PASSED "Condemn Der Fuhrer Dyszel"

[Crabulonia]

This is EXACTLY why the SC has gone bad. I don't even have to read the arguments here to tell that this is a resolution meant to make someone famous via condemnation. Thus, at least in theory, almost everyone in their right mind would vote against it. Sadly, a lot of the NS n00bs apparently aren't.

I don't remember the full story but DFD has a RP history lasting several years.

[Mahaj]

this is, sorry, but I can't support this, and since my delegate listens to me, our 14 endorsements will go against this. For what its worth.

I never understood the point of Commendations or Condemnations based mostly or purely on RP, as this one is. Eventually, one can change their countries stance in RP, no? And then what do you plan on doing? Repealing it?

I would rather see a resolution that focuses more on game playing. Using the same format the Commend 10000 Islands Resolution had, you can get around the Rule IV problems. I would rather see a resolution that focuses more on game playing, and then it can cover RP too, but RP shouldn't be the main thing.

I don't see why this Condemnation should pass, and I hope it doesn't.

[Der Kaiser Mikey III]

Let the nation rule as it intends. I look to Der Fuhrer Dyszel as a hero. The country knows how to keep people in line, and are engaged in an epic struggle for the good of all. Condemnation is unnecessary.

[Metania]

This is EXACTLY why the SC has gone bad. I don't even have to read the arguments here to tell that this is a resolution meant to make someone famous via condemnation. Thus, at least in theory, almost everyone in their right mind would vote against it. Sadly, a lot of the NS n00bs apparently aren't.

1. They were already (in)famous.
2. If you haven't read the arguments, then you don't know what you're talking about--and those aren't even my words, those are yours!
3. Then you resort to an ad hominem against anyone who would vote for the resolution.

0/5; if the SC has gone bad because you didn't read the topic, assumed everything in it was some pre-conceived idea you had, then called everyone n00bs, I would fear for anything else you post about.

Now if you read the topic and gave reasons, maybe you could advance a point, but... currently that seems to be missing from your argument.

[Kalibarr]

Why does everyone hate roleplaying now?

Just a month ago they were saying there wasn't enough and now they are saying there's too much?

[Crabulonia]

Why does everyone hate roleplaying now?

Just a month ago they were saying there wasn't enough and now they are saying there's too much?

I can kind of see the point that there is an issue. DFD has done far more than simple roleplayed actions, all that Unibot seems to be saying is that there should be some, at least - passive, mention as to what these other actions are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with roleplayed resolutions, but aren't they supposed to include all of what a nation has done?

[Dottiestan]

The World Assembly,

DEDICATED to international peace, goodwill and harmony between nations,

ACKNOWLEDGING The Dictatorship of Der Fuhrer Dyszel (known to the international community as The Dictatorship) as a nation that has been engaged in unceasing, brutal war for the entire duration of recorded history,

ALARMED at the total lack of personal and political freedoms in The Dictatorship, up to and including a standing prohibition on all actions, possessions or thoughts not related to guns,

DISTURBED at the complete disregard for human life exercised by The Dictatorship at all levels, including, but not limited to:

* Subjugation of all outlying nations to the whims of an all-consuming, malevolent and wildly unpredictable A.I.,
* Release of the crippling nerve agent XGN at an international peace conference and elsewhere,
* A policy of forced exile and prohibition of all civilians from the entire nation on penalty of death,
* Complete disregard for all laws and customs of war,
* Support for the many wars and atrocities of the Global Dominion of Dictatorships Against Democracy (GDODAD),
* Use of prisoners of war as test subjects for experimental weapons and chemicals,
* And giving away nuclear weapons to impressionable new nations to encourage them to go to war,

DISMAYED at the fact that the environment of The Dictatorship has been allowed to degrade into a hellish wasteland incapable of sustaining human life beyond a few scattered special forces,

CONCLUDING that The Dictatorship makes the world a far grimmer, bleaker, darker world simply by existing,

CONDEMNS The Dictatorship of Der Fuhrer Dyszel

^As you all no doubt remember, this failed before due to opposition on the grounds of bloc opposition to all SC proposals pending resolution of some testy rule disputes. Since Max has given the final word on that rule dispute and there isn't really a bloc of opposition anymore, I would like to resubmit it in the coming week.

Since this is a second try, is it all right to resubmit it as it was? I have several alternate points I can use if need be, but liked it as it stands.

Sorry, but without supporting evidence I will be voting against it.

[Krioval]

Why does everyone hate roleplaying now?

Just a month ago they were saying there wasn't enough and now they are saying there's too much?

I can kind of see the point that there is an issue. DFD has done far more than simple roleplayed actions, all that Unibot seems to be saying is that there should be some, at least - passive, mention as to what these other actions are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with roleplayed resolutions, but aren't they supposed to include all of what a nation has done?

But what if those "other actions" detract from the impact of the condemnation? I'm not going to claim to be able to read Kandarin's mind here, but if the focus was meant to be on the RP, then it might be stronger without adding in more information. Too many words, even if they sort-of support the main idea, can actually dilute the resolution, at least in my experience.

[Metania]

Why does everyone hate roleplaying now?

Just a month ago they were saying there wasn't enough and now they are saying there's too much?

The answer is they don't; a vocal majority is making their hatred known far more than those who accept it are posting how they're fine with it.

[Dottiestan]

I can kind of see the point that there is an issue. DFD has done far more than simple roleplayed actions, all that Unibot seems to be saying is that there should be some, at least - passive, mention as to what these other actions are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with roleplayed resolutions, but aren't they supposed to include all of what a nation has done?

But what if those "other actions" detract from the impact of the condemnation? I'm not going to claim to be able to read Kandarin's mind here, but if the focus was meant to be on the RP, then it might be stronger without adding in more information. Too many words, even if they sort-of support the main idea, can actually dilute the resolution, at least in my experience.

If those "other actions" detract from the impact, maybe the condemnation isn't deserved.

[Freedom Defense Corps]

tbh, who cares?

But, the reason I voted yes was because..

Votes Against: 420

Can't vote against 420, now can ya?

[Crabulonia]

I can kind of see the point that there is an issue. DFD has done far more than simple roleplayed actions, all that Unibot seems to be saying is that there should be some, at least - passive, mention as to what these other actions are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with roleplayed resolutions, but aren't they supposed to include all of what a nation has done?

But what if those "other actions" detract from the impact of the condemnation? I'm not going to claim to be able to read Kandarin's mind here, but if the focus was meant to be on the RP, then it might be stronger without adding in more information. Too many words, even if they sort-of support the main idea, can actually dilute the resolution, at least in my experience.

I can understand that, but Uni might be a bit annoyed that he campaigned against Rule IV - then thought it might have less of an impact than suggested - and is now disappointed with the results of its implementation. I'm not sure if the rules have changed - they might have done - but isn't it illegal to give somebody a condemn and a commend, even if for two seperate things?

Why does everyone hate roleplaying now?

Just a month ago they were saying there wasn't enough and now they are saying there's too much?

The answer is they don't; a vocal majority is making their hatred known far more than those who accept it are posting how they're fine with it.

I would say that they don't hate roleplay, Uni is involved in many roleplays, but that they are more the vanguard of gameplay. It seems that with each level of administration, gameplay is slowly devalued as a concept. I was not here before regional influence, but its effects are said to be dramatic, and I was here for the first liberation, and I remember many in the R/D game voicing concern that it took away part of the fun of the game. This seems to be, from my perpsective, another example of gameplay being downgraded as a legitimate form of play.

[Krioval]

If those "other actions" detract from the impact, maybe the condemnation isn't deserved.

If somebody is a murderer but they once called their mother a nasty name, they are primarily a murderer, and it certainly can be argued that mentioning the second fact in the same breath as the first reduces the impact of the first. They still deserve to be condemned for their actions (murder), and there is no need to mention the secondary name-calling.

That said, if you or anybody else has reason to think that there are facts that detract from this condemnation, I would love to hear them.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

(OOC: I was able to make this IC, so I did. If it requires an OOC response, so be it.)

[Krioval]

I can understand that, but Uni might be a bit annoyed that he campaigned against Rule IV - then thought it might have less of an impact than suggested - and is now disappointed with the results of its implementation. I'm not sure if the rules have changed - they might have done - but isn't it illegal to give somebody a condemn and a commend, even if for two seperate things?

No, it's not illegal. They do have to conform to the rules, but each C&C is its own construct. For that matter, it's possible for a nation/region to receive multiples of one type (commend or condemn).

[Mahaj]

If those "other actions" detract from the impact, maybe the condemnation isn't deserved.

If somebody is a murderer but they once called their mother a nasty name, they are primarily a murderer, and it certainly can be argued that mentioning the second fact in the same breath as the first reduces the impact of the first. They still deserve to be condemned for their actions (murder), and there is no need to mention the secondary name-calling.

That said, if you or anybody else has reason to think that there are facts that detract from this condemnation, I would love to hear them.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

(OOC: I was able to make this IC, so I did. If it requires an OOC response, so be it.)

I think, Henrik, that you are muddling the issue here. For, see, calling your mother a nasty name is merely a pittance compared to murder. Indeed, one could say the name calling COMPLEMENTS the murder in terms of a Condemnation. But positive actions in game playing are NOT a pittance compared to Role Playing. And, one is opposite to each other, not complimentary. Indeed, to just condemn for RP and not make any mention of positive Game playing is a crime.

Thomas Lewis
WA Representative of Mahaj WA Mission

[Mahaj]

Why does everyone hate roleplaying now?

Just a month ago they were saying there wasn't enough and now they are saying there's too much?

The answer is they don't; a vocal majority is making their hatred known far more than those who accept it are posting how they're fine with it.

er... a vocal majority is making their hatred known? Meaning that people ARE saying there is too much? I don't get what you are posting.

[A mean old man]

If those "other actions" detract from the impact, maybe the condemnation isn't deserved.

Or, perhaps, the player's actions cannot compare in any way to their nation's actions.

OOC and IC don't often mix well. If someone is basing a C/C off what can be judged as a nation's OOC actions, they don't usually include the nation's roleplayed actions as well (and vice versa), as these two different things can sometimes contradict each other or simply do not make any sense when put side by side.

NOTE: Lots of new posts here since I began writing this...

[Mahaj]

If those "other actions" detract from the impact, maybe the condemnation isn't deserved.

Or, perhaps, the player's actions cannot compare in any way to their nation's actions.

OOC and IC don't often mix well. If someone is basing a C/C off what can be judged as a nation's OOC actions, they don't usually include the nation's roleplayed actions as well (and vice versa), as these two different things can sometimes contradict each other or simply do not make any sense when put side by side.

NOTE: Lots of new posts here since I began writing this...

so... would you rather Condemn the IC De Fuhrer Dyszel and Commend the OOC De Fuhrer Dyszel?

i don't think this is grounds for a Condemnation.

[A mean old man]

so... would you rather Condemn the IC De Fuhrer Dyszel and Commend the OOC De Fuhrer Dyszel?

Yes, actually.

Though usually one option is more practical than the other, and a condemnation of DFD's roleplaying is more a monument to her achievements in her preferred area of the game than a commendation would be.

[Kandarin]

Sorry, but without supporting evidence I will be voting against it.

Oh, sure, there's supporting evidence.

It's a bit of a read, though. Don't worry, it starts looking like a conventional RP at about the three thousandth post or so.

[Unibot]

If those "other actions" detract from the impact, maybe the condemnation isn't deserved.

Ah, you've hit the crux of Post Rule IV philosophies in the SC, if we have to consider reputation in both the roleplay and gameplay spheres as one united reputation of a nation then we can have contradicting reputations. So is the World Assembly being responsible by ignoring one of those reputations in favor of the other? This can be answered by what side of then fence you sit on, Aggregate vs Disaggregate thought in the SC. Aggregationists would suggest any condemnation of a nation is a condemnation of a nation as a 'whole', and puts a stain on their nation that affects the legitimacy of their foreign policy and can prevent others from joining them or supporting them... a condemnation is ultimately a tool which can reduce the amount of power a nominee has via soft power and legitimacy .. the commendation is the opposite, and has the opposite effect, it increases the amount of power a nominee has via reputation. Disaggregationists would suggest any condemnation of a nation is on a specific issue being addressed in a proposal, you can be disreputable for one bad decision .. and reputable for a good decision or contribution .. a repeal of a condemnation should only address the focus of the resolution, or evidence that claims the facts of the resolution are false or not deserving of a condemnation.. or the nominee has relinquished their ways. An aggregationist could make a similar argument but would add .. "claims the facts of the resolution are false or not deserving of a condemnation in light of other positive advancements by a nation .. such as..". Two strong arguments towards disaggregation is, first, the letter of the law means nothing if a decision is made beyond the letter of the law, secondly, we have the ability to commend and condemn at the same time, which suggests that the extension of a condemnation or commendation beyond the letter of the word is limiting beyond what the creator of the game intended. One counter argument could be that the Condemnation tag line: "A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region." says nothing about expressing shock and dismay at specific actions of a nominee. Another convincing argument for aggregation is, should a nominee be condemned when they've done so much good... if let's say a great guy like Kandarin had made one bad mistake, would a condemnation be justified?.. A disaggregationist would have to say yes if the mistake is independently justifiable to all other decisions made by Kandarin.

Ultimately when there is a contradiction between the gameplay and roleplay reputation of a nominee, a disaggrationist will see no problem, but aggregationists will have to deal with the main problem of what responsibility does the World Assembly have to consider all of the various popular perspectives of a nation when condemning a nation? Is ignoring the good actions of a gameplayer in a condemnation an ethical decision for the World Assembly, an aggregationist will struggle with the answer, a disaggrationist will say that the gameplayer reputation of a nominee has nothing to do with the content of the condemnation so it should be ignored or else the resolution is unfocused and potentially biased by providing unrelated perspectives in an attempt to be 'fair'.

[Krioval]

I think, Henrik, that you are muddling the issue here. For, see, calling your mother a nasty name is merely a pittance compared to murder. Indeed, one could say the name calling COMPLEMENTS the murder in terms of a Condemnation. But positive actions in game playing are NOT a pittance compared to Role Playing. And, one is opposite to each other, not complimentary. Indeed, to just condemn for RP and not make any mention of positive Game playing is a crime.

Thomas Lewis
WA Representative of Mahaj WA Mission

OOC: Gah! That looks like an IC post, but it mentions gameplaying!

Anyway, I'm not trying to have a GP vs. RP debate, as I think that people are sufficiently entrenched in their viewpoint that I'm not going to make significant headway. Also, it's half past eleven in the evening here, and I need to get to bed by midnight. In this particular case, the condemnation is for RP'd activities. If we define "positive gameplaying" as having significant impact in terms of region invasion/defense, putting that into an RP-based condemnation might be confusing or contradictory. It might read like "...cured 100 children of cancer and murdered 17 pacifist nuns", in which case the message is clearly muddled (no help from Henrik!), or it might look more like "...cured 100 children of cancer, improved the efficiency of solar panels, discovered three new earthlike planets, and wrote 500 best-selling romance novels", in which case the cut-and-thrust (curing cancer) is lost in a sea of text.

I think that, if a C&C for gameplay is something that the community feels that DFD deserves, it should be written separately to showcase those issues thoroughly.

[Unibot]

I think that, if a C&C for gameplay is something that the community feels that DFD deserves, it should be written separately to showcase those issues thoroughly.

OOC: Problem is, under Rule IV, the World Assembly can't distinguish between the contributions of a nation in gameplay and in roleplay. Before Rule IV, it wasn't generally acceptable to repeal a RP resolution on the basis of GP politics or vice versa, because it was crossing dimensions.. but with Rule IV those dimensions become one, and so we have two emerging and polarizing central camps of philosophy. Personally, I don't disagree with you on this situation, but the counter-argument does exist, and I have a feeling it will continue to exist if the major voting powers of the WA continue to be aggregationist. 10ki is a notable aggregationist community, their members regularly oppose C&Cs on the basis of information which isn't even remotely regarding what the C&C is regarding... if they find even a tidbit of information against your moral character it will make an appearance in a 10ki debate thread, even though the argument of the resolution wasn't concerning that situation. Notable example is the failed commendations of A Mean Old Man, Yelda and to a lesser extent, Condemn Nazi Europe.

[Echoshock]

OOC: How did Rule IV come into existence? It seems to **** a lot up. Though, I may not understand the good parts. Can someone explain?

[Unibot]

OOC: How did Rule IV come into existence? It seems to **** a lot up. Though, I may not understand the good parts. Can someone explain?

OOC: Um, since no one has written an article about it that isn't either Unibot propaganda or AO propaganda so.. I don't just have a link for you and I don't feel like bogging this thread with a huge post about Rule IV. Rule IV was a big conflict involving an addition to the ruleset, the rule most famously prohibited gameplay language in proposals for describing the game as a game, which the gameplay community needs to do to effectively understand itself through its own vocabulary.. thus the move was seen as an ultimate move of 'gameplay alienation' from the Security Council and was hotly contested by the Third Wall Bloc and its sympathizers. The Third Wall Bloc opposed and successfully defeated all "Rule IV compliant" resolutions until Max Barry publicly confided that Rule IV was here to stay because he preferred it if the game kept its roots as a nation simulation and didn't legitimize gameplay between soldiers and regional citizens as opposed to say, nations. Since then, Rule IV has caused a lot of conflict with the principle philosophies of the Security Council, as a basic rule, anything involving gameplay will now be immensely more difficult to write if the nominee is also a roleplayer with conflicting contributions because the notion of the 'player' is gone, and the distinction between roleplay and gameplay is gone. The Pro-RIV (which was predominatly AO members or those who were influenced by their members) criticized the Anti-RIV crowd for being too staunch and protective of their culture, and other Pro-RIV advocates ridiculed the idea of a 'Security Council veteran' or a 'Security Council culture'. It was generally denied by any Pro-RIV advocate that the incident involving the creation of C&Cs was a similar situation where GAers acted in the same manner as SCers were forced to later, whereas many SCers legitimized their protest against Rule IV with the founding conflict of the SC. This was anticipated by the Anti-RIV crowd, but the Pro-RIV crowd suggested that until we tried it, we didn't have a right to argue about it. It's also significant to note for a lot of the Anti-RIV crowd that few people of the Pro-RIV crowd had any experience in the Security Council with the exception of Topid, a popular phrase out of this was the 'GA-lite' which Anti-RIV crowd bitterly protested that the Pro-RIV were supporting for the SC's future with Rule IV. So, most of the Rule IV was just the old divide of GA members versus established SC members and gameplayers using the Rule IV as a proxy war to debate in a large shitfest, this is a common trend in the SC's development, in fact that's its origin. One could suspect that every major development in the SC will involve such a divide, as it seems the origin of a community gravely affects how a community progresses.

On an intellectual level I wouldn't be surprised if a GA vs. SC shitfest will mark the beginning and 'end' of the aggregation argument, I question the 'end' to which development through conflict can provide, I see such development as a house of cards.. which Rule IV has already pulled the base-card from... essentially we're in the process of rebuilding the SC from the ground-up in the same manner that collapsed so easily with an outside influence.