[DEFEATED] Repeal "Liberate Utopia" (by Yodle)

[Imperium Anglorum]

(MODEDIT: Split from Illegal thread. Submitted by Yodle.)

Repeal "Liberate Utopia"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: SC#13
Proposed by: Ichu

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #13: Liberate Utopia shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Recognizing the necessity of SC #13 (Liberate Utopia) back in 2009, when The Alliance of Dictators invaded and placed an invisible password on the region; however,

Noting that the region was re-founded in 2012 with a founder who has taken away executive authority from the WA Delegate position, making the liberation pointless to the region in its current state;

Further noting that the region hasn’t been active in the last year and is now only inhabited by the inactive founder and another native, making the repealing of this liberation long overdue;

Hereby repeals SC #13 (Liberate Utopia).

You can find it here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1468732618

Good evening fellow delegates,

I highly encourage you to approve Repeal "Liberate Utopia", as it is a very outdated and forgotten liberation from 2009 that has managed to slip through the cracks, even after the region was re-founded in 2012 with a founder who has not CTE'd. The region also hasn't been inactive in the past 100 days to one year, along with the fact that the WA Delegate position in the region does not have executive authority, making the liberation absolutely useless to that region. This is a clear cut case that requires no more explanation.

Thank you,

Yodle

[Wrapper]

Countercampaign as well:

Good morning, Wrapper,

There is no reason to repeal "Liberate Utopia". The only argument which the author presents is that it is old. The fact that something is old is no reason to repeal it.

Things that are old have intrinsic value due to their age. They inform us of the history of this game. They tell us about struggles of the past and their purpose is to establish norms of behaviour. When we pass resolutions in the Security Council, the NationStates community as a whole sets the baseline of acceptable behaviour and what we believe is correct.

Repealing this resolution implicitly declares that the actions which the Alliance of Dictators took are acceptable.

If you believe that people should not destroy regions, put in invisible passwords to close them down, and eject their natives — then you should not approve this repeal. Approving it sends a message that what these raiders did in 2009 is acceptable today. Considering that the threat of invasion is just as strong as it was in the past, this is not a message that endangers regional security.

I hope that you join us in rejecting this attempt to legitimise regional destruction. Considering that this was submitted without any discussion, deliberation, or drafting in the Security Council forum, this will also give time for the author to reconsider the broader implications of his actions. You can withdraw your approval of the resolution at the link in the spoiler below.

Yours,

Ardortia

I tend to agree, old things aren't necessarily bad things. Now get off my lawn.

[Yodle]

Countercampaign as well:

Good morning, Wrapper,

There is no reason to repeal "Liberate Utopia". The only argument which the author presents is that it is old. The fact that something is old is no reason to repeal it.

Things that are old have intrinsic value due to their age. They inform us of the history of this game. They tell us about struggles of the past and their purpose is to establish norms of behaviour. When we pass resolutions in the Security Council, the NationStates community as a whole sets the baseline of acceptable behaviour and what we believe is correct.

Repealing this resolution implicitly declares that the actions which the Alliance of Dictators took are acceptable.

If you believe that people should not destroy regions, put in invisible passwords to close them down, and eject their natives — then you should not approve this repeal. Approving it sends a message that what these raiders did in 2009 is acceptable today. Considering that the threat of invasion is just as strong as it was in the past, this is not a message that endangers regional security.

I hope that you join us in rejecting this attempt to legitimise regional destruction. Considering that this was submitted without any discussion, deliberation, or drafting in the Security Council forum, this will also give time for the author to reconsider the broader implications of his actions. You can withdraw your approval of the resolution at the link in the spoiler below.

Yours,

Ardortia

I tend to agree, old things aren't necessarily bad things. Now get off my lawn.

I personally find great meaning in old things and history, however I was under the impression that most liberations get repealed once they're no longer necessary. But if it was intentionally not repealed and not just forgotten about since it was one of the early SC resolutions then I can see where Ardortia is coming from. By no means am I pro raider though, I did author my own region's liberation from HYDRA Command after all. This'll be interesting how it plays out lol

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Removal of Liberations are usually done with native support - as you don't appear to have acquired that then against.

[Sciongrad]

I personally find great meaning in old things and history, however I was under the impression that most liberations get repealed once they're no longer necessary. But if it was intentionally not repealed and not just forgotten about since it was one of the early SC resolutions then I can see where Ardortia is coming from. By no means am I pro raider though, I did author my own region's liberation from HYDRA Command after all. This'll be interesting how it plays out lol

OOC: Posting a draft on the forum is typically a good way to find out if your proposal is appropriate. You didn't check to see if the repeal had native support, you didn't attempt to verify any of the facts on which you determined the necessity of a repeal, and, by your own admission, weren't even sure under what circumstances a repeal of a liberation is necessary. Lesson learned: always post a draft on the forums.

[Talkistan]

Since I am not of the opinion that archaic laws [OOC eg. permitted killing of a Scotsman carrying archery equipment in York] should exist once they cease to serve their purpose, I think the existing resolution should be sent to the archivists as soon as possible and not remain a matter of international consideration.

[Yodle]

This is more of a general question regarding old liberations, but, if it is the case in which all the original natives are long CTE'd and the liberation is clearly no longer necessary, whom do I ask for permission to submit the repeal? Also, is it the case where natives must support the repeal? Because I most certainly do not support this: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=383470

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

This is more of a general question regarding old liberations, but, if it is the case in which all the original natives are long CTE'd and the liberation is clearly no longer necessary, whom do I ask for permission to submit the repeal? Also, is it the case where natives must support the repeal? Because I most certainly do not support this: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=383470

So, basically just a badge hunt. That's good to know.

[Ardortia]

Since I am not of the opinion that archaic laws [OOC eg. permitted killing of a Scotsman carrying archery equipment in York] should exist once they cease to serve their purpose, I think the existing resolution should be sent to the archivists as soon as possible and not remain a matter of international consideration.

Entirely misses the point of my telegram. My telegram speaks about norms-setting and the manner in which we establish and enforce such norms on this site. Existing resolutions, like the one here, which helps to codify that norm and establish standards of behaviour ought not be repealed. Repeal is simply something which makes such action longer reprehensible.

This is more of a general question regarding old liberations, but, if it is the case in which all the original natives are long CTE'd and the liberation is clearly no longer necessary, whom do I ask for permission to submit the repeal? Also, is it the case where natives must support the repeal? Because I most certainly do not support this: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=383470

Why must there be a repeal? It seems to me that the reason there must be a repeal is nothing more than gilding your nation description.

[Yodle]

Since I am not of the opinion that archaic laws [OOC eg. permitted killing of a Scotsman carrying archery equipment in York] should exist once they cease to serve their purpose, I think the existing resolution should be sent to the archivists as soon as possible and not remain a matter of international consideration.

Entirely misses the point of my telegram. My telegram speaks about norms-setting and the manner in which we establish and enforce such norms on this site. Existing resolutions, like the one here, which helps to codify that norm and establish standards of behaviour ought not be repealed. Repeal is simply something which makes such action longer reprehensible.

This is more of a general question regarding old liberations, but, if it is the case in which all the original natives are long CTE'd and the liberation is clearly no longer necessary, whom do I ask for permission to submit the repeal? Also, is it the case where natives must support the repeal? Because I most certainly do not support this: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=383470

Why must there be a repeal? It seems to me that the reason there must be a repeal is nothing more than gilding your nation description.

I don't consider repeals as gilding my nation description, anyone can write a repeal, but passing actual resolutions is something different entirely (imo)

[Talkistan]

Entirely misses the point of my telegram. My telegram speaks about norms-setting and the manner in which we establish and enforce such norms on this site. Existing resolutions, like the one here, which helps to codify that norm and establish standards of behaviour ought not be repealed. Repeal is simply something which makes such action longer reprehensible.

Perhaps the tone of your telegram ("If you support repeal of this resolution, you are legitimizing regional destruction") causes me to disregard most of its content. There is no contiguous regional community left to be destroyed, no remaining natives to be subjugated. Once the region was refounded and does not have the same residents as before, it ceases to be the same region as before. Perhaps I care more about efficiency than symbolism in legislation. And it would be efficient to repeal the existing resolution with very few direct words and direct arguments, which the proposer seems to have done. Let the historians bother about history!

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

As with all liberations and their repeals, question number one is, do the natives support this? Seeing no native support for a repeal, I'm voting against.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

As TWP's Minister for WA Affairs I have advised our Delegate to stomp early and stomp against. Having seen no evidence for native support of this repeal I have come to the conclusion that the author looked through the list of extant Liberations and picked a soft target for his poison pen.

[Kelstenkovsky Co Islands]

I urge everyone to vote against this proposal, the region contains two nations, the founder is inactive, I see absolutely no reason to even concern ourselves with this matter - to me it looks as if the author randomly picked something to repeal for the sake of it.

[Corrivilia]

As with all liberations and their repeals, question number one is, do the natives support this? Seeing no native support for a repeal, I'm voting against.

The region currently only has two nations that don't seem all that active (Last activity for both were 40 and 11 days respectively), so that's kind of a moot point. Besides, leaving this resolution standing could actually hinder Utopia in the future if it ever becomes a growing, active region again.

[Corrivilia]

I urge everyone to vote against this proposal, the region contains two nations, the founder is inactive, I see absolutely no reason to even concern ourselves with this matter - to me it looks as if the author randomly picked something to repeal for the sake of it.

It's a 7+ year old resolution that doesn't even apply to the region in question anymore. Leaving it standing wouldn't benefit anyone, and could actually cause problems for Utopia down the road, if it ever regains activity.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I really want to put in the title, [VOTE NAY].

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I really want to put in the title, [VOTE NAY].

I'd go further [VOTE NAY - BADGE HUNT].

[Yodle]

I urge everyone to vote against this proposal, the region contains two nations, the founder is inactive, I see absolutely no reason to even concern ourselves with this matter - to me it looks as if the author randomly picked something to repeal for the sake of it.

As long as it's on the books it's the SC's concern

[Wrapper]

I really want to put in the title, [VOTE NAY].

Please don't.

[Yodle]

I really want to put in the title, [VOTE NAY].

I'd go further [VOTE NAY - BADGE HUNT].

I already have a SC authorship, what difference does an "x2" make?

[Yodle]

The resolution should have been repealed in 2012 when the region was refounded. Just because I noticed it and want to repeal it does not change the fact that it should no longer be on the books. Any active liberation resolution IS the SC's concern, just because it was in 2009 doesn't mean it's not still in effect.

[Yodle]

As with all liberations and their repeals, question number one is, do the natives support this? Seeing no native support for a repeal, I'm voting against.

When the native community is extinct and the liberation is no longer needed, a repeal is necessary. Just because everyone forgot about it doesn't mean nonexistent natives should keep it for nostalgia's sake. This is the Security Council, we should not keep in effect anything that is not necessary.

[Kelstenkovsky Co Islands]

Look mate you clearly just want a proposal to pass for whatever reason, and randomly chose this one, it's pointless and I condemn you for bringing it up, bizarre, moot and nonsensical are some words that spring to mind. Hopefully this will not pass and this can be a lesson to other people who want to just pick random stuff to repeal. get in the bin

[Almonaster Nuevo]

Since I am not of the opinion that archaic laws [OOC eg. permitted killing of a Scotsman carrying archery equipment in York] should exist once they cease to serve their purpose, I think the existing resolution should be sent to the archivists as soon as possible and not remain a matter of international consideration.

Entirely misses the point of my telegram. My telegram speaks about norms-setting and the manner in which we establish and enforce such norms on this site. Existing resolutions, like the one here, which helps to codify that norm and establish standards of behaviour ought not be repealed. Repeal is simply something which makes such action longer reprehensible.

I disagree. If actions are reprehensible, then the relevant motion is a condemnation. That should indeed stand as a record, unless significant actions are taken in mitigation.
A liberation, however, is a practical step taken with the usual intent of allowing natives to regain control of their region. Unless I'm missing something here, the natives are in control. The liberation only serves to prevent them passwording the region should they choose to do so. I see no reason why the SC should continue to intervene in their affairs.

This is more of a general question regarding old liberations, but, if it is the case in which all the original natives are long CTE'd and the liberation is clearly no longer necessary, whom do I ask for permission to submit the repeal? Also, is it the case where natives must support the repeal? Because I most certainly do not support this: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=383470

Why must there be a repeal? It seems to me that the reason there must be a repeal is nothing more than gilding your nation description.

And you want to be dog in the manger about it?

The author appears to be cleaning house for the SC. It's not exactly glamorous work, but their efforts shouldn't be rejected just because they didn't consult the regulars. I see a good case for saying that the original motion no longer serves a purpose, and that is sufficient grounds for proposing a repeal.