[SUBMITTED] Commend The Invaders

[West DEN And East Invaders]

Click here

INVADING regions,

NOTING that Gest is Best,

VETOING liberation proposals,

ATTACKING every region that exists,

DESTROYING those regions,

ERADICATING defenders,

RUINING the defenders' attempts to defend,

hereby, in the name of raiding, commends The Invaders.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:No

[Armaros]

A particularly boring publicity stunt. This proposal... "in the name of raiding"? Neither raiders, nor defenders, nor natives want anything to do with The Invaders.

[ArenaC]

Is this a joke?
OF COURSE NOT!

[Alanis Star]

This could work as a Joke Proposal, but if you're going to be serious, you will need a lot more substance... And most likely not being a self-commendation, if I'm seeing this correctly.

Oh great, did you just submit without drafting? I'll say the odds are as low as successfully dating a gorilla on a blind date.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Illegal R3. Can’t commend in the name of raiding.

[Raionitu]

Against for inaccurate statements, which are quoted below:

INVADING regions,

Really? Not for a long time

NOTING that Gest is Best,

HAHAHAHAHA, oh, that's a good one, you ever considered a job as a comedian?

VETOING liberation proposals,

Don't think anyone has the power to veto a resolution, much less you guys

ATTACKING every region that exists,

Would require you to actually raid

DESTROYING those regions,

See above

ERADICATING defenders,

See above x2

RUINING the defenders' attempts to defend,

I mean, I guess technically they can't defend if you don't raid. This one seems accurate.

[West DEN And East Invaders]

Illegal R3. Can’t commend in the name of raiding.

I read the rules. Rule 3 only says it "must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does", which it does.

[Eumaeus]

Illegal R3. Can’t commend in the name of raiding.

I read the rules. Rule 3 only says it "must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does", which it does.

From the compendium of mod rulings, specifically the section on Rule 3:

The action that a resolution does... does not have to be attributed to any body - however, if it is, it must be attributed to an appropriate authority - ie. the World Assembly or The Security Council...

Emphasis mine^

[Lenlyvit]

Wtf is this piece of legislative garbage?? Poorly written, crappy proposals never have a chance and TI is just a cult for Gest. You guys are so inconsequential in today's R/D scene it's funny.

[West DEN And East Invaders]

I read the rules. Rule 3 only says it "must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does", which it does.

From the compendium of mod rulings, specifically the section on Rule 3:

The action that a resolution does... does not have to be attributed to any body - however, if it is, it must be attributed to an appropriate authority - ie. the World Assembly or The Security Council...

Emphasis mine^

There have been non-illegal proposals doing stuff in the name of something that is not the WA or SC before which have passed. What is different here?

The rule says that I can't write "I commend it".

[Eumaeus]

From the compendium of mod rulings, specifically the section on Rule 3:

Emphasis mine^

There have been non-illegal proposals doing stuff in the name of something that is not the WA or SC before which have passed. What is different here?

The rule says that I can't write "I commend it".

Jakker and Ransium already ruled it illegal under rule 3, so I presume that this is the reason for that. I only went back through July 2014, but the only similar operative clause I could find was in the now repealed Liberate the East Pacific, which said "The Security Council... does hereby, in the name of the ever-knowing Violet, Liberate The East Pacific." IDK if that was okay because nohbody noticed, it is referring to all-powerful entity known as Violet hallowed be her name, or it specifies that it is the Security Council performing the action.

Ransium also wrote "Acrostic", which a rule 2 violation listed under branding.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Illegal R3. Can’t commend in the name of raiding.

I read the rules. Rule 3 only says it "must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does", which it does.

Your ignorance of the rules is matched only by your inability to write a decent proposal.

[Tinhampton]

Illegal R3. Can’t commend in the name of raiding.

Ransium also wrote "Acrostic", which a rule 2 violation listed under branding.

Wait, have I just returned to October 2016? These are the hallmarks of the previous ill-fated attempts to Commend TI!

[Wrapper]

I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).

[Ransium]

I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).

Yeah maybe R4d is the better way to call it illegal, it’s just happening in the active clause. Regardless, we’re both saying it’s illegal for the same set of words.

[Wallenburg]

I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).

How is the acrostic illegal?

[RiderSyl]

I remember when "Gest is Best" was other raiders' attempt to get Gest's serious demeanor to crack for once, and not the mantra of a cult.
Good times.

[Wrapper]

I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).

How is the acrostic illegal?

From the rulings compendium:

Additionally, attempts to spell out your name with bolded letters, or other such silliness, will likely be deemed illegal under Rule 2 (use your common sense).

Acrostics in and of themselves are not necessarily illegal. In this case, I see this as a spammy advertisement for invaders. That fits the “other such silliness” criteria in my mind.

[Wallenburg]

How is the acrostic illegal?

From the rulings compendium:

Additionally, attempts to spell out your name with bolded letters, or other such silliness, will likely be deemed illegal under Rule 2 (use your common sense).

Acrostics in and of themselves are not necessarily illegal. In this case, I see this as a spammy advertisement for invaders. That fits the “other such silliness” criteria in my mind.

Also from the rulings compendium, via a link on the subject:

The other "Liberate St Abbaddon" was removed for duplicating the arguments of the one that just passed. The removal had to be done just before update, in case the voting changed and the other one failed.

A GHR had been submitted on the "Liberate St Abbaddon" just removed re. the "DEN" acrostic. That part was considered borderline, but just about tolerable, as DEN was directly relevant to the content of the proposal. The same would apply to "Repeal "Condemn the Greater German Reich"". I don't recall noticing the SPECTRE in "Repeal "Liberate Congress of Armed Proletarian States""; I'm not sure what that refers to. It's not immediately obvious as an RL reference or branding of something unrelated to the proposal.

Thanks for the explanation. Could this be added to the thread on mod rulings? The "SPECTRE" in Liberate CAPS referred to the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto: "A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism." Not the Bond film. I take it that if it had been noticed, that proposal would've been discarded?

Nope, in the same way that if it had the acrostic "haunting" and was referring to that word in the sentence you've quoted, it would have been fine. If it was a proper noun (e.g. 'Europe') that would've been more of a problem - though that one is clouded by 'Europe' existing within NS too.

I will update the Compendium with this, but will wait until this discussion is over before doing so, in case any further clarification is needed.

The word "invaders" is pretty damn relevant to a commendation of The Invaders.

Also, maybe it's time for the SC rules to be rewritten to actually reflect what is and isn't legal, rather than hiding half of the de facto rules in a separate thread?

[Felt Karpit]

What even is the invaders?

Like really, y'all have just been a region that does nothing since I've been around.

[Jakker]

I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).

Yeah maybe R4d is the better way to call it illegal, it’s just happening in the active clause. Regardless, we’re both saying it’s illegal for the same set of words.

I was thinking R4d as well. I did not see the acrostic at first glance.

[Armaros]

What even is the invaders?

Dead.

[Definitely Evil Nation]

I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).

Yeah maybe R4d is the better way to call it illegal, it’s just happening in the active clause. Regardless, we’re both saying it’s illegal for the same set of words.

It's actually written from the point of view of the WA, which includes many raiders.

[Vanquaria]

This is beautiful...