Page 1 of 106

Illegal SC proposals - post them here

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:36 pm
by Sedgistan
Starting again with a new thread that makes its purpose clear.

  • This is a thread for posting submitted proposals that you believe are illegal.
  • Posting a proposal here does not guarantee that it will be deleted, nor do we guarantee that mods will check this thread regularly. If a proposal urgently needs to be removed, report it via Getting Help Request.
  • If a proposal already has a thread, discuss it in that thread. Don't post about it here.
  • Do not make up proposals and post them here. We will not be amused.
  • When posting proposals here, it helps to identify why you believe they are illegal.
  • We allow limited replies to proposals posted here, but if you want extended discussion on a proposal, start a new thread for it. Unhelpful commentary unrelated to whether specific proposals are illegal or not and for what reasons they may or may not be will get you warned for spamming.

The SC proposal rules can be found here.

Previous version of this thread.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:44 pm
by Weed
Sedgistan wrote:[*]Posting a proposal here does not guarantee that it will be deleted, nor do we guarantee that mods will check this thread regularly. If a proposal urgently needs to be removed, report it via Getting Help Request.

Sooo... Report it here unless it might actually go to vote? Is that the new policy?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:47 pm
by Sedgistan
If you think it's going to get to vote, report it via GHR. Otherwise, you can report it either here or via GHR - your call.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:31 pm
by Fischistan
Are we not allowed to post the silly but legal proposals here?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:20 pm
by The Great Destruction
Forgive me my ignorance for that. We may have to start a new thread for those. I'm not sure.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:03 pm
by Damanucus
Fischistan wrote:Are we not allowed to post the silly but legal proposals here?


Unless my knowledge of the rules is severely lacking, Bloody Stupid still counts as a rule violation. So, yeah, I think silly can go here, but just be prepared to defend your position; silly is relative.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:14 am
by Kingborough
The Great Destruction wrote:Forgive me my ignorance for that. We may have to start a new thread for those. I'm not sure.


Going on the rules in the OP, you post them here and Mods review them now. This is no longer a place to discuss or laugh over silly proposals.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:58 am
by Skyrim Diplomacy

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:55 am
by Sedgistan
It's a terrible proposal, but I'm not seeing the Rule 4 violations - the WA is made up of people too (within the member nations).

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:57 am
by Skyrim Diplomacy
Sedgistan wrote:It's a terrible proposal, but I'm not seeing the Rule 4 violations - the WA is made up of people too (within the member nations).

I guess "we" could be used to mean the WA nations of the world, though I've seen proposals removed for less.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:31 pm
by Skyrim Diplomacy
Illegal under R3, no operative clause. It's strangely reminiscent of Man Door Hand Hook Car Door.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:18 pm
by Frattastan
SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL
ID: great_jergania_and_jonland_1346359755
Condemn TBH Commander

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


Category: Condemnation


Nominee: TBH Commander


Proposed by: Great Jergania and Jonland

Description: Recognizing The Most Feared Military of TBH Commander as the leader and founder of The Black Hawks, a condemned region.

Reminding That The Black Hawks are an invader region, and has invaded many regions "for fun".

Believes That The Most Feared Military of TBH Commander has leaded most of or all of what the Black Hawks have done.

Believes That The Most Feared Military of TBH Commander should take some form of punishment for his actions.

Hereby Condemns The Most Feared Military of TBH Commander.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 68 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 6 hours


Personal pronoun "his" referring to a nation. Implies TBH Commander is a person. Rule 4.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:07 pm
by Damanucus
Condemn 10000 Islands
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.


Category: Condemnation

Nominee: 10000 Islands

Proposed by: Confederate States of New Zealand

Description: This proposal calls for a condemnation of The Protectorate of New Boltor due to their refusal to remove the biker gangs ravaging their lands. Therefore, we must take action. NOW. Please support this proposal.


So the writer condemns the entire region just because he wants to condemn one nation? Even I know that breaks a rule somewhere.

(Edit: This was flicked over from the GA silly proposal thread, after Flib noted it was in the wrong place.)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:10 pm
by Skyrim Diplomacy
Damanucus wrote:
Condemn 10000 Islands
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.


Category: Condemnation

Nominee: 10000 Islands

Proposed by: Confederate States of New Zealand

Description: This proposal calls for a condemnation of The Protectorate of New Boltor due to their refusal to remove the biker gangs ravaging their lands. Therefore, we must take action. NOW. Please support this proposal.


So the writer condemns the entire region just because he wants to condemn one nation? Even I know that breaks a rule somewhere.

The targets are wrong...but I don't think it's illegal.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:13 pm
by Damanucus
Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:
Damanucus wrote:
So the writer condemns the entire region just because he wants to condemn one nation? Even I know that breaks a rule somewhere.

The targets are wrong...but I don't think it's illegal.

I think it is: R3. It must condemn the target (which this doesn't).

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:14 pm
by Sedgistan
Definitely illegal - Rule 3 violation, in that it doesn't have an operative clause condemning 10000 Islands. If he'd somehow managed to submit a proposal whose text argued for a condemnation of New Boltor, but then had an operative clause condemning 10000 Islands, we'd delete that too - the text of a proposal is meant to contain an argument for the action the SC is undertaking.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:27 pm
by Damanucus
Sedgistan wrote:Definitely illegal - Rule 3 violation, in that it doesn't have an operative clause condemning 10000 Islands. If he'd somehow managed to submit a proposal whose text argued for a condemnation of New Boltor, but then had an operative clause condemning 10000 Islands, we'd delete that too - the text of a proposal is meant to contain an argument for the action the SC is undertaking.

Phew! Thanks Sedg.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:28 pm
by Skyrim Diplomacy
Ah, there we go. Makes sense now that I see it. And to think I just reported one for violating R3... :palm:

PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:46 pm
by Skyrim Diplomacy
I don't think not condemning counts as "hereby repeals" or some such thing, does it?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:20 pm
by Man or Astroman
Sedgistan wrote:This is a thread for posting submitted proposals that you believe are illegal.

...isn't that what the GHR is for?

PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:04 am
by Crazy girl
If posted here, it's easier to point out to people WHAT they did wrong, and also it's easier for them to find their text and edit it, rather than losing it. It can also serve as a learning place for other people.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:59 am
by The Great Destruction
So then do you recommend posting the entire proposal when reporting?

*coughs skyrim diplomacy* :D

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:54 pm
by Sedgistan
Yep, it does help to post the full text too (though it's not something you'd get in trouble for if you didn't).

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:31 pm
by Unibot III
@Abbey> I can't quite believe that he managed to make it legal
<+Cormac> I can't believe the mods haven't found some reason to remove it yet.
<+Cormac> There's got to be *something*. :P
<@Abbey> Sedge pointed it out to us :P


CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

Condemn The United Defenders League
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.

Category: Condemnation | Nominee: The United Defenders League | Proposed by: United States of Natan

Description: THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

REALIZES that The United Defenders league does go into nations and "frees" them from being taken over

REALIZES that they also will invade and eject nations they think are trying to take it over, regardless of what is really happening.

SEES that they also try to stop nations from annexing their own region that they make on a puppet to have it be an annexation for their regular region.

HEREBY CONDEMNS The United Defenders League

Approvals: 8 (Weed, Soviet Canuckistan, A Fascist, Defiant, Shawb, Gitchie Manito, Sideonia, Vendettera)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 60 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 2 days 7 hours


I question whether the casual use of "puppet" is a Rule 4 violation, since it would be unusual language to call a puppet-state, a "puppet" in formal legalese. Never before in a Security Council resolution has "puppet" been used casually. In SC#78, SC#77, SC#76, SC#63, "puppet state" is used; in SC#58, SC#23, SC#22 and SC#16, "puppet nation" is used.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:29 pm
by The Great Destruction
I agree, this would legally apply to an actual puppet, not necessarily a nation, or a government.

However, I don't see how using the term puppet would make a proposal illegal, just absurd, or breakable or heavily open to interpretations. In this instance I believe it simply makes that statement useless and/or untrue.