NationStates

I know, the Condemnation hasn't been passed and I actually doubt it will. This draft actually is more of a support for why it shouldn't pass, however if the Condemnation DOES pass, then I will be submitting this proposal. In the meantime, if there are any changes I should make, please let me know. I don't write these very often and generally I am not very successful and I'd appreciate the criticism so I can perhaps move to different proposals in the future.

Should the Condemnation be struck down in the voting phase, I will obviously abandon this proposal. Formatting was borrowed (haha stole sorry ._.) from the Condemn Bitely thread OP.

Repeal "Condemn Bitely"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal| Resolution: SC#183* | Proposed by: The LBP Union

---

Description: The Security Council,

Acknowledging that SC#183* refers to Bitely's actions as "mistakes."

Noting the resolution referral to Bitely's behavior towards other members of this Assembly as "insulting" and mentions Bitely built a region based on a proposal.

Affirming that all regions have the right to sovereignty unless they violate another region's sovereignty.

Hence Believing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the region of World Space Administration existing, no matter how business is conducted within it.

Also Noting that the nation of Bitely's behavior towards other World Assembly members that is described as "insulting" came after the discussion of the condemnation.

Considering that the arguments for SC#183* were aggressive, it is reasonable to argue that Bitely was provoked by the aggressive attitudes of SC#183.*

Understanding that supporters of SC#183 used Bitely's rash actions against the country and used this as a smear campaign, further provoking Bitely to continue his uncalled for actions.

Dismayed by Bitely's actions which violated World Assembly membership laws, which inevitably led to their ejection from the WA.

Reminding this Security Council that this happens all the time and is not a major problem, as even if the nation was able to pass a proposal using illegal WA membership tactics, such a proposal can easily be repealed.

Noting SC#183's* description of GA#336 as "objectively awful legislation," which is an improper description, and should be changed to "subjectively awful legislation" since the adjective "awful" is an opinion.

Recalling that Bitely skipped the drafting stage for his proposal and used telegram campaigning to support #336 World Space Administration.

Confused as to why this is a condemnable act, as drafting is a choice by the author to refine their chances of success and the effectiveness of their proposal, and telegram campaigning is a common practice by many WA members trying to pass proposals.

Referring to SC#183's* section on GA#336,

"Recalling that the resolution in question, "World Space Administration", hereafter referred to as GA#336, is such a complete trainwreck of a resolution that it enacts meaningless bureaucracy on WA nations, to the benefit of practically no one, and that it harms space-capable nations, nations who are developing space-flight, and nations who do not wish to develop space flight alike, thereby failing completely in its presumed goal;"


Reminding this Council that GA#336 has been repealed by a huge voting margin.

Questioning why the initial passage of GA#336 is a lasting negative effect on the world if it was repealed within the first few weeks.

Recalling the previous discussion in this repeal of how Bitely is being provoked by the condemnation.

Reasoning that a large number of World Assembly members campaigning to condemn a nation is not good motivation for a Bitely to change its ways.

Concluding that by pursuing SC#183,* Bitely's actions are therefore a partial fault of this Security Council and is similar to bullying.

Recognizing SC#183's* note of Bitely's future plans to pass a replacement for the GA#336 and a new proposal called the "Irritable Bowel Syndrome Act" and how the author SC#336* believes that the WSA replacement is "even worse than the original."

Pointing out that if one dislikes a proposal they don't have to vote for it.

Further reminding that if they still manage to pass they can always be repealed.

Appalled that SC#183* believes that campaigning against a repeal is a condemnable act, even if Bitely may have lied about the WSA to protect it, he ultimately failed.

Further disappointed that SC#183* refers to the region of World Space Administration's telegram campaign to lure nations into the region as violating an "unspoken rule of only recruiting nations from Pacific regions."

Emphasizing that "unspoken rules" are not actual laws and nations who left their regions to join the World Space Administration did so by choice.

Acknowledging that nations in the World Space Administration region act as if they are making regulations for the agency.

However, this region obviously has no power over other regions and they can act however they want within their own region as they have sovereignty.

Impatient with the fact that none of the points listed so far have had a major and/or lasting affect on inter-regional peace, security and politics.

Feeling that Bitely's remarks, proposals, ejection from the WA and region are not significant causes for a condemnation.

Recalling this repeal's first liner, where SC#183* refers to Bitely's actions as "mistakes."

Believing that everyone makes mistakes in their lives and they should attempt to correct them.

Encourages this World Assembly to treat Bitely with respect, and if the nation refuses to correct its ways, not to harass or bully it by any method, including by using this Security Council.

Without Further Ado,

Repeals Security Council Resolution #183* "Condemn Bitely"

EDIT: Yes, I am aware that the Condemnation proposal is using this preemptive repeal and all its edits to augment its strength and get better. Because I strongly believe and understand that Bitely is not worthy of a condemnation, I will still continue to edit this proposal, (even though it would be much more successful to just hide it and let the Condemnation pass (or fail) and then propose one that counters all its flaws which cannot be defended against easily.) The reason I continue to edit this proposal is to exhaust the condemnation effort of good points by destroying each one.

Has Bitely actually passed more than one resolution? Otherwise the plural is a bit unnecessary.

Ambroscus Koth wrote:Has Bitely actually passed more than one resolution? Otherwise the plural is a bit unnecessary.

Good point, editing. Danke

Probably going to end up supporting this, the WSA is an Abomination, but it was by no means worthy of a condemnation.

Tinfect wrote:Probably going to end up supporting this, the WSA is an Abomination, but it was by no means worthy of a condemnation.

Overall, Bitely has potential to be an author, but we need to encourage him to refine his ideas on the forums first. I suggest a repeal of the WSA and request he drafts his new replacement proposal here so we can help contribute to his ideas.

The LBP Union wrote:Overall, Bitely has potential to be an author, but we need to encourage him to refine his ideas on the forums first. I suggest a repeal of the WSA and request he drafts his new replacement proposal here so we can help contribute to his ideas.

I don't quite trust him to be writing another attempt, I'd rather that some FT, or at least competent Nations pulled one together.

Well if nobody teaches him (unless he decides to not accept our help) then he definitely won't be competent.

The LBP Union wrote:Well if nobody teaches him (unless he decides to not accept our help) then he definitely won't be competent.

I am sure many of us in the GA would be willing to help him out, if he would actually listen to us. He ignored most, if not all criticism during Drafting.

In the event that this proposal is needed, you will need two endorsements to submit.

Ramaeus wrote:In the event that this proposal is needed, you will need two endorsements to submit.

?? I thought I had two. One of our region members resigned from WA. i'm sure I can convince him to sign back up to help me out. In any case, I can get that second endorsement fairly easily.

No support. EP wants this condemnation passed so bad, let it stay if it passes. It should be a monument to the sheer fucking stupidity that the WA has become.

The Silver Sentinel wrote:No support. EP wants this condemnation passed so bad, let it stay if it passes. It should be a monument to the sheer fucking stupidity that the WA has become.

I'm afraid that's not a proper argument, my friend. Regardless, this is a repeal for a resolution that we are not certain will pass yet, so if we could perhaps move this debate to the condemnation thread?

edit: wait im kinda confused were you being sarcastic

I think I'll use some of the arguments here to write my second draft of "Condemn Bitely".

Also, why would you want to take away Bitely's badge?

Bitely doesn't deserve a badge. He hasn't done anything outstandingly good or bad for the NationStates community.

I will be editing my draft to account for the latest new draft posted for the Condemnation.

The LBP Union wrote:Bitely doesn't deserve a badge. He hasn't done anything outstandingly good or bad for the NationStates community.

If you ever need this Repeal, I could argue that the majority of the WA believes Bitely deserves a badge.

But even if it doesn't get passed, People disagree:

Ambroscus Koth wrote:Who cares? He used the completely legitimate tools he had access to and made something happen with them. That seems like something we should be commending, sticking with your proposal until the very end and doing what it takes to get it through. More GA authors should be like Bitely.

I hardly count as the majority opinion in the WA, just so you know. Consider me more of the guy who throws tomatoes at the guy speaking his political opinion than anything else

Yeah I was going to say something about throwing a few quotes at me isn't going to prove that the whole WA thinks that but I think you about covered it, Koth

I'll support this if the Bitely condemnation passes. Good preparing, LBP Union.

Hey so, one of my region's nations got removed from the World Assembly for rule violations and another nation ceased to exist due to inactivity so I am unable to get a second endorsement. In order to get this through I may need to temporarily join another region to submit or I'll need to do some recruiting

The LBP Union wrote:Yeah I was going to say something about throwing a few quotes at me isn't going to prove that the whole WA thinks that but I think you about covered it, Koth

But if "Condemn Bitely" passed (the only reason you'd need this repeal), wouldn't that be evidence that the majority of the WA agrees with Koth, that Bitely does deserve a badge?

Excidium Planetis wrote:

The LBP Union wrote:Yeah I was going to say something about throwing a few quotes at me isn't going to prove that the whole WA thinks that but I think you about covered it, Koth

But if "Condemn Bitely" passed (the only reason you'd need this repeal), wouldn't that be evidence that the majority of the WA agrees with Koth, that Bitely does deserve a badge?

Not if I proved that they made a mistake. At least I'm planning on a repeal to solve a problem, unlike someone who thinks a condemnation will solve everything

Excidium Planetis wrote:

The LBP Union wrote:Yeah I was going to say something about throwing a few quotes at me isn't going to prove that the whole WA thinks that but I think you about covered it, Koth

But if "Condemn Bitely" passed (the only reason you'd need this repeal), wouldn't that be evidence that the majority of the WA agrees with Koth, that Bitely does deserve a badge?

But if "World Space Administration" passed, wouldn't that be evidence that the majority of the WA agrees with Bitely and his resolution, and thus that Bitely doesn't deserve his condemnation?

OOC: No, I don't care about the strange use of tenses there.

Mundiferrum wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:
But if "Condemn Bitely" passed (the only reason you'd need this repeal), wouldn't that be evidence that the majority of the WA agrees with Koth, that Bitely does deserve a badge?

But if "World Space Administration" passed, wouldn't that be evidence that the majority of the WA agrees with Bitely and his resolution, and thus that Bitely doesn't deserve his condemnation?

OOC: No, I don't care about the strange use of tenses there.

While I agree with you, this belongs in the Condemnation topic, not here. Discussion here should be about the preemptive repeal

Mundiferrum wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:
But if "Condemn Bitely" passed (the only reason you'd need this repeal), wouldn't that be evidence that the majority of the WA agrees with Koth, that Bitely does deserve a badge?

But if "World Space Administration" passed, wouldn't that be evidence that the majority of the WA agrees with Bitely and his resolution, and thus that Bitely doesn't deserve his condemnation?

OOC: No, I don't care about the strange use of tenses there.

No, it'd be evidence that Bitely's campaign swayed ignorant voters.
But even if the majority voted for WSA after careful consideration, Bitely could still deserve a Condemnation for what World Space Administration did after it was passed.

Don't worry, Bitely condemned himself.
It's like a parody except made by someone who is really pissed off but can't do anything.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1437814727

Just shows how desperate he is at getting back at the 49%.