[withdrawn]Repeal Condemn Milograd

[Abacathea]

Description:
Noting the good work that the Security Council and the World Assembly as a whole strives to achieve for all nations within it's borders,

Further noting that within the WA borders are nations who ultimately subvert the intentions and mission statement of the WA, one of which is the nation of Milograd.

Acknowledging that this nations condemnation is well deserved, however noting that two condemnations of an individual nation is not required and furthermore unnecessary having been condemned by both SC #77 and SC #96 alike.

Seeking to clear the WA legislate of non-essential or unnecessary bills, while still acknowledging the reasoning behind the condemnation of Milograd,

While furthermore identifying SC #96 as a more comprehensive condemnation of Milograd

Hereby repeals "Condemn Milograd" SC #67.

[Cromarty]

Against this.

[Abacathea]

Against this.

Want to offer a rational at least as opposed to a blanket statement?

[Cromarty]

Against this.

Want to offer a rational at least as opposed to a blanket statement?

I disagree with this because rp condemns are usually rewards for being great members of the community and contributing a lot.

Milograd's contributions deserve at least two condemnations.

[Jamie Anumia]

The ambassador from Jamie Anumia entered the Security Council chambers, sighed and took her turn to speak.
"Opposed. Milograd deserves the condemnation for their hideous actions! Repealing their condemnation would suggest acceptance of their government's barbaric nature!"
OOC: Milograd is an awesome RP'er, and deserves the condemn for RP'ing their nations so evilly + excellently.

[Abacathea]

Want to offer a rational at least as opposed to a blanket statement?

I disagree with this because rp condemns are usually rewards for being great members of the community and contributing a lot.

Milograd's contributions deserve at least two condemnations.

I think you've confused condemnations with commendations??

[SkyDip]

I disagree with this because rp condemns are usually rewards for being great members of the community and contributing a lot.

Milograd's contributions deserve at least two condemnations.

I think you've confused condemnations with commendations??

Mmmmmm nope. S/he RPs as a "bad guy," ergo Condemnations are appropriate. I'm also against a repeal.

[Cromarty]

I think you've confused condemnations with commendations??

Mmmmmm nope. S/he RPs as a "bad guy," ergo Condemnations are appropriate. I'm also against a repeal.

He.

And SkyDip is correct.

[Abacathea]

The ambassador from Jamie Anumia entered the Security Council chambers, sighed and took her turn to speak.
"Opposed. Milograd deserves the condemnation for their hideous actions! Repealing their condemnation would suggest acceptance of their government's barbaric nature!"
OOC: Milograd is an awesome RP'er, and deserves the condemn for RP'ing their nations so evilly + excellently.

Dearest Ambassador,

I'm not disputing the need to identify Milograds fantastic RP, I have viewed some of it and I'm inclined to agree, I just see the requirement of two as a bit of a moot point, surely one (the more comprehensive of the two) would be sufficient to identify Milograd as they are?

Regions like the the black riders and whatnot have only one condemnation and it is adequate, why is Milograd an exception?

[United States of Natan]

the USN shall stand against this repeal. in fact, if anything, he deserves a 3rd condemnation.

[SkyDip]

The ambassador from Jamie Anumia entered the Security Council chambers, sighed and took her turn to speak.
"Opposed. Milograd deserves the condemnation for their hideous actions! Repealing their condemnation would suggest acceptance of their government's barbaric nature!"
OOC: Milograd is an awesome RP'er, and deserves the condemn for RP'ing their nations so evilly + excellently.

Dearest Ambassador,

I'm not disputing the need to identify Milograds fantastic RP, I have viewed some of it and I'm inclined to agree, I just see the requirement of two as a bit of a moot point, surely one (the more comprehensive of the two) would be sufficient to identify Milograd as they are?

Regions like the the black riders and whatnot have only one condemnation and it is adequate, why is Milograd an exception?

He has RPed a lot of excellent material,obviously. If the two Condemnations don't cover the same ground and there is still enough material to get two well-wrtitten Condemnations out of Milograd's actions, I'd say that warrants two Condemnations.

[Sanctaria]

Against. Milo deserves both of those condemnations.

[Jamie Anumia]

The ambassador from Jamie Anumia entered the Security Council chambers, sighed and took her turn to speak.
"Opposed. Milograd deserves the condemnation for their hideous actions! Repealing their condemnation would suggest acceptance of their government's barbaric nature!"
OOC: Milograd is an awesome RP'er, and deserves the condemn for RP'ing their nations so evilly + excellently.

Dearest Ambassador,

I'm not disputing the need to identify Milograds fantastic RP, I have viewed some of it and I'm inclined to agree, I just see the requirement of two as a bit of a moot point, surely one (the more comprehensive of the two) would be sufficient to identify Milograd as they are?

Regions like the the black riders and whatnot have only one condemnation and it is adequate, why is Milograd an exception?

OOC: TBR's condemnation was a condemnation for gameplay based actions, so is not comparable.
IC: The ambassador from Jamie Anumia listened, nodded and responded.
"All what Milograd was condemned for could not have been present in simply one condemnation, hence a second became necessary. There are times when one resolution can not some up the full disapproval of the actions of a government, and this is one of those times."

[Abacathea]

So to paraphrase the SC guidelines;

if the nominee is being commended/condemned to 'immortalize their actions for future generations to learn from', then it could be argued that these actions are for the benefit of the NationStates community, rather than the nominee,

Seems to be abandoned based more on a "preference of the regulars towards an individual nation" basis rather than an SC guidelines as a whole basis?

I can see based on the instantaneous jump on the bandwagon of "we shall never allow this to pass" that there is no point in seeing this further. However, it does seem ridiculous that one extensive SC condemnation is less favourable than two which both do the exact same thing in essence.

[SkyDip]

<snip>

Realistically, also, there's a character limit for proposals. So you can't have one long scroll of text and two separate proposals are often necessary.

[Abacathea]

Very well, I conceed here. Not because I don't believe my course here was valid, but because I can see the sheer amount of opposition I'd be levied with.

[SkyDip]

Very well, I conceed here. Not because I don't believe my course here was valid, but because I can see the sheer amount of opposition I'd be levied with.

That's not to say those that have spoken up here speak for every WA voter, but I think you would be hard-pressed to write a decent-enough repeal to redact either of Milograd's Condemnations.

[Abacathea]

Very well, I conceed here. Not because I don't believe my course here was valid, but because I can see the sheer amount of opposition I'd be levied with.

That's not to say those that have spoken up here speak for every WA voter, but I think you would be hard-pressed to write a decent-enough repeal to redact either of Milograd's Condemnations.

I suspect thats the case alright. C'est la vie. Ah well, no hard feelings.