NationStates

Full support.

I'm not in the know about what this person did to end up getting ejected from regions, and repealing a commendation for vague "unspeakable" offenses means nothing to me unless I know what those offenses are (I don't), so I am undecided but weakly leaning towards Against.

Me neither. I would like to know what exactly this person has done to deserve their commendation being repealed.

What grave offenses has Yohannnes perpetrated to deserve this? you offer no proof.

Wimahl wrote:I'm not in the know about what this person did to end up getting ejected from regions, and repealing a commendation for vague "unspeakable" offenses means nothing to me unless I know what those offenses are (I don't), so I am undecided but weakly leaning towards Against.

Lanansia wrote:Me neither. I would like to know what exactly this person has done to deserve their commendation being repealed.

Nor will you know from this thread. If you had bothered to read back to the first page you would have seen this post (viewtopic.php?p=41399287#p41399287) explicitly banning any discussion or even mention of the reasons for this repeal.

Capitalberg wrote:Until someone tells me what "unspeakable" evil this nation committed I will not be in support of this. It is against basic rights for people to punish him for things they do not know are true, let alone not know in general. Of course, if what they did does come to light, I will of course act accordingly but due to the current situation I cannot support this.

The rules of the NS forum prohibits bringing in off-site allegations or evidence in, in situations like this. Several posts have already been removed from the thread on page one for breaking the rules. As such you will never be told on-site what happened, because anyone who tells you is likely to be warned and their posts removed.
You can vote against if it matters that much to you. Personally I trust those who uncovered the evidence and the allegations are serious enough to warrant a repeal.

Where did this influx of newbie nations proclaiming they'll vote against the proposal come from?

Picairn wrote:Where did this influx of newbie nations proclaiming they'll vote against the proposal come from?

Probably the same person.

To anyone saying that they are voting against because they don't know the situation, the fact that a moderator had to step in to delete posts because of the real world implications the accusations have should be enough of a clue for you to understand what is going on is a serious situation.

I am sorry, but I cannot condemn someone for something as vague as unspeakable offenses. If you cannot offer evidence then it's not a good bill. I vote no.

Mendevia wrote:I am sorry, but I cannot condemn someone for something as vague as unspeakable offenses. If you cannot offer evidence then it's not a good bill. I vote no.

This isn't a Condemnation. Read the title carefully.

I mean if they say “unspeakable offences” and the mods delete any messages explaining what they actually did then you should be able to use common sense to figure out that they probably did something bad.

Fruyanistan wrote:

Picairn wrote:Where did this influx of newbie nations proclaiming they'll vote against the proposal come from?

Probably the same person.

If they are they’re going to be in trouble with the Mods for multi-ing.

Picairn wrote:

Mendevia wrote:I am sorry, but I cannot condemn someone for something as vague as unspeakable offenses. If you cannot offer evidence then it's not a good bill. I vote no.

This isn't a Condemnation. Read the title carefully.

It’s a shame people can’t be arsed to read things carefully.

I am voting against repealing because the bill does not give reasons why I should and I'm too lazy to research myself

It's quite strange that a bunch of newbies and old nations who have rarely, if ever, posted on the forums are suddenly turning out to say they'll vote against a random Repeal.

But that doesn't matter, because in the individual nation vote alone you lot are outnumbered nearly 10-to-1.

I'm sorry, you're right this isn't a condemnation. It's just a repeal of a previous commendation. I still don't think that changes my previous post. In Mendevia we believe in innocent until proven guilty and if you can't offer proof then I don't think it's a good bill. And if offering proof makes it so the mods get mad at you and deletes the post well that is unfortunately your problem. Sometimes the law sucks like that. We can't have mob justice though and just believe someone who is saying someone else is committing something unspeakable. I hope everyone can understand my position here.

Mendevia wrote:I'm sorry, you're right this isn't a condemnation. It's just a repeal of a previous commendation. I still don't think that changes my previous post. In Mendevia we believe in innocent until proven guilty and if you can't offer proof then I don't think it's a good bill. And if offering proof makes it so the mods get mad at you and deletes the post well that is unfortunately your problem. Sometimes the law sucks like that. We can't have mob justice though and just believe someone who is saying someone else is committing something unspeakable. I hope everyone can understand my position here.

No, that makes a lot of sense.

Against. Just to be contrarian.

Oh my god. Listen. To everyone like “what unspeakable acts??? I’m not voting for unless you say!!!”

As everyone else has pointed out here, we cannot say what happened without modly wrath. And that should tell you more than enough.

So no, you won’t learn what happened (unless you’re on discord), so stop trying to learn. It won’t end well for anyone

Here in Camtropia, we believe that people (and nations) are innocent until proven guilty via cold, hard evidence. The proposition of this motion has offered no evidence and in fact will not even say what the crimes of Yohannes and its puppet regimes are. If the proposition is unwilling to reveal this information to the WA, then Camtropia has no choice but to vote against the motion.

(OOC): please can you just tell us what we're even voting on lol

The subject is so fucked up we can't talk about it mate

Refuge Isle wrote:I have split three posts from this thread that violate the One Stop Rules Shop.

Be apprised that "Accusations of misconduct that may bring real world repercussions outside of NationStates do not belong in public spaces on NationStates and will be punished as harassment.". I will grant that the parties that posted may not have been aware of this policy, but now that I've posted here and removed all doubt, there's no excuse for it happening again.

If discussions happen off-site, that's not my problem, but this is not the appropriate location to discuss accusations of this nature. While there is nothing wrong with anyone drafting a commendation repeal, this is a circumstance where I'd like everyone to be mindful about how they draft and discuss it.

⬆️⬆️⬆️
In case if anyone’s wondering why we can’t get the evidence relating to the proposal

Camtropia wrote:Here in Camtropia, we believe that people (and nations) are innocent until proven guilty via cold, hard evidence. The proposition of this motion has offered no evidence and in fact will not even say what the crimes of Yohannes and its puppet regimes are. If the proposition is unwilling to reveal this information to the WA, then Camtropia has no choice but to vote against the motion.

(OOC): please can you just tell us what we're even voting on lol

No.

It doesn’t matter that you are voting against because basically your vote doesn’t count. So far the Delegates of TNP, TEP, TWP and other major regions are voting For. That’s a block of votes you cannot hope to match.

I don't care that my vote doesn't matter, it is more of a protest vote than anything.

However, I do think it says a lot about the current state of the WA that nations are openly telling each other that their votes don't matter because a few regional delegates agree with a motion that apparently can't even be shared with the Assembly.

Without any sort of evidence or explanation beyond "just trust me bro", how do I know that you are not just randomly bullying another player?

And what sort of precedent does this set? Where players can use the WA, as far as I can tell, to settle out-of-game scores; and are able to accomplish anything they like by convincing a few well-placed delegates?

Camtropia wrote:Without any sort of evidence or explanation beyond "just trust me bro", how do I know that you are not just randomly bullying another player?

I would love to be able to go into details here, but I cannot do that without breaking NS rules.