by Mad Sheep Railgun » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:41 am
by Krioval » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:48 am
by Kalibarr » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:49 am
by Krioval » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:57 am
by Sedgistan » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:09 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:12 am
Sedgistan wrote:I'm just going to disregard the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions" clause unless directed otherwise. I too would like to see the Security Council deal with issues beyond the defender/invader conflict (and hopefully gain some legitimacy with the wider NS audience), but I don't see that Commend/Condemn resolutions should be abandoned.
by Unibot » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:13 am
SC#5 wrote:DISAPPOINTED that the region's current occupiers have left the region to rot and degrade into a mockery of its former self - with no indication of any community activity surviving the decay;
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Mad Sheep Railgun » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:16 am
Sedgistan wrote:I'm just going to disregard the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions" clause unless directed otherwise. I too would like to see the Security Council deal with issues beyond the defender/invader conflict (and hopefully gain some legitimacy with the wider NS audience), but I don't see that Commend/Condemn resolutions should be abandoned.
by Sedgistan » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:24 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Sedgistan wrote:I'm just going to disregard the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions" clause unless directed otherwise. I too would like to see the Security Council deal with issues beyond the defender/invader conflict (and hopefully gain some legitimacy with the wider NS audience), but I don't see that Commend/Condemn resolutions should be abandoned.
Do you even see how that's unfair and disrespectful to the World Assembly as a whole, not to mention antithetical to its entire purpose? Ignoring something simply because you don't like it? This is the kind of stuff that pisses off so many of us. The General Assembly has to live with their mistakes and the consequences of them -- so should the Security Council.
by Kandarin » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:26 am
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Mad Sheep Railgun » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:43 am
Sedgistan wrote:Its something that would effectively stop the Security Council functioning, hence why I'm disregarding it. I think the General Assembly had a rule that repeals can't impose new restrictions/laws on the WA, and really we should have that for the Security Council too.
Kandarin wrote:The World Assembly is awfully unfair and biased right now to nations that want child labor, total nuclear disarmament, or the right to shoot humanitarian vessels (to list a few non-related examples). People who love region-looting Macedonian nationalists are probably going to feel disenfranchised too. The recent repeal could be taken as a precedent for a policy of neutrality, yes, but its own reasoning relies entirely on the presence of an existing tradition that simply does not exist. Until such time as it can be proven that this policy of fairness and neutrality is 'time-honored' by existing legislation in both bodies of the WA (for the recent repeal spoke of the WA, not just the SC) it is rather difficult to take the idea that it is a precedent very seriously.
by Mad Sheep Railgun » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:47 am
Kandarin wrote:Those that want the SC to be actually removed should be reminded, again, that advancing a precedent that heavily discourages its use will not accomplish this. NS is insular, and even if the part of the community that visits this forum is persuaded by accumulated precedent to avoid the SC there will always be people who didn't get the message. You will continue to be on the receiving end of campaigns for SC proposals and resolutions as long as there are enthusiastic newbies and people with grievances, which is to say that it will continue for as long as you play NS. The only way that you are ever going to get the feature removed from the game is to go here and make your case to the people who handle such things that the feature ought to be removed.
by Kandarin » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:50 am
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I don't think this discussion is about trying to remove the SC from the game.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Mad Sheep Railgun » Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Kandarin wrote:Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I don't think this discussion is about trying to remove the SC from the game.
I quite agree, but the subject keeps getting brought up as a motive for supporting the supposed precedent. I feel that a reminder is due that it's an awfully ineffective way of accomplishing that goal.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:50 pm
Kandarin wrote:Until such time as it can be proven that this policy of fairness and neutrality is 'time-honored' by existing legislation in both bodies of the WA (for the recent repeal spoke of the WA, not just the SC) it is rather difficult to take the idea that it is a precedent very seriously.
Kandarin wrote:Those that want the SC to be actually removed should be reminded, again, that advancing a precedent that heavily discourages its use will not accomplish this. NS is insular, and even if the part of the community that visits this forum is persuaded by accumulated precedent to avoid the SC there will always be people who didn't get the message. You will continue to be on the receiving end of campaigns for SC proposals and resolutions as long as there are enthusiastic newbies and people with grievances, which is to say that it will continue for as long as you play NS.
by Omigodtheyclonedkenny » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:32 pm
Todd McCloud wrote:As a side note, it has become clear to me, at least, that the SC should be a separate entity of the GA, with its own quorums, votings, etc.
by LOL ANARCHY NUBZ » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:55 pm
Omigodtheyclonedkenny wrote:The most cogent remark from the last debate came from, believe it or not, Todd McCloud:Todd McCloud wrote:As a side note, it has become clear to me, at least, that the SC should be a separate entity of the GA, with its own quorums, votings, etc.
I really don't give a shit if resolutions set "precedents" by which the SC should be bound to abide; just give them their own chamber to brawl in, and let them do whatever the fuck they want. I think everyone, even gameplayers, can agree that the holding three votes on 10000 Islands in a single session wouldn't be quite so annoying if the WA didn't keep having to switch off between branches just to do it. The SC could pass a hundred thousand 10000 Islands C&Cs/repeals if it really wanted -- and a hundred thousand more repeals of Condemn NAZI EUROPE after that -- and do it all in half the time if they had their voting mechanism.
The only pressing question here is, will [violet] be willing to listen to players' concerns this time?
by Mad Sheep Railgun » Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:16 pm
Omigodtheyclonedkenny wrote:The only pressing question here is, will [violet] be willing to listen to players' concerns this time?
by Sedgistan » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:35 pm
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:Omigodtheyclonedkenny wrote:The only pressing question here is, will [violet] be willing to listen to players' concerns this time?
Seriously? I doubt it. And you're right (and so is Todd), the sensible solution would be to separate the SC and GA entirely so that they don't interfere with one another in any way.
by Martyrdoom » Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:16 pm
Unibot wrote:[...]The Commendation of 10000 islands lacked evidence, and an argument, it relied on people's moral love of defenders to vote for it, instead of facts -- that certainly isn't neutral in my book.[...]
by Todd McCloud » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:01 am
by Sedgistan » Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:38 am
by Mad Sheep Railgun » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:05 am
Sedgistan wrote:With regards to the 'time honoured tradition' clause, to explain better why I'd ignore it (aside from the fact that it would otherwise invalidate the WA), you just have to look at other passed WA resolutions to see that the WA is obviously not neutral on nations/regions (eg especially "Condemn Macedon"). These resolutions set a precedent as much as "Repeal Commend 10000 Islands".
by Anime Daisuki » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:10 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement