NATION

PASSWORD

Illegal SC proposals - post them here

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Free Wolven People of the World
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Aug 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Free Wolven People of the World » Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:35 pm

[proposal= http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1349378761][/proposal]

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge on how to do this right...

But to be completely honest, I see nothing wrong with the nation that Soviet New Scotland is saying to condemn. It is illegal under rule 4b; that's part of the game and it affects no one other nation.

I do apologize again for my inexperience; I'm not active on here much but found this proposal to be very... improper.
Also one can see by looking at the proposal's author, Soviet New Scotland, one can see they are clearly either brand new to the system or its someone being dumb. Either way, this proposal is, in my case, illegal for an R4 and trying to condemn a nation for playing the game.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 29534
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:44 pm

Rule 4(b) is about referring to the game as a game (such as saying "Condemns Examplestan for playing NationStates badly"). That's not the case in the proposal you link to - I don't see any illegalities there. Your reasons look like ones to argue against it, not for a mod to remove the proposal.

User avatar
The Free Wolven People of the World
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Aug 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Free Wolven People of the World » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:00 am

Sedgistan wrote:Rule 4(b) is about referring to the game as a game (such as saying "Condemns Examplestan for playing NationStates badly"). That's not the case in the proposal you link to - I don't see any illegalities there. Your reasons look like ones to argue against it, not for a mod to remove the proposal.

Alright, thanks. At the time I posted this I saw no thread on the forum about this one, which lead me to believe there was literally nobody caring for it.

User avatar
Skyrim Diplomacy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1497
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Skyrim Diplomacy » Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 am

The Free Wolven People of the World wrote:Alright, thanks. At the time I posted this I saw no thread on the forum about this one, which lead me to believe there was literally nobody caring for it.

No one caring about a proposal ≠ being illegal, however.

User avatar
The Great Destruction
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 398
Founded: Nov 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Great Destruction » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:13 pm


SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL
ID: united_federation_of_canada_1349985813

Liberate Gargantuan

A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region

Category: Liberation

Nominee (region): Gargantuan

Proposed by: United Federation of Canada

Description: Description: The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING Gargantuan as a peace-loving region home to many nations over the year since its founding in 2011;

CONCERNED that The Confederacy of Reagan Island has recently taken power and password protected the region;

FURTHER CONCERNED that The Confederacy of Reagan Island has recently began to eject member nations from the region in an attempt to destroy the region;

OBSERVING that The Confederacy of Reagan Island elected on 2011, August 30 barred free entry to the region;

REAFFIRMING the mission statement of the Security Council: "Spreading inter regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary";

DECLARING that the Security Council must be prepared to use the powers at its disposal to allow free entry into a region currently controlled by a nation with the intent on destroying such region;

HEREBY Liberates Gargantuan.

Approvals: 3 (Kneenypanini, Providence and Port Hope, X-x)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 65 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 4 hours


Question: Does this line (the red one) constitue a rules violation?

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 29534
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:14 pm

The proposal already has a thread - ask that there.

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Moronist Decisions » Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:26 am


SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL
ID: astorfus_1350218416

Condemn Jagermeister

A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.





Category: Condemnation


Nominee: Jagermeister


Proposed by: Astorfus




Description: A condemnation for deleting
The Asgard forums and therefore
Causing stress and dismay on all
Asgardians and breaking asgardian
Law

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 69 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 2 hours





Violates Rule 3 (no operative clause)
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 29534
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:43 am

Plus Rule 4 - "deleting forums" can only be understood as a reference to online forums.

User avatar
Ambibia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: May 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Ambibia » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:11 pm

Commend Sedgistan


Category: Commendation


Nominee: Sedgistan


Proposed by: Newtered States




Description: Recognizing the contributions made to the Security Council by the nation of Sedgistan,

Hereby Commends Sedgistan.



Approvals: 3

Status: Lacking Support (requires 67 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 1 hour

This was not in my opinion very illegal, it just was funny to look at
15 year-old male Democrat from South Carolina, USA. Presbyterian. Currently enrolled in boarding school in Virginia.
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38
"There was never a good war, or a bad peace" -Benjamin Franklin
"We seldom repent of having eaten too little"-Thomas Jefferson
"There are many ways of moving foward, but only one way of standing still"-Franklin D. Roosevelt

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 29534
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:12 pm

There's a thread to discuss it in here.

User avatar
Skyrim Diplomacy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1497
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Skyrim Diplomacy » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:08 am

This one is illegal. R4 violation in red.

The Security Council,

Noting the interference that the United Federation of Canada has played in the existence of Gargantuan and all the good work that has been accomplished by the administration of Reagan Island,

Agreeing that going backward, rather than forward, in this uncertain time, would be extremely heinous to Gargantuan,

Recognizing United Federation of Canada has merely one goal in mind: to destroy the peace of Gargantuan,

Realizing that such behavior is demonizing and prevents a region from having healthy interactions with its inhabitants due to the region,

Understanding that his input is not welcome,

And believing that such behavior should not go unpunished,

Hereby condemns the nation of United Federation of Canada.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 29534
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:33 am

It already has a thread, so it's best to point that out there.

User avatar
Skyrim Diplomacy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1497
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Skyrim Diplomacy » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:48 am

Sedgistan wrote:It already has a thread, so it's best to point that out there.

I did. :lol:

User avatar
Frattastan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 700
Founded: Oct 24, 2007
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Frattastan » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:25 pm

SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL
ID: ognjen_ahmadinejad_ii_1351631854

Repeal "Condemn The Black Riders"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: SC#91
Proposed by: Ognjen Ahmadinejad II

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #91: Condemn The Black Riders shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: They still terrorize and raid many regions.
We need to stop them.


Condemns for the same set of actions of the Condemnation they have already (duplication). Rule 2(b).
Lacks an operative clause. Rule 3.
San Francisco Bay Area (forum) | Founderless Regions Alliance (FRA) | Rejected Realms Army (RRA)

Drop Your Pants wrote:I think raiders are cute, the way they think they're big and scary people who threaten others :)

User avatar
The Great Destruction
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 398
Founded: Nov 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Great Destruction » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:31 pm

It's a REPEAL, Frattastan. Duplication is impossible since the same resolution can only be repealed once.
Last edited by The Great Destruction on Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 29534
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:35 pm

The rule 3 violation is obvious; added to that I'd say it's rule 2(d) that this one violates - it doesn't address the contents of the resolution it's repealing - it mentions something from the Condemnation, but fails to actually give an argument against it.

User avatar
Frattastan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 700
Founded: Oct 24, 2007
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Frattastan » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:56 pm

Oh. Only read the text of the proposal, didn't notice it was a repeal (as the argument didn't sound like a typical repeal argument).
San Francisco Bay Area (forum) | Founderless Regions Alliance (FRA) | Rejected Realms Army (RRA)

Drop Your Pants wrote:I think raiders are cute, the way they think they're big and scary people who threaten others :)

User avatar
The Great Destruction
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 398
Founded: Nov 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Great Destruction » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:57 pm

I figured as much :)

User avatar
Tanular
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Sep 16, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Tanular » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:43 pm

Almost like the person thinks it was a commendation, not a condemnation, judging by that 'argument'.
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby IV
Tanulari Ambassador to the World Assembly

User avatar
Everbeek
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 452
Founded: Jun 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Everbeek » Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:22 am

I think he thinks "repeal" is just a misspelling for "repeat".
The Awesomeness Formerly Known As Campinia
Cromarty wrote:Antifa, the Internationale and the Red Fleet are encased in the largest glass house in existence, and they're not throwing stones, they're firing boulders from catapults.

Big Jim P wrote:
Everbeek wrote:I never say "for god's sake", I always say "for fuck's sake", for the rest I don't care much


Fucking created most of us, so fucking IS god.

User avatar
Milograd
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5894
Founded: Feb 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Milograd » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:25 pm

SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL
ID: demincia_1351973988

Repeal "Commend Crazy girl"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation


Category: Repeal

Resolution: SC#49

Proposed by: Demincia

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #49: Commend Crazy girl shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING that Condemn Sedgistan was drafted after an agreement between Crazy Girl and Sedgistan, where it was agreed upon that Sedgistan would draft a commendation for Crazy Girl and in turn receive a condemnation;

AWARE that this resolution lacks substance to justify a condemnation, instead condemning for petty things such as the changing of a forum color and 'insults';

DISGUSTED by the use of the Security Council as a tool to play silly games;

HEREBY REPEALS Commend Crazy Girl.

Approvals: 1 (Mad Jack)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 70 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 6 hours

This proposal's text is copied from Mahaj's repeal of Sedge's condemnation.
Retired

User avatar
The divided
Envoy
 
Posts: 349
Founded: Mar 02, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The divided » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:40 pm

Milograd wrote:
SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL
ID: demincia_1351973988

Repeal "Commend Crazy girl"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation


Category: Repeal

Resolution: SC#49

Proposed by: Demincia

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #49: Commend Crazy girl shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING that Condemn Sedgistan was drafted after an agreement between Crazy Girl and Sedgistan, where it was agreed upon that Sedgistan would draft a commendation for Crazy Girl and in turn receive a condemnation;

AWARE that this resolution lacks substance to justify a condemnation, instead condemning for petty things such as the changing of a forum color and 'insults';

DISGUSTED by the use of the Security Council as a tool to play silly games;

HEREBY REPEALS Commend Crazy Girl.

Approvals: 1 (Mad Jack)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 70 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 6 hours

This proposal's text is copied from Mahaj's repeal of Sedge's condemnation.


Just about to post this. Apart from blatant plagiarism, it addresses a resolution that has already been repealed.

User avatar
Milograd
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5894
Founded: Feb 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Milograd » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:45 pm

The divided wrote:
Milograd wrote:This proposal's text is copied from Mahaj's repeal of Sedge's condemnation.


...it addresses a resolution that has already been repealed.

No it doesn't. Crazy girl's commendation has never been repealed.
Retired

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 29534
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:06 pm

Actually, the text addressed my condemnation (as it was entirely copied from the repeal of that) and hence didn't address any of the contents of CG's commendation. Plus, it was obviously plagiarised.

Another mod dealt with it, btw.

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5719
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:46 pm

Sedgistan wrote:The rule 3 violation is obvious; added to that I'd say it's rule 2(d) that this one violates - it doesn't address the contents of the resolution it's repealing - it mentions something from the Condemnation, but fails to actually give an argument against it.

...also, submitted under the wrong category? The author clearly didn't mean to repeal the condemnation if his "argument" is that they are still a menace.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vrijstaat Limburg

Advertisement

Remove ads