[WITHDRAWN] Condemn United Federation of Canada

[The Dourian Embassy]

Now I'm trying to remember why I let that die.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Now I'm trying to remember why I let that die.

Because disarmament is impossible with the current population of NationStates.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yeah, I'm willing to concede that this may be a Rule 2 violation. It's just that this author's actions on this have been particularly risible. Stealing the work of a political opponent to push an agenda completely at odds with said opponent's beliefs is beyond the pale, even for your typical IntFed.

On the one hand, you accuse a person of plagiarism. On the other hand, you accuse them of using that plagiarized work in the opposite of its original intent.

I don't understand how that's possible, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

"Using that plagiarized work" as part of an agenda that is the complete opposite of the original author's intent, yes. UFC has a record of introducing proposals for the express purpose of disarming the World Assembly, and I have no doubt that the current resolution is just part of that campaign, and has precious little to do with a sincere concern to quell nuclear proliferation.

[Imperializt Russia]

On the one hand, you accuse a person of plagiarism. On the other hand, you accuse them of using that plagiarized work in the opposite of its original intent.

I don't understand how that's possible, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

"Using that plagiarized work" as part of an agenda that is the complete opposite of the original author's intent, yes. UFC has a record of introducing proposals for the express purpose of disarming the World Assembly, and I have no doubt that the current resolution is just part of that campaign, and has precious little to do with a sincere concern to quell nuclear proliferation.

His statements on the topic have pretty much admitted this is a back door NAPA repeal, or as close to.

[Abacathea]

"Using that plagiarized work" as part of an agenda that is the complete opposite of the original author's intent, yes. UFC has a record of introducing proposals for the express purpose of disarming the World Assembly, and I have no doubt that the current resolution is just part of that campaign, and has precious little to do with a sincere concern to quell nuclear proliferation.

His statements on the topic have pretty much admitted this is a back door NAPA repeal, or as close to.

None of which qualify as condemnation worthy.

It has widely been the practice of the Security Council in instances such as this when someone came in to the forum crying "condemn X, because they did bad rule breaky stuff" that the answer was "take it to moderation". Now, we're trying to shoehorn a condemnation in by the same reasoning but trying to justify it as "yes, but it's all part of a larger scope of things"? Nonsense.

Either it's one rule for all, or the rules or pointless. If you want to condemn UFoC go for it, let the process run and see where it leads, if it's justified it will survive off it's own merits, but this "plagiarism" bull being the crux of it is crap.

[SkyDip]

Condemning nations for by what all accounts seems to be an honest mistake in using a piece of somewhat fuzzily-defined open source work is completely idiotic. Probably tantamount to Condemning for a proposal that the moderators thought was legal enough to get quorum...and nothing else.

Thanks for the brief lolz, but this proposal can go away now.

[Glen-Rhodes]

On the one hand, you accuse a person of plagiarism. On the other hand, you accuse them of using that plagiarized work in the opposite of its original intent.

I don't understand how that's possible, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

"Using that plagiarized work" as part of an agenda that is the complete opposite of the original author's intent, yes. UFC has a record of introducing proposals for the express purpose of disarming the World Assembly, and I have no doubt that the current resolution is just part of that campaign, and has precious little to do with a sincere concern to quell nuclear proliferation.

So you want to condemn UFC for promoting disarmament, fine. Good luck with that. But don't pretend otherwise by saying UFC's version of nuclear nonproliferation was going against the original author's intent, if the allegedly plagiarized proposal was all about nuclear nonproliferation.

[Retired WerePenguins]

So I don't know if the popular opinion is that

1. This isn't a SC matter
2. It's not enough in and of itself to condemn
3. WA people can go take a hike.

I can't see how this is lesser than the condemnation of my region's founder for the purely role play aspect of his "Creative Solutions Agency" (SCR 17 back in 2010). Since we still have a nice debate going, I'll keep it in [DRAFT] form for now.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Condemning nations for by what all accounts seems to be an honest mistake in using a piece of somewhat fuzzily-defined open source work is completely idiotic. Probably tantamount to Condemning for a proposal that the moderators thought was legal enough to get quorum...and nothing else.

Thanks for the brief lolz, but this proposal can go away now.

Oh no, thank you for the lolz. "Fuzzily defined open source work"? "Moderators thought it was legal enough to get to quorum"? Man, I thought you were ignorant of GA conventions before, but this is too much!

[SkyDip]

Condemning nations for by what all accounts seems to be an honest mistake in using a piece of somewhat fuzzily-defined open source work is completely idiotic. Probably tantamount to Condemning for a proposal that the moderators thought was legal enough to get quorum...and nothing else.

Thanks for the brief lolz, but this proposal can go away now.

Oh no, thank you for the lolz. "Fuzzily defined open source work"? "Moderators thought it was legal enough to get to quorum"? Man, I thought you were ignorant of GA conventions before, but this is too much!

Er...what's your argument here, exactly? I'm afraid I don't see one. Perhaps you should revisit the SC rules if you think Condemnations based on plagiarism claims are allowed.

[United Federation of Canada]

I would also like to point out it was not direct plsgarism.. Yes the idea is the same, but the clauses were changed.

If it is plagarism to use a clause similar to someone elses, then I say we condemn everyone that starts out their proposal with "The World Assembly". As that clause was used by someone else.

What about someone who uses the exact same preamble of a previous author, and then just slightly paraphrases the operative section, just so they could say that they didn't really steal someone else's proposal? Because that's what you did.

May I also point out we still have not heard Franxico's rebuttal?

We did. He said he did not give you permission. And on the AO boards, he said to "crucify" you. That does not sound like someone who's willing to be flexible on this.

This is politics plain and simple.

Yes, the politics of stealing a NatSov's proposal and passing it off as your own so you can continue pushing your fluffy anti-nuke, pro-appeasement agenda in the World Assembly. They are your politics that are serially inundating the GA queue, not ours.

Your words:

by Omigodtheykilledkenny » 17 Nov 2012, 15:14

I seem to recall a mod ruling telling players not to hold offsite remarks against people on the NS forums. Being that there's no positive way to verify that offsite accounts are actually controlled by the same people as the NS nations that have the same name. I'm not saying GR's wrong that I said that, but I am saying that he is taking my remarks way out of context and that it's bad form to be posting screenshots like that to imply that there's some sort of "secret conspiracy" afoot to screw over the peaceniks. There is not, and for the record, Douria and I have not been coordinating on this proposal at all, save for the public remarks made on the AO forums and this thread.
--Chief Kennyite minister for Saying Stuff

** Celebrating not being the most failed author in UN/WA history anymore (now tied with Glen-Rhodes) **

viewtopic.php?p=11652822#p11652822

Quite the flip-flop there, I must say. Almost makes me wonder if your not taking lessons from Mr. Stark.

Regards,

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh, sorry. Are my complaints equivalent to a mod ruling now? I'm quite positive a mod ruled against me on that, but if you want to do even more sleuthing to prove me wrong I won't hold it against you.

Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. There's much difference between holding someone's offsite comments against them on the NS forums, which is what GR was doing, and matter-of-factly stating something they said offsite to answer a player's question, which is what I did. If you can't see that, then I really don't know what to tell you.

[United Federation of Canada]

Oh, sorry. Are my complaints equivalent to a mod ruling now? I'm quite positive a mod ruled against me on that, but if you want to do even more sleuthing to prove me wrong I won't hold it against you.

Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. There's much difference between holding someone's offsite comments against them on the NS forums, which is what GR was doing, and matter-of-factly stating something they said offsite to answer a player's question, which is what I did. If you can't see that, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Then tell your lackey to go full steam with this. I know Dip would love nothing more than to repeal it, and as I see you love your badge so much, I can have one too. Then we'll be twins!!!!

Oh I can see it now.............

[Bergnovinaia]

I would also like to point out it was not direct plsgarism.. Yes the idea is the same, but the clauses were changed.

If it is plagarism to use a clause similar to someone elses, then I say we condemn everyone that starts out their proposal with "The World Assembly". As that clause was used by someone else.

Your lack of understanding of what 'plagiarism' is defined as is reprehensible. Using the exact pre-ambulatory clauses, word for word, is not some accident. Nor is it paraphrasing or summary. It's plagiarism. Also, do not even try to employ non sequitur logic to justify your actions. Beginning proposals with "The World Assembly" is standard formatting, not plagiarism.

We additionally find your ad hominem attacks on Kenny deplorable. You claim to not care about this being politics (which I firmly doubt, actually, given your response here). However, these attacks against Kenny for highly irrelevant matters are only a sad attempt to distract from your own egregious behavior.

This is truly a shame. The Bergnovinaian delegation had faith in you as a respectable author and member of this esteemed assembly. It appears that our thoughts have been unfortunately misplaced.

Should this be submitted for approval, we will likely not approve this matter since it is solely based on the premise that the plagiarism committed by UFC warrants a condemnation. We do not feel this is necessary, as the backlash of the World Assembly community over the matter seems to sufficiently be enough action.

Yours,

Ms. Thekenabil
Head of the Bergnovinaian WA Delegation
Author of Several Resolutions
Blah... blah... blah...

[Helltank]

Nobody here has as yet rebutted the argument that it was all a big misunderstanding, that Canada actually meant to take the work legitimately, but misunderstood Franxico's meaning when he gave permission to another nation?

Also what about the fact that, even if he DID blatantly rip off Franxico, this is not an SC issue? It's a moderator issue. I'm against putting somebody who probably just leaped to conclusions in the same category as New Edom or Durkadurkaranistan II.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Nobody here has as yet rebutted the argument that it was all a big misunderstanding, that Canada actually meant to take the work legitimately, but misunderstood Franxico's meaning when he gave permission to another nation?

I'm still interested in the legality and practicality of the proposal in the first place.

(And yes I have looked at the rules, a nation's actions includes actions in the General Assembly, as far as I understand it. If you think that it does violate the rules somehow, tell me why.)

The argument that the argument, as it were, doesn't have legs because there isn't proof of clear intent to plagiarize is an issue before final submission, approvals by delegates and of course the final vote.

Frankly, at this point I think the actual charges don't have enough legs to actually get passed and then that would be a waste of everyone's time. But if the case was more solid, would this be a valid reason? Because I've seen worse arguments before in this forum go to a vote.

[SkyDip]

This is illegal under 2c. Plagiarism is a moderation complaint, and since this proposal has no substance aside from that issue, the whole proposal is illegal.

[Abacathea]

This is illegal under 2c. Plagiarism is a moderation complaint, and since this proposal has no substance aside from that issue, the whole proposal is illegal.

Agreed, as previously stated by myself, this would be my view on this too. Moderation complaints should not (and the precedent has been set for this before) be the basis of an S.C condemnation.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is illegal under 2c. Plagiarism is a moderation complaint, and since this proposal has no substance aside from that issue, the whole proposal is illegal.

...which is why I encouraged the author to make his charges part of an overarching argument about unilaterally disarming the WA, not just stealing one resolution.

However, seeing as the mods have acted on this, and the penalty was quite severe, I respectfully withdraw my support for this condemnation and urge the author to shelve it.

[The Saint James Confederation]

WA, I think we need to have a long, hard talk. We have had suspicions for a while that the WA was the legendary ninth level of hell. That this was a snake pit concerned only with rabidly devouring that which it reviles. We fear that we may have been proven correct.

Recent proposals have been of much concern to us. Several proposals to rescind rights the WA rightly defend have been sledged, forcing the drafting sessions to be closed down. A nation has, in quite poor form, declared war on the floor of the WA. Repeals upon useless, poorly written repeals constantly make their way to the approvals floor, not to mention the much useful legislation that suffers the actual fate of repeal.

And then there's the Nuclear Proliferation Accords. A once proper debate that devolved into a screaming match/witch hunt. Luckily, this condemnation has no chance of ever passing due to its illegality and the opposition of major WA players. We urge the author to withdraw this proposal immediately. But to be proposed in the first place is an insult not to the United Federation of Canada, who need not more humiliation after their ejection, but to the entire World Assembly. To see a supposedly great debate hall go down this path of vindictiveness is unacceptable. While we stand not in opposition to the WA itself, we stand in opposition to what it now is. We shall therefore involve ourselves no further.

With this, we shall voluntarily get into the defenestration catapults that are quite regrettably present. If someone may please be merciful enough to show us the way out.

[Retired WerePenguins]

I have two comments that are completely unrelated to each other.

First Comment: The creation of resolutions, both here and in the GA are things that are done by NATIONS (hence the notion of SC IC) and as such are clearly actionable by the SC. The fact that as a technical requirement it takes a GHR to remove a proposal from the queue does not mean that resolutions are OOC and moderation functions only. Some (ok ONE) people may disagree but I haven't heard any official word on this matter and so I will consider them wrong and me right.

Second Comment: I was looking for, at most a slap on the wrist and a scarlet letter. While I wasn't pleased with his snotty retort the case was made for an honest mistake, at which point I was only arguing the first comment. I certainly wasn't looking for anything close to eviction from the WA. This like calling out someone to a duel with sabers only to see him step on a land mine.

Third Comment: Oh that's right, I only had two comments. I won't mention my third.