[DRAFT] Repeal: Liberate The East Pacific

[Schiltzberg]

Dear fellow Security Councillors, it has been quite a while since I has proposed any legislation for the World Assembly, but I was a bit appalled by the passage of the recent Security Council resolution, since I believe that it goes against the very purpose of the Security Council liberation ability, and that prompted me to come up with this draft.

I appreciate all feedback, and I will try to incorporate all of the ideas that I receive from you in order to make this as likely to pass as possible. Thank you for taking the time to read this and give feedback!

Repeal: “Liberate The East Pacific”

The Security Council,

ACKNOWLEDGING the recent passage of Security Council Resolution #247 “Liberate The East Pacific,”

STATING that the purpose of Security Council liberation resolutions is “to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region,”

RECOGNIZING that The East Pacific is classified as a “feeder” region and is therefore incapable of being password protected, which makes a liberation of this region unnecessary,

CONCERNED by the lack of seriousness displayed in front of this assembly by the authors of the targeted resolution, determined to ignore more sensible methods to achieve their goal, and

REALIZING that the resolution was passed to make a political statement, but

AFFIRMING that the Security Council offers other types of resolutions that serve the sheer purpose of making political statements, those being commendation and condemnation resolutions, and

BELIEVING that it goes against the principle of the Security Council’s liberation ability to liberate a region that is incapable of imposing a password,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #247, “Liberate The East Pacific.”

Repeal: “Liberate The East Pacific”

The Security Council,

ACKNOWLEDGING the recent passage of Security Council Resolution #247 “Liberate The East Pacific,”

CONFUSED that the resolution liberated The East Pacific for reasons such as “the present regime’s use of an eye-searing shade of pink in official documents,”

STATING that the purpose of Security Council liberation resolutions is “to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region,”

RECOGNIZING that The East Pacific is classified as a “feeder” region and is therefore incapable of being password protected, which makes a liberation of this region unnecessary,

REALIZING that the resolution was passed to make a political statement, but

AFFIRMING that the Security Council offers other types of resolutions that serve the sheer purpose of making political statements, those being commendation and condemnation resolutions, and

BELIEVING that it goes against the purpose of the Security Council’s liberation ability to liberate a region that is incapable of imposing a password,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #247, “Liberate The East Pacific.”

[The Stalker]

I expect this will eventually get repealed, but let's keep it for a little while, at least while Yuno remains delegate.

[Schiltzberg]

I expect this will eventually get repealed, but let's keep it for a little while, at least while Yuno remains delegate.

It is my opinion that there should be a condemnation of either Yuno or the region itself, but I do not believe that a liberation is appropriate, because, first of all, the region does not need to be liberated, and secondly, it goes against the defined purpose of a liberation to liberate a region for any reason other than "to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region." I think that a lot of people voted for the liberation as if it was a condemnation, but seeing as it was classified as a liberation, it should be officially treated as one, and therefore should be repealed, since by definition a liberation is unnecessary in this situation.

[Queen Yuno]

Too much WA about TEP already, I received 1000 notifications due to this entire "disaster", let's calm down first >///<

[Kurnugia]

I expect this will eventually get repealed, but let's keep it for a little while, at least while Yuno remains delegate.

It is my opinion that there should be a condemnation of either Yuno or the region itself, but I do not believe that a liberation is appropriate, because, first of all, the region does not need to be liberated, and secondly, it goes against the defined purpose of a liberation to liberate a region for any reason other than "to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region." I think that a lot of people voted for the liberation as if it was a condemnation, but seeing as it was classified as a liberation, it should be officially treated as one, and therefore should be repealed, since by definition a liberation is unnecessary in this situation.

It was well written proposal and, as far as I am aware, a real originality to lib a gcr. Why shouldn't we go crazy?

[Schiltzberg]

It is my opinion that there should be a condemnation of either Yuno or the region itself, but I do not believe that a liberation is appropriate, because, first of all, the region does not need to be liberated, and secondly, it goes against the defined purpose of a liberation to liberate a region for any reason other than "to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region." I think that a lot of people voted for the liberation as if it was a condemnation, but seeing as it was classified as a liberation, it should be officially treated as one, and therefore should be repealed, since by definition a liberation is unnecessary in this situation.

It was well written proposal and, as far as I am aware, a real originality to lib a gcr. Why shouldn't we go crazy?

The Security Council had not ever liberated a GCR before, because it is impossible to create a password in those regions and therefore is unnecessary to liberate them. That is why the resolution should be repealed.

[Rafterland]

It could be easily thought that a liberation aimed at a feeder region might be an exceptionally severe or humorous form of condemnation.

[Schiltzberg]

It could be easily thought that a liberation aimed at a feeder region might be an exceptionally severe or humorous form of condemnation.

I could also see where it could be taken as a joke. I do not believe that jokes should be allowed to become SC resolutions though.

[Kurnugia]

It was well written proposal and, as far as I am aware, a real originality to lib a gcr. Why shouldn't we go crazy?

The Security Council had not ever liberated a GCR before, because it is impossible to create a password in those regions and therefore is unnecessary to liberate them. That is why the resolution should be repealed.

That's like your opinion man. Celebrate the unique! I wouldn't bother with trying to repeal it now btw. you'd be wasting your time.

[Schiltzberg]

The Security Council had not ever liberated a GCR before, because it is impossible to create a password in those regions and therefore is unnecessary to liberate them. That is why the resolution should be repealed.

That's like your opinion man. Celebrate the unique! I wouldn't bother with trying to repeal it now btw. you'd be wasting your time.

I believe that there are several people who have the same opinion as I do who would be willing to support this repeal.

[Kurnugia]

That's like your opinion man. Celebrate the unique! I wouldn't bother with trying to repeal it now btw. you'd be wasting your time.

I believe that there are several people who have the same opinion as I do who would be willing to support this repeal.

Well sorry to sound a bit... arrogant. But I'd be really surprised if any of the important people would support it. If you really want to repeal it, wait for a moment. It is rare that an instant repeal works. The only time it happened as far as I remember was "Condemn Canterlot". A resolution that only passed because it was hilariously badly written. So the instant repeal had great chances.

Again I am just trying to help you not to waste your precious time.

[Tinhampton]

The only time it happened as far as I remember was "Condemn Canterlot". A resolution that only passed because it was hilariously badly written. So the instant repeal had great chances.

There was also Condemn Ninja Pirate Awesome Town, circa April 2010, but that was less "This resolution is shit!" and more "The actions this resolution Condemns should have been dealt with by Game Mods" (back before Rule 4).

On a more relevant note, I'll probably be for this. These are but three (and this is but one) of many examples that epitomise the eccentricity that make the Security Council so awesome.

[Willania Imperium]

All in all, we had our fun, now it's time to clean up the mess. I'll probably vote for it.

[Rafterland]

All in all, we had our fun, now it's time to clean up the mess. I'll probably vote for it.

Yeah, it brings closure. Voting for as well.

[Schiltzberg]

Well, I appreciate the support that the draft has received, and I thank you for standing behind the draft. That being said, are there any specific changes you would like to see to the draft I have posted? It is still just the first draft, and I am open to make any changes to it that you guys believe will improve it.

[Rafterland]

Well, I appreciate the support that the draft has received, and I thank you for standing behind the draft. That being said, are there any specific changes you would like to see to the draft I have posted? It is still just the first draft, and I am open to make any changes to it that you guys believe will improve it.

I would remove the CONFUSED statement as we all clearly understood it was humorous and true at the same time, although clearly not useful.

If you really want to berate the childishness of the mentioned clause, then I would add the following replacement between RECOGNIZING and REALIZING :

"CONCERNED by the lack of seriousness displayed in front of this assembly by the authors of the targeted resolution, determined to ignore more sensible methods to achieve their goal, and"

You can't be tongue-in-cheek when denouncing tongue-in-cheek behavior, right ?

[Schiltzberg]

Well, I appreciate the support that the draft has received, and I thank you for standing behind the draft. That being said, are there any specific changes you would like to see to the draft I have posted? It is still just the first draft, and I am open to make any changes to it that you guys believe will improve it.

I would remove the CONFUSED statement as we all clearly understood it was humorous and true at the same time, although clearly not useful.

If you really want to berate the childishness of the mentioned clause, then I would add the following replacement between RECOGNIZING and REALIZING :

"CONCERNED by the lack of seriousness displayed in front of this assembly by the authors of the targeted resolution, determined to ignore more sensible methods to achieve their goal, and"

You can't be tongue-in-cheek when denouncing tongue-in-cheek behavior, right ?

I agree with this way of wording it! I have changed it and now have created a draft 2 that is up to date. Do you think that it would be better if the "CONCERNED" line was taken out altogether? I am unsure if the line is necessary.

[Lenlyvit]

I actually like the way its written, its pretty good. As Stalker said though, id at least let them keep it for awhile. Ill be supporting this the day it goes to vote, only cause I was privy to behind-the-scenes info . As to the proposal, can you hyperlink the first mention of the liberation like you did with the end? It just makes it a little nicer.

[Rafterland]

I would remove the CONFUSED statement as we all clearly understood it was humorous and true at the same time, although clearly not useful.

If you really want to berate the childishness of the mentioned clause, then I would add the following replacement between RECOGNIZING and REALIZING :

"CONCERNED by the lack of seriousness displayed in front of this assembly by the authors of the targeted resolution, determined to ignore more sensible methods to achieve their goal, and"

You can't be tongue-in-cheek when denouncing tongue-in-cheek behavior, right ?

I agree with this way of wording it! I have changed it and now have created a draft 2 that is up to date. Do you think that it would be better if the "CONCERNED" line was taken out altogether? I am unsure if the line is necessary.

I believe it adds emphasis on the fact that condemnations and commendations are the proper way to direct attention on a problem. Also, it implies that their lack of professionalism really bothers us, which it does.

[Schiltzberg]

I actually like the way its written, its pretty good.

Thank you!

As Stalker said though, id at least let them keep it for awhile. Ill be supporting this the day it goes to vote, only cause I was privy to behind-the-scenes info .

Well, I figure it will take a while to finish drafting and then get it submitted and ultimately voted on, so they'll get to have their fun before it gets up for vote. Thank you for your support though.

As to the proposal, can you hyperlink the first mention of the liberation like you did with the end? It just makes it a little nicer.

I will do that. Thanks for the suggestion!

I agree with this way of wording it! I have changed it and now have created a draft 2 that is up to date. Do you think that it would be better if the "CONCERNED" line was taken out altogether? I am unsure if the line is necessary.

I believe it adds emphasis on the fact that condemnations and commendations are the proper way to direct attention on a problem. Also, it implies that their lack of professionalism really bothers us, which it does.

Sounds good! I will leave it in then, since I like your reasoning.

EDIT: Also, I made a minor change, altering the "BELIEVING" wording to say "principle" instead of "purpose," because I thought that that wording made the most sense.

[Schiltzberg]

Are there any other adjustments that anyone would like to see made to this draft at this point?

[Schiltzberg]

Bump

[Fauxia]

The argument doesn't make much sense, considering symbolic liberations have been passed before, and were not repealed on the grounds that commendations and condemnations could serve the purpose.

[Schiltzberg]

The argument doesn't make much sense, considering symbolic liberations have been passed before, and were not repealed on the grounds that commendations and condemnations could serve the purpose.

What are examples of that other than the recent slew of liberation proposals that have passed? Also, this is the most extreme case, because TEP is a feeder region, which means it is literally impossible to impose a password. Because of this, it does not make sense that the liberation should still exist.

[Solorni]

Does TEP want it?