Kaputer wrote:I haven't been playing close attention to this game outside my region Capitalist Paradise (where I am the most influential). Why Northern Borland is being insulted with this resolution is beside me.
NB has contributed so much to this game and the idea that he be condemned is outrageous. The BS of the World Assembly allowing things like this to get to a general vote is a problem with our system.

I'm happy to help with the commend NB resolution.

We been pogging

Greetings.

From multitudinous standpoints ranging from ideological to ethical, and given our nation's proud history of egalitarianism, compassion, and the generally socialistic nature of our domestic political sphere, on principle, the Allied Tribes of Duncanheim would agree wholeheartedly that Northern Borland is disgraceful, distasteful, and eminently and evidencedly condemnable (with a lowercase c).

However, it is our opinion that Security Council Condemnations in the official sense of issuance should remain singly and uniquely directed towards nations and regions that behave in condemnable manners towards other nations and regions, in an international and interregional context, such as, for example, launching invasions of other regions, and should not be issued as official condemnations of the internal affairs of individual nations as such.

To issue a Condemnation of a nation based solely on its domestic policy would institute a precedent of such instigative magnitude as to conceivably allow for the collapse of the Security Council itself in a future fit of ideological schism, or at the very least would cause a slow and painful erosion of the heft and definition of a Security Council Condemnation, as further condemnations of other nations based solely on their internal affairs would inevitably follow suit - in ever-increasing numbers and for ever-diminishing rationales - as time inexorably marches onward.

Therefore, we cannot in good conscience cast a vote to issue a Security Council Condemnation in this matter.

Jikucia usually does not partake in SC proposals. However, Tinhampton's mass telegram has prompted this nation to take a formal stance. Jikucia votes AGAINST this condemnation.

IC: Herrera clears his throat and, calmly, begins to speak before the Council - "This Delegation agrees mostly with the words of the pre-opinionated ambassador" - Then, he stands up and raises his voice vehemently - "We condemn the policies of savage capitalism and without control, which contribute to increasing inequality, hunger and poverty, but we cannot support the intention of the Security Council by meddling or condemning the internal affairs of the Nations. This would create a precedent that would be dangerous for the self-determination of the peoples“.

Mr. Carlos Alejandro Herrera.
Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Eluney to the World Assembly.

OOC: OOCly I understand the arguments of the author of this project, but I do not think that the mere fact of being in the highest positions of the rankings of certain statistics is, by itself, enough for a condemnation.

Jikucia wrote:Jikucia usually does not partake in SC proposals. However, Tinhampton's mass telegram has prompted this nation to take a formal stance. Jikucia votes AGAINST this condemnation.

This is Euroda's stance as well. We do not support Condemnation due to a nation's internal affairs and stats.

What this proposal boils down to, in my mind at least, is that we are supposed to condemn Northern Borland for "playing the game wrong". As long as stats are being tracked, someone is going to be number one, and as long as Northern Borland isn't raiding regions and forcing everyone else to be like it, the world is fine.

This proposal is a huge joke, and more than that it’s an obvious attempt to gain a trophy. Cringe

Tinhampton wrote:

"Condemn Northern Borland" was defeated 10,421 votes to 3,217.

Good!