NationStates

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.

Yay!

*in favor*

Ballotonia

*Supports*

Given how close it was last time, with a massive blockade, this ought to pass easily. This could also tell us more about the effect of having a failed resolution rapidly re-submitted, and whether or not it is such a big factor.

Oh my Days wrote:*Supports*

Given how close it was last time, with a massive blockade, this ought to pass easily. This could also tell us more about the effect of having a failed resolution rapidly re-submitted, and whether or not it is such a big factor.

That is what I'm concerned about... If the lemmings have a memory or not...

I don't much like experiments on friends. But it is not up to me I suppose. I'll gladly vote for this when it goes to vote.

Topid wrote:

Oh my Days wrote:*Supports*

Given how close it was last time, with a massive blockade, this ought to pass easily. This could also tell us more about the effect of having a failed resolution rapidly re-submitted, and whether or not it is such a big factor.

That is what I'm concerned about... If the lemmings have a memory or not...

I don't much like experiments on friends. But it is not up to me I suppose. I'll gladly vote for this when it goes to vote.

If it's not principally done as an experiment, then I don't really see the problem. The intention wasn't an experiment, but we can possibly learn from it.

*3WB rises from the grave to stop this proposal*

...Just kidding I don't think it should have the same problems, now that the 4th rule issues have been (mostly) ironed out.

Metania wrote: now that the 4th rule issues have been (mostly) ironed out.

Brushed under the carpet, more like.

Oh my Days wrote:

Topid wrote:

Oh my Days wrote:*Supports*

Given how close it was last time, with a massive blockade, this ought to pass easily. This could also tell us more about the effect of having a failed resolution rapidly re-submitted, and whether or not it is such a big factor.

That is what I'm concerned about... If the lemmings have a memory or not...

I don't much like experiments on friends. But it is not up to me I suppose. I'll gladly vote for this when it goes to vote.

If it's not principally done as an experiment, then I don't really see the problem. The intention wasn't an experiment, but we can possibly learn from it.

I didn't mean that, I meant resubmitting so quick and then hoping it passes... Two defeats in a row is a little rough on a nominee.

I feel like this is ignorant of a large career that the Der Fuhrer had in defending, I realize that you made an executive decision to cut it, in favor of focusing on their more substantial roleplaying history. But I can't help not to think that its not disrespectful to a large crowd of gameplayers who defended against the proposal passing and Rule IV being accepted, because it meant an end to gameplay in World Assembly resolutions as we knew it.

All I'm saying is, it would be a nice gesture if it also discussed the nominee's defending career, even if you pulled a Antarctica Oasisan Commendation-Style and said that you were "OVERLOOKING" some actually great things that Der Fuhrer has done.

Unibot wrote:I feel like this is ignorant of a large career that the Der Fuhrer had in defending

How is that relevant to Kandarin's proposal?

But I can't help not to think that its not disrespectful to a large crowd of gameplayers who defended against the proposal passing and Rule IV being accepted, because it meant an end to gameplay in World Assembly resolutions as we knew it.

I can't help not to think that you haven't demonstrated DFD's GP activities as relevant to *this* proposal. I think that injecting Rule 4 really is a bit out of place given Kandarin's focus as well.

All I'm saying is, it would be a nice gesture if it also discussed the nominee's defending career, even if you pulled a Antarctica Oasisan Commendation-Style and said that you were "OVERLOOKING" some actually great things that Der Fuhrer has done.

It would dilute the condemnation. Much in the same way that "Overlooking that he likes puppies" would be at least slightly bizarre in a *condemnation* of negative acts. Why don't you write a secondary proposal that addresses those issues separately?

*supports*

Krioval wrote:

Unibot wrote:I feel like this is ignorant of a large career that the Der Fuhrer had in defending

How is that relevant to Kandarin's proposal?

How is it not? Der Fuhrer had a large career in defending, and yet we're just focusing on her roleplay history.. and I hate to think Kandy is focusing on her roleplay history, not because its what has dominated her career on NS, but because Rule IV makes it unbearably hard to write a decent and intelligible gameplay proposal.

I suppose a commendation for the defending, and a condemnation for the roleplaying would be preferable.. however, if we're in-character, because of Rule IV, how is the World Assembly suppose to justify condemning their commendation nominees, or the other way around, without first repealing (In an instance where, say, a nation did some good things and then got commended, and then did some bad things afterwords, I'd prefer a condemnation over a repeal.. because they got commended for what they did then, not what they will do). I think because of this paradox, it is only justifiable for the Security Council, in most foreseeable cases, to either commend or condemn someone.. because if a nominee is commendable, than he or she shouldn't be condemnable.. and if the nominee is condemnable, they shouldn't also be commendable. This is one of the many problems with Rule IV, its makes us have to choose between recognizing the achievements of a great player, or the deplorable way in which a nation acts. It rewards roleplay more so than gameplay, in many circumstances. However in theory, I suppose an invader could be condemned for their gameplay actions and then be commended for roleplaying a great happy hyper-interventionist.

My advice then, to any young hot shit who wants a commendation, just load II with all these threads about helping nations and never roleplay your nation as evil, because you'll stand a better chance at getting a commendation in the first week of that, then a commendation after years of gameplay activity.

Unibotian WA Mission wrote:How is it not? Der Fuhrer had a large career in defending, and yet we're just focusing on her roleplay history.. and I hate to think Kandy is focusing on her roleplay history, not because its what has dominated her career on NS, but because Rule IV makes it unbearably hard to write a decent and intelligible gameplay proposal.

I suppose we could let Kandarin speak for Kandarin. From the first post:

[quote=Kandarin]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.[/quote]

Well, there we have it. If Kandarin wishes to change the proposal, then we can take that into consideration later. Until that point, the proposal is to the point and covers ground sufficient for a condemnation.

Unibotian WA Mission wrote:I suppose a commendation for the defending, and a condemnation for the roleplaying would be preferable.. however, if we're in-character, because of Rule IV, how is the World Assembly suppose to justify condemning their commendation nominees, or the other way around, without first repealing (In an instance where, say, a nation did some good things and then got commended, and then did some bad things afterwords, I'd prefer a condemnation over a repeal.. because they got commended for what they did then, not what they will do). I think because of this paradox, it is only justifiable for the Security Council, in most foreseeable cases, to either commend or condemn someone.. because if a nominee is commendable, than he or she shouldn't be condemnable.. and if the nominee is condemnable, they shouldn't also be commendable. This is one of the many problems with Rule IV, its makes us have to choose between recognizing the achievements of a great player, or the deplorable way in which a nation acts. It rewards roleplay more so than gameplay, in many circumstances. However in theory, I suppose an invader could be condemned for their gameplay actions and then be commended for roleplaying a great happy hyper-interventionist.

I'm not going to have a rule 4 discussion with you in this thread. Not every proposal has to be about that. Kandarin has written a proposal that deals with RP'd events, that proposal is a good one, and the chance to take potshots at a rule with which you disagree philosophically doesn't seem to be a reason to expand into issues that are irrelevant compared with the text of the proposal as it is.

My advice then, to any young hot shit who wants a commendation, just load II with all these threads about helping nations and never roleplay your nation as evil, because you'll stand a better chance at getting a commendation in the first week of that, then a commendation after years of gameplay activity.

Again, we can take this conversation elsewhere. I will not have a discussion on the merits of GP vs. RP (a false dichotomy) or your interpretations of rule 4 here.

We had this discussion a long time before the resolution was first submitted - before Rule 4 came out, in fact, which means any Rule 4 discussion should stop at this point. I wrote a potential Commend for my dear friend DFD, the Gameplay icon, as well as a potential Condemn for my nation's terrifying diplomatic contact DFD, the super-evil RP nation. Addressing both in the same resolution is right out. It'd be foolish to Condemn DFD the Gameplay icon, because DFD the Gameplay icon is smart and funny and creative and caring and helpful and so much more. It'd also be foolish to Commend DFD the RP nation, because DFD the RP nation is a despotic, warmongering hellhole whose only redeeming trait is that upon entering, your death will probably be quick.

I'd be pleased to see someone write a good Commend for DFD, the Gameplay icon. I'd be very pleased to see her get both badges. But having one badge doesn't somehow invalidate the play style of the other. You don't have to choose; there's no dilemma or paradox. Doing so would in fact go against the purpose of DFD, who has been demonstrating since Day One that GPers can be RPers can be WAers can be Generalites and so forth and that people are smart enough to tell the distinctions. Again, let the resolution fit the recipient - and I for one would like to see the discussion of a C&C of someone who has always demonstrated that we don't have to be divided by playstyle proceed without arguments about whose playstyle might be getting left out.

Unibotian WA Mission wrote:

Krioval wrote:

Unibot wrote:I feel like this is ignorant of a large career that the Der Fuhrer had in defending

How is that relevant to Kandarin's proposal?

How is it not? Der Fuhrer had a large career in defending, and yet we're just focusing on her roleplay history..

A Commendation or Condemnation isn't a valuation of anything and everything a nation has done throughout its entire existence (it would've been had my proposal of not having text with C&C's been adopted). Since there IS text, the C&C is only about what that text says it is about. Hence, it is allowed for a nation to carry multiple C&C's for different reasons.

Ballotonia

Sorry about the delay. I've resubmitted this for your approval.

Kandarin wrote:Sorry about the delay. I've resubmitted this for your approval.

Got it, honoured ambassador.

Yay! (again)

And since this time it's in the queue, supported.

Ballotonia

Topid wrote:I didn't mean that, I meant resubmitting so quick and then hoping it passes... Two defeats in a row is a little rough on a nominee.

Heh heh. I remember that.

Anyway, I've approved this, and hope that it doesn't suffer the same fate it did last time. At least it won't suffer the same fate because of the same people.

Ballotonia wrote:

Unibotian WA Mission wrote:
How is it not? Der Fuhrer had a large career in defending, and yet we're just focusing on her roleplay history..

A Commendation or Condemnation isn't a valuation of anything and everything a nation has done throughout its entire existence (it would've been had my proposal of not having text with C&C's been adopted). Since there IS text, the C&C is only about what that text says it is about. Hence, it is allowed for a nation to carry multiple C&C's for different reasons.

Ballotonia

^^ This. I was being foolish before. Aka, stubborn butt-hurt over Rule IV. I originally derived Ballo's logical argument in a 10ki debate thread and I should probably stick to it.

You've got my support, if it means anything.

Fellow Representatives of the Security Council:

The Confederacy of Masucciania rises in opposition to this proposed resolution of condemnation.

While the Dictatorship of Der Fuhrer Dyszel should certainly be condemned for it's actions against other states, the Masuccianian Parliament cannot in good conscious vote for a resolution of condemnation which includes provisions outlining internal actions taken by a sovereign government to be condemnable.

Therefore, the Masuccianian delegation shall vote and urge the delegations of the other member-states of the Security Council to vote "AGAINST" this proposed resolution of condemnation.

The Confederacy of Masucciania respectfully yields the floor,

Masucciania wrote:Fellow Representatives of the Security Council:

The Confederacy of Masucciania rises in opposition to this proposed resolution of condemnation.

While the Dictatorship of Der Fuhrer Dyszel should certainly be condemned for it's actions against other states, the Masuccianian Parliament cannot in good conscious vote for a resolution of condemnation which includes provisions outlining internal actions taken by a sovereign government to be condemnable.

Therefore, the Masuccianian delegation shall vote and urge the delegations of the other member-states of the Security Council to vote "AGAINST" this proposed resolution of condemnation.

The Confederacy of Masucciania respectfully yields the floor,

The Community of Dodian concurs.

Der Fuhrer Dyszel may be what a common man would call "rough around the edges", but in my opinion they could be of great use to the World Assembly if you think critically about it. Why must every condemnation result in someone being forced to leave the World Assembly? Will that really help secure the political freedoms or stop the atrocities that led us to outcast that nation in the first place? No, it only gives them more freedom to continue on the path they have started on. I would think that expelling a nation's leaders to a desolate wasteland inside of the World Assembly's control such as Der Fuhrer Dyszel would be less simple, but altogether more constructive for the well-being of the world.

Dodian wrote:
The Community of Dodian concurs.

Der Fuhrer Dyszel may be what a common man would call "rough around the edges", but in my opinion they could be of great use to the World Assembly if you think critically about it. Why must every condemnation result in someone being forced to leave the World Assembly? Will that really help secure the political freedoms or stop the atrocities that led us to outcast that nation in the first place? No, it only gives them more freedom to continue on the path they have started on. I would think that expelling a nation's leaders to a desolate wasteland inside of the World Assembly's control such as Der Fuhrer Dyszel would be less simple, but altogether more constructive for the well-being of the world.

The delegate from Dodian seems to be mistaken. A condemnation does not result in the nominee being kicked from the WA. And Der Fuhrer Dyszel is not currently a member of the WA anyways.

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.

This is absolutely ridiculous.