[DEFEATED] Commend Auralia

[United Massachusetts]

I supported this until his pro-death politics came to light. His repeal efforts directly challenge the official position of the church, which is that the death penalty is never admissible under any circumstance.

Whose church? Sciongrad's church, UM's church, Auralia's church or some RL church?

Auralia and I are Catholic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

To the above: Sciongrad is, I believe, referencing the Catholic Church's position that state-sanctioned judicial murder ought be prohibited in all circumstances.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, citing 'there's precedent' by itself as an argument isn't the best argument one can make. Precedent is both mutable and non-binding. Citing the specific cases and why they apply in this one however, is much better,

I mean, argumentatively, time and place should have little moral bearing if we believe that morality is in fact universalisable. What would be even better would be to cite the specific case, then use adapted argumentation to justify why in this situation too we should take some action. Because things were done in the past does not justify their being done in the present.

[Lord Dominator]

To the above: Sciongrad is, I believe, referencing the Catholic Church's position that state-sanctioned judicial murder ought be prohibited in all circumstances.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, citing 'there's precedent' by itself as an argument isn't the best argument one can make. Precedent is both mutable and non-binding. Citing the specific cases and why they apply in this one however, is much better,

I mean, argumentatively, time and place should have little moral bearing if we believe that morality is in fact universalisable. What would be even better would be to cite the specific case, then use adapted argumentation to justify why in this situation too we should take some action. Because things were done in the past does not justify their being done in the present.

I'm pretty sure that's what I was saying, lol

[Bears Armed]

Co-authored by:
St Thomas Aquinas
Saint Augustine of Hippo
St Anselm

"Hr'rmm..."

[United Massachusetts]

Co-authored by:
St Thomas Aquinas
Saint Augustine of Hippo
St Anselm

"Hr'rmm..."

[Aclion]

Are those your puppets? I hope not :/

[United Massachusetts]

Are those your puppets? I hope not :/

There is precedent for this type of thing:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

[Aclion]

Are those your puppets? I hope not :/

There is precedent for this type of thing:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

*grumble grumble*

[Bears Armed]

Are those your puppets? I hope not :/

There is precedent for this type of thing:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

OOC
In that case the co-author listed had actually been responsible for drafting & sponsoring the original version, which became 'historical resolution' #148, whereas Bears Armed Mission was responsible for the GA's expanded version. What did your 'co-authors' separately contribute in this case?

[Erithaca]

Support. Auralia's GA resolutions and helpful tools have helped the NS community greatly, despite his attempt at self commendation.

[Frisbeeteria]

Are those your puppets? I hope not :/

There is precedent for this type of thing:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

In that case the co-author listed had actually been responsible for drafting & sponsoring the original version, which became 'historical resolution' #148, whereas Bears Armed Mission was responsible for the GA's expanded version.

The precedent doesn't apply. Your three "co-authors" are your brand new puppets made specifically as ... flavor text, I suppose. The argument made by Bears Armed was an actual co-author credit..

I'm applying this ruling sometime in the next day or so. The author can remove it before then, or leave it and get a SC proposal warning.

Bumping this thread up to say that the co-authorship line in a proposal is to list co-authors (up to a reasonable maximum of three) - nothing else. It is not a place to list supporters, assistants with campaigning, or to thank people. If you attempt any of the latter, your proposal will be deleted.

If you want to name-check someone for helping, you can use the proposal thread you post on the forums - or even just TG them your thanks.

[United Massachusetts]

There is precedent for this type of thing:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

In that case the co-author listed had actually been responsible for drafting & sponsoring the original version, which became 'historical resolution' #148, whereas Bears Armed Mission was responsible for the GA's expanded version.

The precedent doesn't apply. Your three "co-authors" are your brand new puppets made specifically as ... flavor text, I suppose. The argument made by Bears Armed was an actual co-author credit..

I'm applying this ruling sometime in the next day or so. The author can remove it before then, or leave it and get a SC proposal warning.

Bumping this thread up to say that the co-authorship line in a proposal is to list co-authors (up to a reasonable maximum of three) - nothing else. It is not a place to list supporters, assistants with campaigning, or to thank people. If you attempt any of the latter, your proposal will be deleted.

If you want to name-check someone for helping, you can use the proposal thread you post on the forums - or even just TG them your thanks.

OK. My apologies. I was led to believe by another that this was OK. Will remove.

[United Massachusetts]

Also reviving this.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

And Auralia is still a WA cheat who tried to game this Security Council. Like any other cheat they deserve zero recognition by this body.

[Eumaeus]

Edit: Please ignore this post, I don't know what I'm talking about.

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, and keep in mind I'm bringing it because someone else would have anyways: didn't Auralia try and fail to coup a UCR less than a month ago? As a raider I thought it was a good op even though it eventually failed, but as a SC member it seems to me like this is the sort of thing that will cause problems for a commendation further down the line.

I'll edit this post to include feedback on the text of the draft in a few hours.

[The New California Republic]

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, and keep in mind I'm bringing it because someone else would have anyways: didn't Auralia try and fail to coup a UCR less than a month ago? As a raider I thought it was a good op even though it eventually failed, but as a SC member it seems to me like this is the sort of thing that will cause problems for a commendation further down the line.

I'll edit this post to include feedback on the text of the draft in a few hours.

...

Auralia the nation, not Auralia the region...

[Eumaeus]

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, and keep in mind I'm bringing it because someone else would have anyways: didn't Auralia try and fail to coup a UCR less than a month ago? As a raider I thought it was a good op even though it eventually failed, but as a SC member it seems to me like this is the sort of thing that will cause problems for a commendation further down the line.

I'll edit this post to include feedback on the text of the draft in a few hours.

...

Auralia the nation, not Auralia the region...

I wrote out a whole post that was like "what are you talking about, the post I linked to clearly said it was the region, yadda yadda" then I realized I had been and was in the process of being an idiot. Just goes to show why I shouldn't post before I have my morning coffee.

Comment rescinded; I'll still post feedback when I have time to... you know... read the proposal. Like I should have done before commenting in the first place. Thank you for correcting me.

[United Massachusetts]

Barring objection, this will be submitted when I get back from my travels in a couple days.

[Kranostav]

Im actually quite curious as to why you included

Disapproving of Auralia’s attempt to self-commend, an unfortunate lapse in judgement from their particularly upright delegation for which they have since apologized and repented profusely,

You are inadvertently adding fuel to the anti-commend fire by admitting that Auralia did something that can get people banned from the WA and effectively blacklisted from authorship.

[Praeceps]

Is there any way we could, like, I don't know, not do this again?

We just repeated the whole "Commend TRR" proposal, we're going to repeat "Commend Auralia"? Couldn't we get a break or something before revisiting history?

There's a lot of emphasis on the attempted self-commendation through a multi being a singular mistake. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like there would be more than one mistake to arrive at self-commendation with a multi.

[Lord Dominator]

Im actually quite curious as to why you included

Disapproving of Auralia’s attempt to self-commend, an unfortunate lapse in judgement from their particularly upright delegation for which they have since apologized and repented profusely,

You are inadvertently adding fuel to the anti-commend fire by admitting that Auralia did something that can get people banned from the WA and effectively blacklisted from authorship.

If you read back in the thread, that was actually added per request from those disliking of said attempt, and would in theory increase support.

Not sure what the 'effectively blacklisted from authorship' is about however.

Is there any way we could, like, I don't know, not do this again?

This draft by UM hasn't been submitted before to my knowledge, and Auralia's self-attempt was years ago.

Edit: correction, it was once before.

We just repeated the whole "Commend TRR" proposal, we're going to repeat "Commend Auralia"? Couldn't we get a break or something before revisiting history?

C&Cs usually cover history, not sure what else they would cover.

There's a lot of emphasis on the attempted self-commendation through a multi being a singular mistake. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like there would be more than one mistake to arrive at self-commendation with a multi.

There'd be up to 2, depending on how one qualifies a self-commend, seeing as it is not strictly illegal or normally done by people who could otherwise warrant one.

[Armaros]

On the one hand, it was years ago and one can regret mistakes made so long ago.

That said, commended nations are supposed to be outstanding examples for all. Trying to self commend through cheating does not sound like a very good example. Therefore, I am opposed to this proposal.

[United Massachusetts]

On the one hand, it was years ago and one can regret mistakes made so long ago.

That said, commended nations are supposed to be outstanding examples for all. Trying to self commend through cheating does not sound like a very good example. Therefore, I am opposed to this proposal.

I would argue that Auralia has more than made up for it. He is an example that people can regret mistakes, make changes, and serve the community in astounding ways. And Auralia has, to clarify, served the community in astounding ways.

If anything, his repentance should be an argument for commendation. He learned his ways. When I telegrammed Auralia asking if he wanted this, his response, which sadly is now deleted from my inbox, was one of intense remorse.

[Wallenburg]

Barring objection, this will be submitted when I get back from my travels in a couple days.

I object, then. Now you can't submit it!

[Lord Dominator]

Barring objection, this will be submitted when I get back from my travels in a couple days.

I object, then. Now you can't submit it!

I object to your objection!