NationStates

Here is the current draft of my proposal, which is open to changes:

THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

RECOGNIZING Mikeswill as the long-time delegate of the region of NationStates since September of 2004;

APPALLED by the nation of Mikeswill's outspoken and passionate crusade against the establishment of the Security Council, which includes the following:

1. They have viciously attacked the authority and goodwill of the Security Council, as well the ability of the Security Council to pass legislation in order to liberate, commend, and condemn nations or regions for the sake of creating or maintaining peace.
2. They have used their delegacy in NationStates as an opportunity to promote anti-Security Council sentiment.
3. They have declared that "NationStates stands AGAINST the Security Council," thereby transforming such an honorable and storied region into a haven for those who oppose the peacemaking institution of the Security Council.
4. They led a campaign for the position of Secretary-General of the World Assembly that directly called for the abolition of the Security Council in April of 2016.

EMBARRASSED that the powerful and historic region of NationStates has been swayed into such great opposition of the peacemaking institution of the Security Council as a result of the leadership of the people of Mikeswill in that region;

REAFFIRMING that the Security Council stands as a peacemaking institution that exists for the purpose "spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary;"

HEREBY CONDEMNS Mikeswill.

Feedback would be appreciated. Thank you!

An interesting idea, not out of the realm of possibility, but the resolution needs more.

Also too much of the wording feels like it incorrectly suggests Mike has swayed or miss lead a large old region, when in reality he built that region up on those principals, he's been there since it's creation, he's lead and recruited for the region forever, that's all his work, truly made in his image.

I would elaborate upon his anti-security council stance in some way, maybe make it about the region itself rather than Mike, hard to say.

This condemnation makes perfect sense IC; Mikeswill and his region's stance against the SC is well-known. However, I don't see any OOC reason to sincerely condemn Mikeswill. (Unless this is one of those reward condemnations, in which players are awarded for excellently playing the villain, either through RP or raiding.)

You can look at the reasons why "Commend Mikeswill" was repealed for inspiration, however much of the points in that repeal are irrelevant and/or uncontroversial today, such as "invader ties" and the contention that Mikeswill has "never been democratically elected."

The Stalker wrote:An interesting idea, not out of the realm of possibility, but the resolution needs more.

Also too much of the wording feels like it incorrectly suggests Mike has swayed or miss lead a large old region, when in reality he built that region up on those principals, he's been there since it's creation, he's lead and recruited for the region forever, that's all his work, truly made in his image.

I would elaborate upon his anti-security council stance in some way, maybe make it about the region itself rather than Mike, hard to say.

What would you recommend that I add? Also, it is true that Mike has been with NationStates all along, but the Security Council did not exist until that region had existed for over 5 years, so it was not founded on that principle of anti-Security Councilism, and he did have to sway the region in that direction when he chose to adopt that principle himself.

The Marsupial Illuminati wrote:This condemnation makes perfect sense IC; Mikeswill and his region's stance against the SC is well-known. However, I don't see any OOC reason to sincerely condemn Mikeswill. (Unless this is one of those reward condemnations, in which players are awarded for excellently playing the villain, either through RP or raiding.)

You can look at the reasons why "Condemn Mikeswill" was repealed for inspiration, however much of the points in that repeal are irrelevant and/or uncontroversial today, such as "invader ties" and the contention that Mikeswill has "never been democratically elected."

I feel that this nation's IC dedication to the destruction of the Security Council is enough to justify a condemnation. This was not meant to be a reward resolution, but I guess it could be interpreted that way. If Mike stays true to his stance on condemnation proposals, then he will not want it to pass either, since he believes that such proposals are "popularity contests." Who knows how he would react to this proposal, since there was some controversy to the way he reacted to his commendation proposal back in the day. Thank you for linking me to that repeal, because I find this helpful.

Against Security Council Statement

World Factbook Entry: Welcome to "NationStates", aiming to become one of the strongest ranking regions. Pro-Economy, Pro-Society, Pro-WA, Pro-Peace; Join our glory! Above all freedom for all nations to control their own destinies in a region free from war.
For over eight years our Region has supported the WA (UN) as an essential community of Peace and International Society. Although, at times, We differ greatly with the World Assembly, We, as a Region, continue to believe in essence of this establishment. Relative to The Security Council We stand AGAINST this body for the following Reasons:

LIBERATION PROPOSALS:
The bottom line is that when Defenders lose in the field of battle they result to cowardice and change the rules of play. I have kept my Region Raider free for 12+ years by keen vigilance to the Game Play throughout the JenGuv World. This has included Puppets and Spies and infiltration of Regions. Such is the way of the Rules which I accepted when I created my Nation on October 28, 2003. If a Region cannot defend itself, too bad! The leadership should have been responsible. These SC Resolutions tilt the balance to Elitist who determine what is a Raid and what is Liberation by manipulating the Rules. It is like playing with a brat who takes away the toys when the outcome goes against his bias. The only security I have in my Region aside from Endorsements is the RIGHT as Delegate to Password my Region against any threat. If this RIGHT is at the whim of the SC then have the game makers remove all password abilities across the board thereby removing this continued farce of hypocrisy.

COMMEND / CONDEMN PROPOSALS:
These Condemn & Commend Resolutions are mostly a popularity contest and a waste of the World Assembly’s time. It is not the Business of the World Assembly to Honour Nations. The WA is not a Beauty Contest. We would ignore these Resolutions were it not for the ridiculous precedent these Resolutions present.

As such we petitioned the Moderators and were successful in the creation of the TAG: Anti-Security Council.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
WA Delegate
NationStates Region

The Security Council and it's members will never understand the travesty and danger of its Liberation provisions. I will vote against every Resolution and for every Repeal. What you do is Ego gratifying but moot.

I thank the above commentary for understanding the difficulty of protecting and invigorating a Founderless Region of the Game's Namesake all these years.

Kisses

Mikeswill

Schiltzberg wrote:THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

RECOGNIZING Mikeswill as the long-time delegate of the region of NationStates since September of 2004;

APPALLED by the nation of Mikeswill's outspoken and passionate crusade against the establishment of the Security Council, which includes the following:

Imo, the concept of having the Security Council condemn someone for making mostly legitimate criticisms of the Security Council is laughable.

1. They have viciously attacked the authority and goodwill of the Security Council, as well the ability of the Security Council to pass legislation in order to liberate, commend, and condemn nations or regions for the sake of creating or maintaining peace.

I see no reason to 'punish' Mikeswill like this simply for having an opinion that differs from that of most SC members.

2. They have used their delegacy in NationStates as an opportunity to promote anti-Security Council sentiment.

This is literally just using someone's voting habits as a basis for a condemnation. Mikeswill is the legally elected delegate of NationStates, and as such he has the right to vote however we wishes to. The WA does not possess the authority, IC or OOC, to dictate how a delegate should vote.

3. They have declared that "NationStates stands AGAINST the Security Council," thereby transforming such an honorable and storied region into a haven for those who oppose the peacemaking institution of the Security Council.

Again, if he was elected and no one from NationStates objects to it, the SC has no right to condemn Mike's opinion.

4. They led a campaign for the position of Secretary-General of the World Assembly that directly called for the abolition of the Security Council in April of 2016.

So, we're not even trying to pretend we aren't being authoritarian anymore? This clause is using the lawful use of the democratic process as the basis of a condemnation. The fact that he did so well in said election proves that he is not alone in his opinions.

EMBARRASSED that the powerful and historic region of NationStates has been swayed into such great opposition of the peacemaking institution of the Security Council as a result of the leadership of the people of Mikeswill's leadership in that region;

REAFFIRMING that the Security Council stands as a peacemaking institution that exists for the purpose "spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary;"

Except for every time it has been used to meddle in regional affairs that it had no right to be involved in, or when its Liberation function gets used as a weapon against the rightful owners of a region.

We Are Not the NSA wrote:

Schiltzberg wrote:THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

RECOGNIZING Mikeswill as the long-time delegate of the region of NationStates since September of 2004;

APPALLED by the nation of Mikeswill's outspoken and passionate crusade against the establishment of the Security Council, which includes the following:

Imo, the concept of having the Security Council condemn someone for making mostly legitimate criticisms of the Security Council is laughable.

1. They have viciously attacked the authority and goodwill of the Security Council, as well the ability of the Security Council to pass legislation in order to liberate, commend, and condemn nations or regions for the sake of creating or maintaining peace.

I see no reason to 'punish' Mikeswill like this simply for having an opinion that differs from that of most SC members.

2. They have used their delegacy in NationStates as an opportunity to promote anti-Security Council sentiment.

This is literally just using someone's voting habits as a basis for a condemnation. Mikeswill is the legally elected delegate of NationStates, and as such he has the right to vote however we wishes to. The WA does not possess the authority, IC or OOC, to dictate how a delegate should vote.

3. They have declared that "NationStates stands AGAINST the Security Council," thereby transforming such an honorable and storied region into a haven for those who oppose the peacemaking institution of the Security Council.

Again, if he was elected and no one from NationStates objects to it, the SC has no right to condemn Mike's opinion.

4. They led a campaign for the position of Secretary-General of the World Assembly that directly called for the abolition of the Security Council in April of 2016.

So, we're not even trying to pretend we aren't being authoritarian anymore? This clause is using the lawful use of the democratic process as the basis of a condemnation. The fact that he did so well in said election proves that he is not alone in his opinions.

EMBARRASSED that the powerful and historic region of NationStates has been swayed into such great opposition of the peacemaking institution of the Security Council as a result of the leadership of the people of Mikeswill's leadership in that region;

REAFFIRMING that the Security Council stands as a peacemaking institution that exists for the purpose "spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary;"

Except for every time it has been used to meddle in regional affairs that it had no right to be involved in, or when its Liberation function gets used as a weapon against the rightful owners of a region.

Agreed on every count. Mikeswill's views are a matter of opinion and being that NationStates is his region, he has the right to establish those views as part of his region.
This condemnation attempt has no foundation. Condemning someone for having a different opinion is absurd. Mikeswill has done nothing to deserve this.

Oh, the irony in this proposal.

Alkasia wrote:

We Are Not the NSA wrote:

Imo, the concept of having the Security Council condemn someone for making mostly legitimate criticisms of the Security Council is laughable.

I see no reason to 'punish' Mikeswill like this simply for having an opinion that differs from that of most SC members.

This is literally just using someone's voting habits as a basis for a condemnation. Mikeswill is the legally elected delegate of NationStates, and as such he has the right to vote however we wishes to. The WA does not possess the authority, IC or OOC, to dictate how a delegate should vote.

Again, if he was elected and no one from NationStates objects to it, the SC has no right to condemn Mike's opinion.

So, we're not even trying to pretend we aren't being authoritarian anymore? This clause is using the lawful use of the democratic process as the basis of a condemnation. The fact that he did so well in said election proves that he is not alone in his opinions.

Except for every time it has been used to meddle in regional affairs that it had no right to be involved in, or when its Liberation function gets used as a weapon against the rightful owners of a region.

Agreed on every count. Mikeswill's views are a matter of opinion and being that NationStates is his region, he has the right to establish those views as part of his region.
This condemnation attempt has no foundation. Condemning someone for having a different opinion is absurd. Mikeswill has done nothing to deserve this.

Sygian II wrote:Oh, the irony in this proposal.

Right?

Alkasia wrote:

We Are Not the NSA wrote:

Imo, the concept of having the Security Council condemn someone for making mostly legitimate criticisms of the Security Council is laughable.

I see no reason to 'punish' Mikeswill like this simply for having an opinion that differs from that of most SC members.

This is literally just using someone's voting habits as a basis for a condemnation. Mikeswill is the legally elected delegate of NationStates, and as such he has the right to vote however we wishes to. The WA does not possess the authority, IC or OOC, to dictate how a delegate should vote.

Again, if he was elected and no one from NationStates objects to it, the SC has no right to condemn Mike's opinion.

So, we're not even trying to pretend we aren't being authoritarian anymore? This clause is using the lawful use of the democratic process as the basis of a condemnation. The fact that he did so well in said election proves that he is not alone in his opinions.

Except for every time it has been used to meddle in regional affairs that it had no right to be involved in, or when its Liberation function gets used as a weapon against the rightful owners of a region.

Agreed on every count. Mikeswill's views are a matter of opinion and being that NationStates is his region, he has the right to establish those views as part of his region.
This condemnation attempt has no foundation. Condemning someone for having a different opinion is absurd. Mikeswill has done nothing to deserve this.

But Mikeswill is indiscriminately against liberation proposals, even in situations when they are necessary to maintain peace to the natives of a region, and this is disruptive to peace, which is worthy of condemnation.

Mikeswill wrote:

Sygian II wrote:Oh, the irony in this proposal.

Right?

It is amusing.

Schiltzberg wrote:But Mikeswill is indiscriminately against liberation proposals, even in situations when they are necessary to maintain peace to the natives of a region, and this is disruptive to peace, which is worthy of condemnation.

indiscriminately: not discriminating; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity; haphazard; thoughtless:

discriminate: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately; to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate



Trust me, I am discriminately against liberation proposals.

Schiltzberg wrote:But Mikeswill is indiscriminately against liberation proposals, even in situations when they are necessary to maintain peace to the natives of a region, and this is disruptive to peace, which is worthy of condemnation.

The only thing in this thread that's worthy of a condemnation is the draft itself for wasting our time.

Unless Mikeswill starts sending glitter bombs to the house of every Security Council author while unsulting our mothers, there is absolutely no reason that his opposition of this body should get him a condemnation.

Brunhizzle wrote:The only thing in this thread that's worthy of a condemnation is the draft itself for wasting our time.

You do realise that someone is probably going to try this now, right?

Now I Remember


Schiltzberg

I banned this Nation some time ago. I guess this is the best they got in retaliation.

The irony...

Unless Mikeswill wants it, I will be against this.

Calling out the security council for their obvious flaws is not anything relatively close to treason. Mikeswill is bringing up valid points on the faults of this system. For example, as he said in this thread, commendations or condemnations are no more than a popularity battle. You can be a well spoken, actively participating WA Delegate, and not gain any recognition, while someone with connections to strong groups can get commended for doing only a portion of what others have done.

He has every right to publically express his views on the Security Council. To condemn him is to condemn the freedom of speech and expression.

Mikeswill wrote:Now I Remember


Schiltzberg

I banned this Nation some time ago. I guess this is the best they got in retaliation.

The irony...

A failed attempt at that, so it would seem.

I don't think you can condemn someone for disagreeing with you.

States of Glory wrote:

Brunhizzle wrote:The only thing in this thread that's worthy of a condemnation is the draft itself for wasting our time.

You do realise that someone is probably going to try this now, right?

I look forward to it.

Look, I realize the irony of this proposal. It is true that Mike banned me from NationStates, but I have no hard feelings, and I have had the idea for this proposal since before I joined that region. That being said, and the irony being addressed, I think that it is a legitimate proposal, and I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions for the content of the proposal itself. If there are no discrepancies about the wording, other than the obvious irony, I will consider submitting my proposal. Feedback would be appreciated.

Schiltzberg wrote:Look, I realize the irony of this proposal. It is true that Mike banned me from NationStates, but I have no hard feelings, and I have had the idea for this proposal since before I joined that region. That being said, and the irony being addressed, I think that it is a legitimate proposal, and I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions for the content of the proposal itself. If there are no discrepancies about the wording, other than the obvious irony, I will consider submitting my proposal. Feedback would be appreciated.

Please don't embarrass yourself by submitting this poor excuse for a proposal.