SC Questions & Answers

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

We/our would seem to be the correct pronouns.

I feel like addressing something to the nominee from the SC should be illegal, and that a reasonable view of the rules would prohibit it, but frustratingly I can not point to any particular ruling or description in R1 that says as much.

I have to agree with you on this one LD. Having the nominee addressed directly by the SC feels wrong, but does not seem to be explicitly against R1.

Edit: thought on this a bit more. The author is addressing the SC telling them why the nominee is a good candidate for a C&C, it’s not the SC addressing the nominee. The proposal has to pass before you can say that the SC believes the nominee is worthy.

Not explaining this particularly well (only had the one coffee so far this morning) but I hope you get my drift.

[Lord Dominator]

We/our would seem to be the correct pronouns.

I feel like addressing something to the nominee from the SC should be illegal, and that a reasonable view of the rules would prohibit it, but frustratingly I can not point to any particular ruling or description in R1 that says as much.

I have to agree with you on this one LD. Having the nominee addressed directly by the SC feels wrong, but does not seem to be explicitly against R1.

Edit: thought on this a bit more. The author is addressing the SC telling them why the nominee is a good candidate for a C&C, it’s not the SC addressing the nominee. The proposal has to pass before you can say that the SC believes the nominee is worthy.

Not explaining this particularly well (only had the one coffee so far this morning) but I hope you get my drift.

I think I get what you mean, and I do agree - Thousand Branches’ idea might fall afoul of that, but I can also see the idea of how one might manage to twist it into being directed at a nominee despite that. Not truly sure, honestly think there’d need to be a draft to be entirely sure.

Honestly, the pronoun switches (especially when trying to actually name the nominee) would seem as likely to cause issues than the direction.

[Thousand Branches]

We/our would seem to be the correct pronouns.

I feel like addressing something to the nominee from the SC should be illegal, and that a reasonable view of the rules would prohibit it, but frustratingly I can not point to any particular ruling or description in R1 that says as much.

I have to agree with you on this one LD. Having the nominee addressed directly by the SC feels wrong, but does not seem to be explicitly against R1.

Edit: thought on this a bit more. The author is addressing the SC telling them why the nominee is a good candidate for a C&C, it’s not the SC addressing the nominee. The proposal has to pass before you can say that the SC believes the nominee is worthy.

Not explaining this particularly well (only had the one coffee so far this morning) but I hope you get my drift.

I sort of disagree with this actually. If you have to write a resolution from the perspective of the WA, you the author are writing essentially an official WA sanction of c/c, aka you would be speaking as the WA in that moment. It’s kinda like legislation in that you’re not writing it as if to convince a body, you’re writing it as if you were that body and you’re trying to assert your will through it. Therefore, you could be acting as the WA reprimanding or commending another nation and there wouldn’t be anything stopping you from addressing them directly imo.

[Unibot III]

This is a really fun question. I think it may come up more with the advent of the Declaration category. Largely I agree with LD’s input, but I’ll throw my two cents in:

- I think the reason why the “We have been watching you for many years” line sounds weird is because it runs against the stylistic approach we’re accustomed to in the WASC. Typically, there is no need for a pronoun, because everything is expressed in one structured, run-off preamble, e.g., “Acknowledging that over the years, Unibot has grown by several pant sizes,” rather than “We have watched in awe as Unibot has grown too large for his old pants.” Even if you add a preamblatory verb, like “Noting, we have watched in awe as Unibot has grown too large for his old pants,” that clause still sounds peculiar because it’s telling rather showing. Usually, you just launch right in and say what the SC thinks or is doing, this is instead saying what the SC has been doing or has been thinking.

- Does it violate the rules to Tell Not Show? Seems more like a stylistic difference to me, and “we” don’t tend to police style too much in the SC. You could run into legality issues (perhaps?) if you were accused of misattributing actions to the SC not previously recognized by past resolutions. Like, if you were saying “We have monitored the situation in Osiris closely” would there have to be an earlier resolution on the books expressing that the SC “closely monitor the situation in Osiris”? Personally I don’t think it’d be an issue because the SC is not subject to an “Honest Mistake” rule — you can lie. Your resolutions don’t need to be truthful.

- In terms of membership, you don’t register to join the SC, you register to join the World Assembly and your WA nation participates in the SC on an ex officio basis in right of its WA membership. So is the SC an institution or a membership? It’s unclear to me that it does have “members” in a traditional sense. Nobody joins the SC, nobody is appointed to it. It’s more like a standing committee of the WA, where the “membership” is purely ex officio. Perhaps GA committees like WHA are actually GA subcommittees then? The RL UN uses “organ” in lieu of committee and “subsidiary organ” in place of subcommittee.

[Civia Welephilostopia]

1. Would military restrictions/ regulations go into the WA or SC? (examples: civilian passages, bans on chemical weapons etc.)
2. Is there such a thing a GA peacekeepers or anything similar?
3. Can you make a declaration/ observation of an individual nations.
4. Can you cite threads (international incidents, Sports etc.) in a commend condemn or declaration?

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

1. Would military restrictions/ regulations go into the WA or SC? (examples: civilian passages, bans on chemical weapons etc.)
2. Is there such a thing a GA peacekeepers or anything similar?
3. Can you make a declaration/ observation of an individual nations.
4. Can you cite threads (international incidents, Sports etc.) in a commend condemn or declaration?

1. GA, not SC
2. No and any attempt to form one would be illegal anyway if I remember correctly.
3. Yes, but why would you? You are better off writing a C&C.
4. No - see SC Rules, R2(a) in particular.

[Civia Welephilostopia]

1. Would military restrictions/ regulations go into the WA or SC? (examples: civilian passages, bans on chemical weapons etc.)
2. Is there such a thing a GA peacekeepers or anything similar?
3. Can you make a declaration/ observation of an individual nations.
4. Can you cite threads (international incidents, Sports etc.) in a commend condemn or declaration?

1. GA, not SC
2. No and any attempt to form one would be illegal anyway if I remember correctly.
3. Yes, but why would you? You are better off writing a C&C.
4. No - see SC Rules, R2(a) in particular.

Thanks

[Xatu the Great]

re:

the proposal could be "recognizing that layem sux, hereby liberates it"

That would be hilarious

Also a legal proposal, for the record

would still be legal, or run afoul of 4d for not being proper english?

[Emodea]

re:

the proposal could be "recognizing that layem sux, hereby liberates it"

Also a legal proposal, for the record

would still be legal, or run afoul of 4d for not being proper english?

Could absolutely work, 4d doesn't say which dialect we have to use

[Thousand Branches]

re:



would still be legal, or run afoul of 4d for not being proper english?

Could absolutely work, 4d doesn't say which dialect we have to use

It doesn't say "proper" English, just English period.

[Lord Dominator]

Could absolutely work, 4d doesn't say which dialect we have to use

It doesn't say "proper" English, just English period.

At least until we annoy Sedge enough

[TEAMAVATAR]

What was the largest passing and smallest passing percentage? What was the largest failing and smallest failing percentage?

[Fachumonn]

What was the largest passing and smallest passing percentage? What was the largest failing and smallest failing percentage?

Just scroll through the pages. (Yes it's tedious)

[Honeydewistania]

What was the largest passing and smallest passing percentage? What was the largest failing and smallest failing percentage?

Just scroll through the pages. (Yes it's tedious)

Not a very helpful answer

Largest passing is Repeal Liberate A Liberal Haven by Tinhampton. Smallest passing if I had to guess would be Commend Raionitu by A Bloodred Moon/Jo. Largest failing if I had to guess would be Condemn Lasagna or Condemn Deruuu, and smallest fail would be Commend Glen-Rhoes by Connopolis/Sciongrad (by only 2 votes)

[Outer Sparta]

Just scroll through the pages. (Yes it's tedious)

Not a very helpful answer

Largest passing is Repeal Liberate A Liberal Haven by Tinhampton. Smallest passing if I had to guess would be Commend Raionitu by A Bloodred Moon/Jo. Largest failing if I had to guess would be Condemn Lasagna or Condemn Deruuu, and smallest fail would be Commend Glen-Rhoes by Connopolis/Sciongrad (by only 2 votes)

Condemn Lasagna was such a disasterclass. Unlike the TCB attempt, nobody even was on a specific bandwagon to support it.

[Thousand Branches]

Just scroll through the pages. (Yes it's tedious)

Not a very helpful answer

Largest passing is Repeal Liberate A Liberal Haven by Tinhampton. Smallest passing if I had to guess would be Commend Raionitu by A Bloodred Moon/Jo. Largest failing if I had to guess would be Condemn Lasagna or Condemn Deruuu, and smallest fail would be Commend Glen-Rhoes by Connopolis/Sciongrad (by only 2 votes)

Yo 2 votes???? Man that’s gotta be a helluva story!

[Goobergunchia]

Not a very helpful answer

Largest passing is Repeal Liberate A Liberal Haven by Tinhampton. Smallest passing if I had to guess would be Commend Raionitu by A Bloodred Moon/Jo. Largest failing if I had to guess would be Condemn Lasagna or Condemn Deruuu, and smallest fail would be Commend Glen-Rhodes by Connopolis/Sciongrad (by only 2 votes)

Yo 2 votes???? Man that’s gotta be a helluva story!

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=137760

[Fachumonn]

So I just thought of this:

Even though a new code for co-authors has been introduced, would it technically be "illegal" if say a proposal accidentally did it the old way? What would happen if something like that occurred?

[Thousand Branches]

So I just thought of this:

Even though a new code for co-authors has been introduced, would it technically be "illegal" if say a proposal accidentally did it the old way? What would happen if something like that occurred?

That would be a violation of rule 4b

[Fachumonn]

[Q]:

Were commendations and condemnations introduced at the same time as liberations, or before?
I just thought of this btw.

[Tinhampton]

Were commendations and condemnations introduced at the same time as liberations, or before?

Before.

[Thousand Branches]

I know the rules state a necessity for an operative clause in a declaration, but do they require only one to be present? Can one express several related opinions in one declaration?

[Lord Dominator]

I know the rules state a necessity for an operative clause in a declaration, but do they require only one to be present? Can one express several related opinions in one declaration?

I personally see no reason why not

[Sedgistan]

I know the rules state a necessity for an operative clause in a declaration, but do they require only one to be present? Can one express several related opinions in one declaration?

I would expect most Declarations to express multiple opinions - that's fine.

[Jewish Underground State]

This was likely asked before but what does Liberating a regions even do besides remove a password. Can non password regions be liberated.