[Idea] Commend & Condemn Cormac

[Solorni]

What if we write two very similar proposals that are mirror images of each other to both commend and condemn Cormac. I think he deserves both and is the most fitting player I can think for this honour

[Escade]

Love this idea <3

[Roavin]

I've been a supporter of a Commendemnation for Cormac for quite some time now. Obviously, I approve of this idea.

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

It would be funny to see happen wether it could practically is another story though.

[Raionitu]

What if we write two very similar proposals that are mirror images of each other to both commend and condemn Cormac. I think he deserves both and is the most fitting player I can think for this honour

Not saying its a bad idea, just saying rule Rule 2B:
"(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region."

[All Wild Things]

What if we write two very similar proposals that are mirror images of each other to both commend and condemn Cormac. I think he deserves both and is the most fitting player I can think for this honour

Not saying its a bad idea, just saying rule Rule 2B:
"(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region."

I wonder how that is intended to be interpreted. I'd always read it as you can't commend someone twice, or condemn someone twice for the same reasons. On my reading, it's acceptable to have one of each, because you're not doing the same thing "again".

[Kuriko]

Not saying its a bad idea, just saying rule Rule 2B:
"(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region."

I wonder how that is intended to be interpreted. I'd always read it as you can't commend someone twice, or condemn someone twice for the same reasons. On my reading, it's acceptable to have one of each, because you're not doing the same thing "again".

This is indeed how the rule works. There actually was a player who had both at the same time once, and that was Sedgistan.

[Wrapper]

That's not how I read it:

"(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions." (emphasis added)

That tells me that if you write a commendation, then use the same set of actions as the basis of a condemnation, that's still duplication.

[Jakker]

One quibble: Suppose a "Condemn Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" and "Commend Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" both make quorum and "Condemn" comes to vote first. If it passes, I'd then expect that the "Commend" proposal would be removed by mods before it came to vote, as the majority of the SC would have decided that the action was not commendable and wouldn't want to, er, waste time by voting on the same topic immediately.

So, if a Commend and a Condemn for the same thing are in queue together, the one that comes to vote first is a de facto vote on the other. If it passes, the other must be assumed to have failed. But if it fails, the other must be given the opportunity to pass.

I personally read that as actions cannot be regarded as commendable after they have been voted as condemnable and vice versa.

[All Wild Things]

One quibble: Suppose a "Condemn Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" and "Commend Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" both make quorum and "Condemn" comes to vote first. If it passes, I'd then expect that the "Commend" proposal would be removed by mods before it came to vote, as the majority of the SC would have decided that the action was not commendable and wouldn't want to, er, waste time by voting on the same topic immediately.

So, if a Commend and a Condemn for the same thing are in queue together, the one that comes to vote first is a de facto vote on the other. If it passes, the other must be assumed to have failed. But if it fails, the other must be given the opportunity to pass.

I personally read that as actions cannot be regarded as commendable after they have been voted as condemnable and vice versa.

Yeah, that quote is unambiguous.
I guess the way forward would be to put together a list of Cormac's achievements, then split them into Condemn and Commend buckets.

Edit:

There actually was a player who had both at the same time once, and that was Sedgistan.

Good spot! I took a look, but they were awarded for different reasons. So it doesn't make the precedent we were hoping for here.

[Wrapper]

I guess the way forward would be to put together a list of Cormac's achievements, then split them into Condemn and Commend buckets.

That is the best way to approach this.

[All Wild Things]

There must be some material in these threads. I'm sure there's much more besides!

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=453622

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=331170&start=107

Edit: I also think there should be a pun involving the word "Stark".
And the word "swifly" should be used liberally throughout.

[Unibot III]

One quibble: Suppose a "Condemn Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" and "Commend Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" both make quorum and "Condemn" comes to vote first. If it passes, I'd then expect that the "Commend" proposal would be removed by mods before it came to vote, as the majority of the SC would have decided that the action was not commendable and wouldn't want to, er, waste time by voting on the same topic immediately.

So, if a Commend and a Condemn for the same thing are in queue together, the one that comes to vote first is a de facto vote on the other. If it passes, the other must be assumed to have failed. But if it fails, the other must be given the opportunity to pass.

I personally read that as actions cannot be regarded as commendable after they have been voted as condemnable and vice versa.

Missed this. Ardchoille is also talking about a specific context where two resolutions were near each other in timing.

That having been said, I think the way to interpret duplication is if an extant C&C has a set reasoning (X), you cannot reuse X to pass a second C&C of the same nominee - regardless of the category type.

So "Commend Cormac" and "Condemn Cormac" with similar reasonings would be duplication. The category is immaterial. Moderation looks at the proposal text, not the category. If the reasoning given duplicates an existing resolution, it's duplication.

[Consular]

Eh, I'd prefer just commending him to be honest. His actions are more positive than negative.

[Kuriko]

Eh, I'd prefer just commending him to be honest. His actions are more positive than negative.

That definitely depends on who you talk to I hear he's done enough to have two unique proposals that don't intersect.

[Consular]

Evil Wolf is commended. I think Cormac is entirely commendable.