Page 3 of 112
Posted:
Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:35 pmby The Free Wolven People of the World
[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.
Posted:
Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:44 pmby Sedgistan
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.
Posted:
Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:00 amby The Free Wolven People of the World
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.
Posted:
Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 amby Skyrim Diplomacy
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.
Posted:
Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:13 pmby The Great Destruction
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?
Posted:
Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:14 pmby Sedgistan
The proposal already has a thread - ask that there.
Posted:
Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:26 amby Moronist Decisions
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)
Posted:
Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:43 amby Sedgistan
Plus Rule 4 - "deleting forums" can only be understood as a reference to online forums.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:11 pmby Ambibia
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
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:12 pmby Sedgistan
There's a thread to discuss it in
here.
Posted:
Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:08 amby Skyrim Diplomacy
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.
Posted:
Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:33 amby Sedgistan
It already has a thread, so it's best to point that out there.
Posted:
Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:48 amby Skyrim Diplomacy
Sedgistan wrote:It already has a thread, so it's best to point that out there.
I did.
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:25 pmby Frattastan
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.
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:31 pmby The Great Destruction
It's a REPEAL, Frattastan. Duplication is impossible since the same resolution can only be repealed once.
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:35 pmby Sedgistan
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.
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:56 pmby Frattastan
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).
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:57 pmby The Great Destruction
I figured as much
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:43 pmby Tanular
Almost like the person thinks it was a commendation, not a condemnation, judging by that 'argument'.
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:22 amby Everbeek
I think he thinks "repeal" is just a misspelling for "repeat".
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:25 pmby Milograd
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.
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:40 pmby The divided
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.
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:45 pmby Milograd
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.
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:06 pmby Sedgistan
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.
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:46 pmby Omigodtheykilledkenny
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.