Page 1 of 1

[DRAFT]Condemn The Security Council

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:09 pm
by Raionitu
NOTING that some proposals can be symbolic in nature.

BELIEVING that the Security Council (WASC) has failed in its mission to spread peace and goodwill to mankind.

CONVINCED that SCR #241 was directly responsible for the oppression of Iran, a forceful occupation lead by The Roman Empire and The WASC condemned Black Hawks, with assistance including The WASC condemned Lone Wolves United.

REMEMBERING that the WASC failed to liberate Westphalia even after raiders occupied, locked, and emptied the historic abode, despite native pleas for help.

DISGUSTED that despite failing to assist distraught natives, the WASC immediately turned to aggressive liberations, as seen in SCRs # 245 and 246, which are aggressor resolutions meant to help destroy the targeted communities.

CONCERNED that these liberations, which targeted regions that were not locked and still had an active founder are a symptom of a fundamental shift in the driving forces behind the WASC.

SHOCKED that the WASC allowed a self condemnation by representatives from the notorious raider nation Ever-Wandering Souls to come to vote, despite said representatives admitting in the proposal that a puppet regime of Souls was used to draft and post the proposal.

BELIEVING that the combination of permitting invasions, failure to liberate oppressed regions, targeted liberations to enable the destruction of certain ideologies, and a greater focus on self-condemnations that native protection is a clear indication that the WASC has been corrupted and conquered by the forces of darkness and raiding.

CONDEMNS The Security Council for the absolute failure to spread interregional peace and goodwill.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:25 pm
by Kaboomlandia
I'd argue this is not legal because it's not condemning the actual target region.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:39 pm
by Fauxia
Nope. Sorry. The Iran line is completely false.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:54 pm
by Raionitu
Kaboomlandia wrote:I'd argue this is not legal because it's not condemning the actual target region.

Legal precedence set by SCR 9, liberation of the same region to symbolize a full separation of SC from GA. This region has already been acknowledged and accepted as a stand in for the SC in proposals by the SC.
Fauxia wrote:Nope. Sorry. The Iran line is completely false.

If there had not been a lib Iran proposal, Iran would not have been raided, therefor it is at least partially responsible. How is it false?

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:14 pm
by Frisbeeteria
Raionitu wrote:
Kaboomlandia wrote:I'd argue this is not legal because it's not condemning the actual target region.

Legal precedence set by SCR 9, liberation of the same region to symbolize a full separation of SC from GA. This region has already been acknowledged and accepted as a stand in for the SC in proposals by the SC.

SC #9 was repealed precisely because that symbolic nature was rejected. You have no precedent. I'm inclined to agree with Kaboomlandia.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:59 pm
by Fauxia
Raionitu wrote:
Kaboomlandia wrote:I'd argue this is not legal because it's not condemning the actual target region.

Legal precedence set by SCR 9, liberation of the same region to symbolize a full separation of SC from GA. This region has already been acknowledged and accepted as a stand in for the SC in proposals by the SC.
Fauxia wrote:Nope. Sorry. The Iran line is completely false.

If there had not been a lib Iran proposal, Iran would not have been raided, therefor it is at least partially responsible. How is it false?

It had already been raided. The “natives” were not real natives. The liberation proposal gives the possibility of a native resurgence.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:26 pm
by Topid
Whoa, I can't keep my regions out of this forum lately.

Not that Fris needs backup, but based on my long experience in the SC, I (NotAMod) strongly contest the legality of the current text. The old rule of thumb for symbolic proposals was always to write it in such a way that it could be talking about the region/nation. You used to see a lot of people claim that it had to reference things that were true. But that wasn't ever the case, because you can be wrong / lie in resolutions. But it does at least have to be talking about things that a region or nation could have done.

Liberate the Security Council was written before the current rule set while the SC was in its wild west days. It isn't good precedent. The best precedent that's coming to mind is "Condemn the World Assembly" (another of my regions, perhaps this is a sign I have too many) which was allowed to go to vote but failed in 2015. Sedge's ruling is in that thread, but basically everything the author said in the resolution could have been something that refers the region. The fact that the nominee hadn't actually done those things, and was a tiny puppet region wasn't relevant. It could have been true, so then the question was just is it okay to lie about what a region has done in a C/C (answer: yes). Sedge let him go pretty wide too, as I would have guessed this line would be too far:
REALIZING that the World Assembly has a habit of constantly repealing recently passed legislation;
But my guess is Sedge is aware we deal with regional governments all the time and perhaps they could in theory be doing this too.

This draft though is too specific IMO.
Raionitu wrote:CONVINCED that SCR #241 was directly responsible for the oppression of Iran, a forceful occupation lead by The Roman Empire and The WASC condemned Black Hawks, with assistance including The WASC condemned Lone Wolves United.

REMEMBERING that the WASC failed to liberate Westphalia even after raiders occupied, locked, and emptied the historic abode, despite native pleas for help.

DISGUSTED that despite failing to assist distraught natives, the WASC immediately turned to aggressive liberations, as seen in SCRs # 245 and 246, which are aggressor resolutions meant to help destroy the targeted communities.
These lines in specific are clearly not something a region could have done. Regions cannot have any role in WA Resolutions. There is no way to read this so that it is actually talking about the region the proposal would be pointed at, so it falls short of (what always was) a legal "symbolic" resolution. You could fix this by being more general about The Security Council "interfering with other regions" or something. Which would be possible for a region to do, so would generally (at least according to past interpretations of the rules) be okay even if there's nothing to back the claim up. At that point, it is just a falsehood, which is fine.