DEFEATED: Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"

[Seculartopia]

Seculartopia supports this, and says that squashing all history and ideas because of a not so good chance is never a good option.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Perhaps that was the intent when the World Assembly was an IC body, but that's not how resolutions should be interpreted, now that the World Assembly is not solely an in-character part of the game: we have a part where being in-character is optional, and a part where it is required.

So? We can't just retroactively proclaim that GA resolutions, which were written to be interpreted IC and apply only to RPed nations and their citizens, now apply to players and govern OOC behavior. That doesn't just break the fourth wall, it engages in revisionist history and claims that the fourth wall never existed.

First of all, the resolutions weren't written to be interpreted IC and apply only to RPed nations and their citizens. Perhaps to you they were, but plenty of people have read them, and continue to read and apply them, in OOC ways.

Anyways, you're using a broader paintbrush than I am. World Assembly resolutions apply to the World Assembly. Meaning, if the World Assembly has already established freedom of expression, it can't go around issuing reprisals to people that express an ideology it doesn't particularly like. But, Kenny's resolution isn't the foundation of this repeal; it's alluded to merely because it makes the argument stronger, not because I'm saying the condemnation is a violation of it.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

First of all, the resolutions weren't written to be interpreted IC and apply only to RPed nations and their citizens. Perhaps to you they were, but plenty of people have read them, and continue to read and apply them, in OOC ways.

How on earth can this:

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

Be interpreted OOCly? Are you saying that players, in RL, are to be regarded as sovereign nations now and the provisions of World Assembly Resolution #30 apply to them?

I support the repeal of Condemn NAZI EUROPE, don't get me wrong. I just can't for the life of me accept that the members of NAZI EUROPE, the players, enjoy freedom of expression on this website because they are guaranteed that freedom under World Assembly Resolution #30.

[The Great Lord Tiger]

First of all, the resolutions weren't written to be interpreted IC and apply only to RPed nations and their citizens. Perhaps to you they were, but plenty of people have read them, and continue to read and apply them, in OOC ways.

How on earth can this:

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

Be interpreted OOCly? Are you saying that players, in RL, are to be regarded as sovereign nations now and the provisions of World Assembly Resolution #30 apply to them?

I support the repeal of Condemn NAZI EUROPE, don't get me wrong. I just can't for the life of me accept that the members of NAZI EUROPE, the players, enjoy freedom of expression on this website because they are guaranteed that freedom under World Assembly Resolution #30.

While I understand that this isn't the argument, I'd just like to point out/agree that R30 can be and is applied to the NATIONS of NAZI EUROPE, in that they are, ICly, being punished for ideology, when they shouldn't be.

This whole bit about the players BEHIND the nations is confusing the hell out of me. It's a pointless debate. Stick to IC, please, seriously.

[Urgench]

While I understand that this isn't the argument, I'd just like to point out/agree that R30 can be and is applied to the NATIONS of NAZI EUROPE, in that they are, ICly, being punished for ideology, when they shouldn't be.

This whole bit about the players BEHIND the nations is confusing the hell out of me. It's a pointless debate. Stick to IC, please, seriously.

Unfortunately your last request is impossible. The SC is expressly a body which deals with out of character issues and conduct, it was created for that purpose, therefore it is impossible to "stick to IC" when discussing the SC's actions and resolutions. In this case we are considering repealling an out of character condemnation of a region which was voted for (one suspects) for out of character reasons, it is extremely difficult to then apply in character GA laws to the situation and include them in an argument for this reppeal since they cannot actually apply to any part of the SC action the reppeal is trying to effect.

If the condemnation had actually been for roleplayed or otherwise in character activities on Nazi Europe's part and had been written also in character then the situation might be different.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

While I understand that this isn't the argument, I'd just like to point out/agree that R30 can be and is applied to the NATIONS of NAZI EUROPE, in that they are, ICly, being punished for ideology, when they shouldn't be.

"Nations" aren't entitled to free expression under 30; rather, they're required to protect it for their citizens. Sadly member nations do not have jurisdiction over their region or the players who control them. If this condemnation were about nations stifling free expression in their own borders, that would be different, but it's not. It applies to people and situations the General Assembly was simply not designed to referee.

edit: Of course, all of this skirts the issue that simply "condemning" someone does not equate to an ideology ban or an infringement on free expression anyway. The entire basis for this repeal is hyperbolic and almost as silly and over-the-top as the original resolution itself. It's on a par with a man criticizing his secretary for wearing provocative clothing, and then being arrested for rape.

[Unibot]

Thus - a legislational sort of category is necessary for the SC to develop its own rules surrounding interregional and intraregional matters.

But let's not turn this thread into another philosophical C&C debate like all of the other condemnation threads...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Then why the hell did you bring it up?

We don't need a special department to pass resolutions just to determine if it's acceptable to commend or condemn someone; presumably the rules (which we all await with baited breath) and the precedent established by previously enacted C&Cs are enough.

Of course, if the SC simply followed the existing rules and limited itself to addressing situations where GA legislation would be applicable, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place...

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Thus - a legislational sort of category is necessary for the SC to develop its own rules surrounding interregional and intraregional matters.

I think it would be wise not to add any more categories to the SC until all of the problems with the current ones are ironed out.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Of course, if the SC simply followed the existing rules and limited itself to addressing situations where GA legislation would be applicable, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place...

And if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have a Happy Christmas.

It's a little late to try closing the lid on Pandora's Box and you'll probably get condemned for even suggesting such a thing.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... Be interpreted OOCly? Are you saying that players, in RL, are to be regarded as sovereign nations now and the provisions of World Assembly Resolution #30 apply to them?

Why don't you ask a WA member, who has no sense of OOC and IC, how they judge resolutions? I can tell you that they likely apply it to their own real lives, which be would applying a supposed IC-only resolution to the OOC world... World Assembly regulars (or, at least, those that have an IC view of the WA) have their idea of what the World Assembly is; other players have theirs. Both are equally valid.

I support the repeal of Condemn NAZI EUROPE, don't get me wrong. I just can't for the life of me accept that the members of NAZI EUROPE, the players, enjoy freedom of expression on this website because they are guaranteed that freedom under World Assembly Resolution #30.

They don't. You're responding to an argument that nobody has made. I used WAR#30 as a supporting argument, not a foundation. WAR#30 supports the universal democratic principal of freedom of expression, which implies that the World Assembly shouldn't be reprising people for expressing themselves, even if it's in (allegedly) horrible ways. If it'll stop all of this nonsense back-and-forth, I'll remove the allusion; the resolution is just as strong without it.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I can tell you that they likely apply it to their own real lives,

You can't be serious?

WAR#30 supports the universal democratic principal of freedom of expression, which implies that the World Assembly shouldn't be reprising people for expressing themselves, even if it's in (allegedly) horrible ways.

It does not. It enjoins RPed national governments not to deny freedom of expression to their citizens.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You can't be serious?

Yes, I can and I am being serious. Years ago, before I created Glen-Rhodes, I was just a regular player: answering issues and voting on resolutions. I looked at the resolution in front of me, not knowing what OOC and IC were, and applied the principles discussed to the real world. That is how I decided if I was for or against. How else do you think those players judge the resolutions? "Oh, this one has good grammar and big words, so I'm going to vote for it"? How many times have you seen new players mention the real world in WA debates? How many times have you seen WA regulars use real world examples (being OOC, of course) to support their arguments?

It does not. It enjoins RPed national governments not to deny freedom of expression to their citizens.

So says you, operating under a system that doesn't account for the expanded role of the World Assembly.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

How else do you think those players judge the resolutions?

Just because they use RL criteria to decide how to vote does not mean the resolutions are applicable in, or relevant to, real life. They have no relevance whatsoever in an OOC context. Try again.

How many times have you seen WA regulars use real world examples (being OOC, of course) to support their arguments?

Apples and oranges. That still doesn't mean that General Assembly resolutions can be applied OOCly.

So says you, operating under a system that doesn't account for the expanded role of the World Assembly.

No I accept that the World Assembly has expanded, but it still has to make some sort of sense. This idiocy of trying to mix IC and OOC in the same proposal makes it resemble something from Alice in Wonderland.

[Dagguerro]

Theres a lot of rhetoric about this condemnation concerning freedom of speech and being illegal due to it being directed at an ideology.Frankly, to us this kind of discussion makes no sense because the condemnation doesn't prevent freedom of speech or expression of the ideology. "Condemn" means to express disapproval of. Condemning an ideology does not prevent people from following that ideology, it doesn't prevent them from publicly stating that ideology and it certainly doesn't make said ideology illegal.

All a condemnation does is say "we, the nations of WA, disapprove of this". No more, no less. People seem to be losing sight of this simple fact. I and my nation are fully prepared to fight for anybody's right to freedom of choice, expression and speech. However that does not mean we have to approve of what they choose, express or say; or that we cannot express our disapproval.

So I put it to you, honoured Ambassadors and Delegates of the Security Council; please convice me that the condemnation in question is anything more than us stating we disapprove of Nazism and the associated racism and antisemitism which is a fundamental part of the ideology. Please convince me that this condemnation really is a threat to the aforementioned freedoms. If you can do that then, whilst I cannot promise actual support for this repeal without first talking to the members of my region, I give you my word that I will not vote against it and will do everything in my power to encourage my regional WA members to do the same.

[Urgench]

Theres a lot of rhetoric about this condemnation concerning freedom of speech and being illegal due to it being directed at an ideology.Frankly, to us this kind of discussion makes no sense because the condemnation doesn't prevent freedom of speech or expression of the ideology. "Condemn" means to express disapproval of. Condemning an ideology does not prevent people from following that ideology, it doesn't prevent them from publicly stating that ideology and it certainly doesn't make said ideology illegal.

All a condemnation does is say "we, the nations of WA, disapprove of this". No more, no less. People seem to be losing sight of this simple fact. I and my nation are fully prepared to fight for anybody's right to freedom of choice, expression and speech. However that does not mean we have to approve of what they choose, express or say; or that we cannot express our disapproval.

So I put it to you, honoured Ambassadors and Delegates of the Security Council; please convice me that the condemnation in question is anything more than us stating we disapprove of Nazism and the associated racism and antisemitism which is a fundamental part of the ideology. Please convince me that this condemnation really is a threat to the aforementioned freedoms. If you can do that then, whilst I cannot promise actual support for this repeal without first talking to the members of my region, I give you my word that I will not vote against it and will do everything in my power to encourage my regional WA members to do the same.

"We" who is this "We" you keep talking about ? The entire WA does not condemn or disapprove of whatever ideology Nazi Europe have been accused of supporting. A simple majority, in fact a minority of the entire membership of the WA , may condemn Nazi Europe but that does not mean that your all encompassing "We" also does.

Accusing Nazi Europe of racism and antisemitism is fairly specious too, do you actually happen to know for a fact that every single player with a nation in Nazi Europe is a racist and an anti-semite ?

[The Great Lord Tiger]

Theres a lot of rhetoric about this condemnation concerning freedom of speech and being illegal due to it being directed at an ideology.Frankly, to us this kind of discussion makes no sense because the condemnation doesn't prevent freedom of speech or expression of the ideology. "Condemn" means to express disapproval of. Condemning an ideology does not prevent people from following that ideology, it doesn't prevent them from publicly stating that ideology and it certainly doesn't make said ideology illegal.

All a condemnation does is say "we, the nations of WA, disapprove of this". No more, no less. People seem to be losing sight of this simple fact. I and my nation are fully prepared to fight for anybody's right to freedom of choice, expression and speech. However that does not mean we have to approve of what they choose, express or say; or that we cannot express our disapproval.

So I put it to you, honoured Ambassadors and Delegates of the Security Council; please convice me that the condemnation in question is anything more than us stating we disapprove of Nazism and the associated racism and antisemitism which is a fundamental part of the ideology. Please convince me that this condemnation really is a threat to the aforementioned freedoms. If you can do that then, whilst I cannot promise actual support for this repeal without first talking to the members of my region, I give you my word that I will not vote against it and will do everything in my power to encourage my regional WA members to do the same.

Newsflash: One of the nations in the region is a Nazi one. It's made up of bears, who consider humans the sub-perfect being.

A few of the nations are "Nazis against zombies", if you will. Zombies take the place of Jews and Slavs.

So I'm curious to know, again, how this region supports RACISM or ANTISEMITISM, because I have seen no such indications. It has simply become commonplace to apply the buzzword "Nazi" to any white human supremacist group because of the actions of 'Nazi Germany' of the 20th century on one of the Fractal Earths.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

So says you, operating under a system that doesn't account for the expanded role of the World Assembly.

You sound like [violet]. But even she was willing to change her stance that the WA (now the GA) could be made relevant to gameplay/OOC functions; that's why the councils were separated in the first place. You, however, seem determined to be stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. I agree with Mad Sheep: you probably know you are wrong here; you just want to win the argument. Which would work if you were a lawyer or a politician (perchance were you in charge of GW Bush's war strategy?) -- but as a player it's just annoying and insulting. Please cut it out.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No, Kenny, you are wrong, as is Mad Sheep. The World Assembly does not revolve around WA regulars and their IC universe. There has always been a larger OOC factor, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. We may treat resolutions in an IC way, while playing our game, but others treat them differently, while they're playing theirs. The use of the World Assembly is not restricted to the IC universe and those few who are part of it, and you and Mad Sheep sound exceedingly elitist by saying it is.

The World Assembly was separated to preserve the IC part, so that neither our game or 'their' game was destroyed in the process of expanding the World Assembly. It was separated because the General Assembly folks couldn't reconcile the OOC nature of the Security Council. That reasoning doesn't apply here. Resolutions have always been utilized outside of the IC General Assembly. It's pretty naive to think that they aren't, and pretty hypocritical to deny the 10,000 or so OOC members of using the World Assembly in their version of the game.

[Urgench]

No, Kenny, you are the wrong, as is Mad Sheep. The World Assembly does not revolve around WA regulars and their IC universe. There has always been a larger OOC factor, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. We may treat resolutions in an IC way, while playing our game, but others treat them differently, while they're playing theirs. The use of the World Assembly is not restricted to the IC universe and those few who are part of it, and you and Mad Sheep sound exceedingly elitist by saying it is.

The World Assembly was separated to preserve the IC part, so that neither our game or 'their' game was destroyed in the process of expanding the World Assembly. It was separated because the General Assembly folks couldn't reconcile the OOC nature of the Security Council. That reasoning doesn't apply here. Resolutions have always been utilized outside of the IC General Assembly. It's pretty naive to think that they aren't, and pretty hypocritical to deny the 10,000 or so OOC members of using the World Assembly in their version of the game.

OK I do think you might be conflating informal use with formal intent. Naturally many players have never viewed resolutions in the purely in character way that Old Guard players do, but they could not fail to see that resolutions were written in a very specific and extremely specialised way, often nOObs would leave angry complaints about the strange way resolutions were written. This is because the entire structure and nature of a GA resolution is refined by the rules which they must be written to respect, these rules intentionally insure that a GA resolution respects the bounds of an IC universe and does not bleed into the OOC world.

Once again I'll stress that I do believe that both the GA and the SC should respect the spirit of one another's laws ( where this makes any sense or is even possible ) but that does not mean that an informal OOC reaction to a resolution should be a strong enough reason to make that resolution an outright justification for OOC activity.

Condemn Nazi Europe should never have made it to quorum because it is an extension of the concept of banning ideologies, even though it does not do so formally, but Freedom of Expression can't legally be used in this context to reppeal Condemn Nazi Europe because the two laws have no area of mutual conflict.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

No, Kenny, you are wrong, as is Mad Sheep. The World Assembly does not revolve around WA regulars and their IC universe. There has always been a larger OOC factor, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. We may treat resolutions in an IC way, while playing our game, but others treat them differently, while they're playing theirs. The use of the World Assembly is not restricted to the IC universe and those few who are part of it, and you and Mad Sheep sound exceedingly elitist by saying it is.

The World Assembly was separated to preserve the IC part, so that neither our game or 'their' game was destroyed in the process of expanding the World Assembly. It was separated because the General Assembly folks couldn't reconcile the OOC nature of the Security Council. That reasoning doesn't apply here. Resolutions have always been utilized outside of the IC General Assembly. It's pretty naive to think that they aren't, and pretty hypocritical to deny the 10,000 or so OOC members of using the World Assembly in their version of the game.

OK well, if they don't just apply to IC, RPed nations and citizens then what the hell else do they apply to? Forum behavior? Stuff that gets posted on RMBs? Other things completely outside the game? And if they apply to those other things then how can they also apply to IC, RPed nations and citizens?

[Glen-Rhodes]

OK well, if they don't just apply to IC, RPed nations and citizens then what the hell else do they apply to? Forum behavior? Stuff that gets posted on RMBs? Other things completely outside the game? And if they apply to those other things then how can they also apply to IC, RPed nations and citizens?

For the last time:
they apply to the World Assembly.
If a resolution, whether it be from the SC or the GA, grants a right and says that the World Assembly or any other government can't infringe on that right, then the World Assembly can't write an other resolution that infringes on that right. It doesn't matter if it says "citizens" or "nations" or "players" (though, this type of resolution is likely to only come from the GA, so it's likely to say 'citizens') -- the intent and will of the resolution is clear.*

Also, get it out of your mind that the two realms are mutually exclusive. Just because a resolution can be used in an OOC way doesn't mean that it can't also be used in an IC way.

*I'm aware that "Freedom of Expression" doesn't prevent the World Assembly from infringing on that freedom, given the language. In fact, as I've said numerous times before, this repeal never hinged on any violation of "Freedom of Expression"; it alluded to it merely to show that the World Assembly, no matter if it was IC or OOC, believes in such a right: IC, because it was written IC, and OOC because it voted on by mostly OOC persons.

[Goobergunchia]

For the reference of all members, discussion and a ruling pertaining the Kennyite point of order can be found at 3rd Forum 278376 et seq. In summary, the language directly referencing GA Resolution #30 was found to be a House of Cards violation, and the point of order would be well-taken.

[float=right][/float]Susan Zapfkoro
Legislative Assistant
Goobergunchian UN Embassy

[Urgench]

OK well, if they don't just apply to IC, RPed nations and citizens then what the hell else do they apply to? Forum behavior? Stuff that gets posted on RMBs? Other things completely outside the game? And if they apply to those other things then how can they also apply to IC, RPed nations and citizens?

For the last time:
they apply to the World Assembly.
If a resolution, whether it be from the SC or the GA, grants a right and says that the World Assembly or any other government can't infringe on that right, then the World Assembly can't write an other resolution that infringes on that right. It doesn't matter if it says "citizens" or "nations" or "players" (though, this type of resolution is likely to only come from the GA, so it's likely to say 'citizens') -- the intent and will of the resolution is clear.*

Also, get it out of your mind that the two realms are mutually exclusive. Just because a resolution can be used in an OOC way doesn't mean that it can't also be used in an IC way.

*I'm aware that "Freedom of Expression" doesn't prevent the World Assembly from infringing on that freedom, given the language. In fact, as I've said numerous times before, this repeal never hinged on any violation of "Freedom of Expression"; it alluded to it merely to show that the World Assembly, no matter if it was IC or OOC, believes in such a right: IC, because it was written IC, and OOC because it voted on by mostly OOC persons.

There's no need to shout GR, this is only a disagreement. I'm afraid though that despite agreeing with you to some extent I must dissent from your assertion that all WA laws apply to all WA actions. Had we been able to meld the two worlds of SC OOC activity and GA IC activity that might be the case, but levels of intransigence on all sides have made such an accomodation impossible hence the seperation of the GA and SC.

The SC is capable of dealing with OOC issues in an OOC fashion, and the GA deals with IC issues in an IC fashion. The two organisations clearly have different competences and incompatible laws thus far.

I don't discount the possibility, indeed I would welcome it, that the laws of both SC and GA respect the spirit of eachother but as of now this cannot be the case.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, Kenny, you are wrong, as is Mad Sheep. The World Assembly does not revolve around WA regulars and their IC universe.

No, but the GA does, so trying to claim that its laws can be applied to situations decidedly outside its purview is rather silly.