NATION

PASSWORD

[WITHDRAWN] Liberate Illuminati

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2764
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:44 pm

I would just like to elaborate on some of the concerns that contributed to the decision to submit this proposal when the queue was clear, rather than posting a draft and waiting several days for more suggestions.

1. As noted, the original proposal was already extensively discussed and debated, and changes were implemented as a result of that debate.

2. Many natives have already been ejected and banned, and we are rapidly approaching the six week point Souls previously mentioned for the end of this operation, after The Black Hawks already sought to speed up the operation after submission of the first liberation resolution. This operation could be nearing its end any day now.

3. If another draft had been posted to this forum, that would have given The Black Hawks and their supporters time to flood the queue with other proposals to delay this proposal from going to vote. If you don't think they would have resorted to tactics like that, please consider that the update before the previous liberation proposal concluded at vote, The Black Hawks and their allies went on a raiding spree with more than a dozen raiders to displace non-executive WA Delegates in regions with Founders. Those Delegates had one thing in common: They were all voting for Liberate Illuminati, and displacing them had the effect of removing their votes right before voting concluded. The Black Hawks were not even able to tag the regions they raided because the Delegates were non-executive, so there can be little doubt that their goal was to remove those Delegates' votes for Liberate Illuminati.

The Black Hawks are desperate to ensure that a liberation proposal does not pass. Posting another draft here was not only unnecessary due to extensive debate, but would have given The Black Hawks and their allies time to flood the queue with proposals as a delaying tactic, with the potential of monopolizing the queue until their operation is ready to conclude. This tactic has been used in the past by others to delay proposals. Risking that to further debate a liberation proposal that has already been extensively debated, after suggested changes were already implemented and incorporated into this new proposal, would have been irresponsible if the goal is preventing the destruction of Illuminati.
Last edited by Cormactopia Prime on Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Ever-Wandering Souls
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7267
Founded: Jan 01, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:54 pm

Sure, let me just find the half dozen fully written and drafted and also legal proposals with enough merit to beat this one to quorum that I have lying around somewhere...hm...whelp, must have misplaced 'em!

That's a laughable reason.
Proud Raider; General of The Black Hawks, Ret.
TG me anytime; I'm always happy to talk about anything!

The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258

Misley wrote:
Hobbesistan wrote:Don't think I understand the question.
The color or what?..

Jesus, Hobbes, it's 2015. You can't just call someone "the color".

Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative

How Do I Telegram API?

Omnis delenda est.

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2764
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:37 pm

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Sure, let me just find the half dozen fully written and drafted and also legal proposals with enough merit to beat this one to quorum that I have lying around somewhere...hm...whelp, must have misplaced 'em!

That's a laughable reason.

Again, it's a tactic that has been used before to monopolize the queue and it isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. The tactic was used by the former player Mad Jack, and he managed to submit several legal resolutions and achieve quorum with them. I forget what exactly he was seeking to delay.

If one person could do it by himself, I don't think it would have been that difficult for The Black Hawks and the numerous regions that support you or are your de facto allies.
Last edited by Cormactopia Prime on Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Annomatniaptey
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Feb 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Annomatniaptey » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:38 pm

This kid though just cracks me up hahahah :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

User avatar
EnTgeisTerT
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 23, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby EnTgeisTerT » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:03 pm

Cormactopia Prime wrote:My co-authors suggested things to remove from the original draft, and also suggested changes in wording. They're legitimate co-authors.

Per this quote, I'd like to officially question the legality of this proposal, given that the co-authors did not contribute any additions, solely deletions and changes in wording, given that "Only those who contributed to the text of the proposal should be listed, so campaigners, lobbyists etc. should not be named" per the compendium, and also that they could be considered lobbyists, given that in two cases outlined by souls: viewtopic.php?p=31348377#p31347500 , they are shown to be lobbyists, though it is understandable that their lobbying could be seen as independent from the proposal.
Last edited by EnTgeisTerT on Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2764
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:13 pm

EnTgeisTerT wrote:
Cormactopia Prime wrote:My co-authors suggested things to remove from the original draft, and also suggested changes in wording. They're legitimate co-authors.

Per this quote, I'd like to question the legality of this proposal, given that the co-authors did not contribute any additions, solely deletions and changes in wording, given that "Only those who contributed to the text of the proposal should be listed, so campaigners, lobbyists etc. should not be named" per the compendium, and also that they could be considered lobbyists, given that in two cases outlined by souls: viewtopic.php?p=31348377#p31347500 , they are shown to be lobbyists, though it is understandable that their lobbying could be seen as independent from the proposal.

The requirement is that co-authors must contribute to the text of the proposal, not that they must make additions. By suggesting things to remove from the proposal and suggesting changes in wording -- which did include additional wording -- they contributed to the text of the proposal.

The extremely stretched rules lawyering to try to get this knocked out of the approval queue is pretty ridiculous and speaks to your desperation.

As Frattastan said, the proposal is legal unless it is ruled otherwise by Moderation. If you want to question its legality, officially do so with Moderation.
Last edited by Cormactopia Prime on Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
EnTgeisTerT
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 23, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby EnTgeisTerT » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:24 pm

Cormactopia Prime wrote:
EnTgeisTerT wrote:Per this quote, I'd like to question the legality of this proposal, given that the co-authors did not contribute any additions, solely deletions and changes in wording, given that "Only those who contributed to the text of the proposal should be listed, so campaigners, lobbyists etc. should not be named" per the compendium, and also that they could be considered lobbyists, given that in two cases outlined by souls: viewtopic.php?p=31348377#p31347500 , they are shown to be lobbyists, though it is understandable that their lobbying could be seen as independent from the proposal.

The requirement is that co-authors must contribute to the text of the proposal, not that they must make additions. By suggesting things to remove from the proposal and suggesting changes in wording -- which did include additional wording -- they contributed to the text of the proposal.

The extremely stretched rules lawyering to try to get this knocked out of the approval queue is pretty ridiculous and speaks to your desperation.

As Frattastan said, the proposal is legal unless it is ruled otherwise by Moderation. If you want to question its legality, officially do so with Moderation.

I'm following procedure per the compendium and SC advice thread. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the thread mentioned here is the relevant thread to the SC proposal: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 848#checks
Last edited by EnTgeisTerT on Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2764
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:26 pm

EnTgeisTerT wrote:
Cormactopia Prime wrote:The requirement is that co-authors must contribute to the text of the proposal, not that they must make additions. By suggesting things to remove from the proposal and suggesting changes in wording -- which did include additional wording -- they contributed to the text of the proposal.

The extremely stretched rules lawyering to try to get this knocked out of the approval queue is pretty ridiculous and speaks to your desperation.

As Frattastan said, the proposal is legal unless it is ruled otherwise by Moderation. If you want to question its legality, officially do so with Moderation.

I'm following procedure per the compendium and SC advice thread. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the thread mentioned here is the relevant thread: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 848#checks

I didn't realize, based on your wording, that you were officially requesting a legality check. Carry on. :P

I would suggest editing the post to call greater attention to the fact you're requesting an official legality check.
Last edited by Cormactopia Prime on Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EnTgeisTerT
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 23, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby EnTgeisTerT » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:28 pm

Cormactopia Prime wrote:I didn't realize, based on your wording, that you were officially requesting a legality check. Carry on. :P

I would suggest editing the post to call greater attention to the fact you're requesting an official legality check.

Edited.

User avatar
Conservative Values
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Mar 29, 2013
Right-wing Utopia

Postby Conservative Values » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:36 pm

EnTgeisTerT wrote:
Cormactopia Prime wrote:The requirement is that co-authors must contribute to the text of the proposal, not that they must make additions. By suggesting things to remove from the proposal and suggesting changes in wording -- which did include additional wording -- they contributed to the text of the proposal.

The extremely stretched rules lawyering to try to get this knocked out of the approval queue is pretty ridiculous and speaks to your desperation.

As Frattastan said, the proposal is legal unless it is ruled otherwise by Moderation. If you want to question its legality, officially do so with Moderation.

I'm following procedure per the compendium and SC advice thread. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the thread mentioned here is the relevant thread to the SC proposal: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 848#checks

That process is for checking the legality of a draft in a thread. This is now a proposal in-game, and one that by the looks of it will go to vote tomorrow. If the mods take a few days to get to this as that post says, it will be too late.

I believe the appropriate process here is to file a GHR with your concerns.

User avatar
EnTgeisTerT
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 23, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby EnTgeisTerT » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:46 pm

Conservative Values wrote:I believe the appropriate process here is to file a GHR with your concerns.

That was not specified in the thread, as far as I can tell, but if that turns out to be the case, I'll do that in the future.

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2764
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:22 pm

In light of the questions regarding co-author legality, I have taken it upon myself to withdraw and delete this proposal. I will not be re-submitting it.

I hope someone less likely to face immediate, kneejerk opposition will seek to pass a new Liberate Illuminati proposal at some point before it's too late to stop The Black Hawks from destroying Illuminati. Any author is authorized to use any part of my Liberate Illuminati drafts if they are so inclined. My apologies to the natives of Illuminati for failing to get a proposal passed.
Last edited by Cormactopia Prime on Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads