Advertisement
by Daarwyrth » Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:55 am
Religious Lennox wrote:Support
by Religious Lennox » Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:05 am
by Daarwyrth » Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:36 am
by Jutsa » Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:14 pm
by ShrewLlamaLand » Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:46 pm
Commends with great pride the endeavours of individual member nations in the General Assembly to further the rights and protections of individuals identifying with the LGBTQ community across member nations, with notable resolutions and authors being:
by Daarwyrth » Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:07 am
ShrewLlamaLand wrote:Commends with great pride the endeavours of individual member nations in the General Assembly to further the rights and protections of individuals identifying with the LGBTQ community across member nations, with notable resolutions and authors being:
How is this clause legal? You can't commend in a declaration.
Jutsa wrote:Good luck, Daarwyrth. I have faith you will finally become a trifecta member.
by Team Lennox » Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:50 am
Daarwyrth wrote:ShrewLlamaLand wrote:
How is this clause legal? You can't commend in a declaration.
"To commend" has more than one meaning. As you can see here, "to commend" means "to formally praise someone or something". It stands synonymous with an alternate version of the phrase such as "Praises with great pride", and as such is not meant as a Commendation in the sense of the Security Council, but instead is used as a synonym for "praises".Jutsa wrote:Good luck, Daarwyrth. I have faith you will finally become a trifecta member.
Thank you! c:
by ShrewLlamaLand » Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:11 am
Daarwyrth wrote:ShrewLlamaLand wrote:
How is this clause legal? You can't commend in a declaration.
"To commend" has more than one meaning. As you can see here, "to commend" means "to formally praise someone or something". It stands synonymous with an alternate version of the phrase such as "Praises with great pride", and as such is not meant as a Commendation in the sense of the Security Council, but instead is used as a synonym for "praises".
by Team Lennox » Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:30 am
ShrewLlamaLand wrote:Daarwyrth wrote:"To commend" has more than one meaning. As you can see here, "to commend" means "to formally praise someone or something". It stands synonymous with an alternate version of the phrase such as "Praises with great pride", and as such is not meant as a Commendation in the sense of the Security Council, but instead is used as a synonym for "praises".
I know, believe it or not I'm not actually an idiot. It does, however, read like the operative clause of an SC commendation, hence the query.
Additionally, and this is unrelated to the above but I will state it for the record before the hoards come out to accuse CCD of being fascist again - I will be voting against this proposal because it reads more like a "let's pat everyone on the back for doing anything remotely LGBT-positive" rather its supposed purpose, a declaration in support of LGBT tolerance and acceptance.
by Sedgistan » Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:37 am
ShrewLlamaLand wrote:Daarwyrth wrote:"To commend" has more than one meaning. As you can see here, "to commend" means "to formally praise someone or something". It stands synonymous with an alternate version of the phrase such as "Praises with great pride", and as such is not meant as a Commendation in the sense of the Security Council, but instead is used as a synonym for "praises".
I know, believe it or not I'm not actually an idiot. It does, however, read like the operative clause of an SC commendation, hence the query.
Sedgistan wrote:We've just declared a proposal illegal that ended with the following:Hereby declares:
1. War's definition as an armed conflict between individual nations and/or groups of nations;
2. The Security Council stands against war, and encourages nations to take up arms only to maintain peace, preventing the deaths of innocent civilians and mistreated soldiers;
3. Nations that have no regard for human rights and use various forms of oppression on prisoners of war, including torture, genocide, etc. are hereby condemned by the Security Council through their acts of violence.
This was judged to be a Rule 1e violation - trying to do more than a Declaration can do, specifically through this part: "Nations [...] are hereby condemned by the Security Council".
While use of the terms "commends" and "condemns" is allowed in Declarations, if it is close to being a valid operative clause for a Commendation/Condemnation, then it crosses over into a Rule 1e violation.
by ShrewLlamaLand » Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:50 am
Team Lennox wrote:ShrewLlamaLand wrote:I know, believe it or not I'm not actually an idiot. It does, however, read like the operative clause of an SC commendation, hence the query.
Additionally, and this is unrelated to the above but I will state it for the record before the hoards come out to accuse CCD of being fascist again - I will be voting against this proposal because it reads more like a "let's pat everyone on the back for doing anything remotely LGBT-positive" rather its supposed purpose, a declaration in support of LGBT tolerance and acceptance.
Just because you don't agree with the prop doesn't mean your fascist. In fact you drafted this draft to improve Trans rights.
Sedgistan wrote:ShrewLlamaLand wrote:I know, believe it or not I'm not actually an idiot. It does, however, read like the operative clause of an SC commendation, hence the query.
It's being discussed amongst the team - and input from SCers here would help too. The standard we set on this recently was:Sedgistan wrote:We've just declared a proposal illegal that ended with the following:
This was judged to be a Rule 1e violation - trying to do more than a Declaration can do, specifically through this part: "Nations [...] are hereby condemned by the Security Council".
While use of the terms "commends" and "condemns" is allowed in Declarations, if it is close to being a valid operative clause for a Commendation/Condemnation, then it crosses over into a Rule 1e violation.
by Tinhampton » Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:30 am
Sedgistan wrote:It's being discussed amongst the team - and input from SCers here would help too...
by Bhang Bhang Duc » Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:27 am
Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.
RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.
Sedgistan wrote:The SC has just has a spate of really shitty ones recently from Northumbria, his Watermelon fanboy…..
by Daarwyrth » Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:53 pm
Sedgistan wrote:It's being discussed amongst the team - and input from SCers here would help too. The standard we set on this recently was:
by Great Algerstonia » Thu Aug 05, 2021 6:43 pm
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Daarwyrth » Fri Aug 06, 2021 1:00 am
Matriarchal Rule wrote:We send our full support
by Tsaivao » Fri Aug 06, 2021 7:14 am
Great Algerstonia wrote:2d should be cut, what is so positive about vexillology?
Additionally, I will be voting against due to OOC in the WA. WA should be IC only. Mixing of IC and OOC is never good.
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
by Great Algerstonia » Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:23 am
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Cappedore » Fri Aug 13, 2021 12:43 am
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
by Herby » Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:26 pm
Cappedore wrote:The cause is fine, but the more I read it, the more I feel that this would definitely fall in GA boundaries. So the County of Cappedore does not support this proposal. It's a good and well-written proposal, but we find ourselves questioning its legality - despite what gensec has said.
by Great Algerstonia » Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:33 pm
Herby wrote:Cappedore wrote:The cause is fine, but the more I read it, the more I feel that this would definitely fall in GA boundaries. So the County of Cappedore does not support this proposal. It's a good and well-written proposal, but we find ourselves questioning its legality - despite what gensec has said.
I disagree. This is a fine example of what the new Declarations category should entail. Put this in the GA as is and large bits of it break several rules, and it would not be an easy fix.
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Herby » Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:31 pm
Great Algerstonia wrote:Herby wrote:I disagree. This is a fine example of what the new Declarations category should entail. Put this in the GA as is and large bits of it break several rules, and it would not be an easy fix.
How is this a "fine example"? This resolution is entirely OOC, offers an opinion on wholly OOC content, brings explicitly OOC content (Pride Month) into the Security Council, and all in all seems like a case of [insert popular thing here to pass in a Declaration], combined with [throw in everything remotely positive about said popular thing to get it to pass in a Declaration]...
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement