Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:04 pmWell done, will be voting in favour.
"Let it be known that the Republic of Creslonia will be voting for this resolution."
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
[PASSED] Condemn Durkadurkiranistan II
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:04 pmPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:48 amPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:12 amI AMM LIEK SO DRRRUNKK AND I AM BE votoiong in favvvor off duh rrrsolutftion
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 amFulford has a message from the Supreme Leader stating that we will be voting in favour of this resolution.
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:54 amTheocracy? No protest? Capital and corporal punishment? Even their policies are condemnable!
I strongly favor condemnation of the nation on the public stage!
I strongly favor condemnation of the nation on the public stage!
Why Condemn Them?
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:24 amThis nation has one of the highest amounts of foreign aid given out.
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:05 amBarret 50Cal wrote:This nation has one of the highest amounts of foreign aid given out.
Did you not read the proposal? Its arguments are explained in great detail.
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:44 amDurkadurkiranistan II has already been condemned, what's the point of condemning him again?
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:14 amCentrum Terrae wrote:Durkadurkiranistan II has already been condemned, what's the point of condemning him again?
As the author states in the OP, this proposal is intended to be a replace and repeal, with the goal of updating the original Condemnation (which will be 10 years old this coming October).
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:28 amEumaeus wrote:Centrum Terrae wrote:Durkadurkiranistan II has already been condemned, what's the point of condemning him again?
As the author states in the OP, this proposal is intended to be a replace and repeal, with the goal of updating the original Condemnation (which will be 10 years old this coming October).
The author has stated off-site they are no longer seeking to repeal the original condemnation.
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:14 amPraeceps wrote:Eumaeus wrote:As the author states in the OP, this proposal is intended to be a replace and repeal, with the goal of updating the original Condemnation (which will be 10 years old this coming October).
The author has stated off-site they are no longer seeking to repeal the original condemnation.
Correct. Durk's first condemnation is historically important.
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:27 pmPraeceps wrote:The author has stated off-site they are no longer seeking to repeal the original condemnation.
Marilyn Manson Freaks wrote:Correct. Durk's first condemnation is historically important.
Thank you for the clarification. The OP still states that there is an intention to repeal it should this pass.
Regardless, the answer to the question I was answering is still updating the original Condemnation, which is almost 10 years out of date.
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:39 pmMarilyn Manson Freaks wrote:a starchy but pleasant and skilled defender in the Alliance Defense Network (ADN) before they started down a dark and winding path of interregional infamy.
It's always the starchy ones that go sour.
Durk is a player of considerable ability. Fully deserved.
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:36 pmAgainst, this guy is already condemned and this seems to be nothing more than a badge grab.
Also, would referring to the nation as a “monstrous tyrant” be a violation? This seems to very clearly be referring to the player.
Also, would referring to the nation as a “monstrous tyrant” be a violation? This seems to very clearly be referring to the player.
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:59 pmGagium wrote:Against, this guy is already condemned and this seems to be nothing more than a badge grab.
Also, would referring to the nation as a “monstrous tyrant” be a violation? This seems to very clearly be referring to the player.
His current condemnation mentions only one thing he's done, it's not a badge grab.
Also, no, it isn't very clearly referring to the player. Nations can be tyrannical.
Not much....
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:59 pmTo be honest, looking at how the vote is going, this post isnt necessary. However, I feel I must post. The proposal is well worded, unlike the kings and emperors proposal. I, for one enjoy not being bombarded by w.a camping tgs, so thanks for that at the very least.
Emperor of the Monarchy Alliance and W.A delegate.
Emperor of the Monarchy Alliance and W.A delegate.
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:11 pmMarilyn Manson Freaks wrote:Gagium wrote:Against, this guy is already condemned and this seems to be nothing more than a badge grab.
Also, would referring to the nation as a “monstrous tyrant” be a violation? This seems to very clearly be referring to the player.
His current condemnation mentions only one thing he's done, it's not a badge grab.
Also, no, it isn't very clearly referring to the player. Nations can be tyrannical.
But can nations be tyrants? No. They can only be tyrannical.
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:03 pmnoun: tyrant; plural noun: tyrants
1. a cruel and oppressive ruler.
"the tyrant was deposed by popular demonstrations"
synonyms: dictator, despot, autocrat, absolute ruler, authoritarian, oppressor
Can a nation not be an oppressor, can a nation not be authoritarian? Tyrant can apply to nations, but isn't usually that way. Since we're in a polsim, it can.
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:15 pmMarilyn Manson Freaks wrote:Paratan wrote:
But can nations be tyrants? No. They can only be tyrannical.noun: tyrant; plural noun: tyrants
1. a cruel and oppressive ruler.
"the tyrant was deposed by popular demonstrations"
synonyms: dictator, despot, autocrat, absolute ruler, authoritarian, oppressor
Can a nation not be an oppressor, can a nation not be authoritarian? Tyrant can apply to nations, but isn't usually that way. Since we're in a polsim, it can.
The key word in that definition is 'ruler'. Ruler is defined as 'a person exercising government or dominion'...or as the tool.
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:57 pmGagium wrote:Marilyn Manson Freaks wrote:
Can a nation not be an oppressor, can a nation not be authoritarian? Tyrant can apply to nations, but isn't usually that way. Since we're in a polsim, it can.
The key word in that definition is 'ruler'. Ruler is defined as 'a person exercising government or dominion'...or as the tool.
While I am interested in getting a moderator opinion on this matter, this line of debate is just arguing minutiae. Different wordings of the definition will imply different things.
Additionally, such a ruling would be a massive departure from typical Security Council practice. The SC has always allowed authors to refer to nations in a manner more befitting of a person than of a country, as long as it was not especially explicit. Take this clause from the recent Condemn Pierconium:
Further Noting that Pierconium has served in various positions with the governing body of The Pacific, known as the New Pacific Order, since that body's early history starting in 2004. These positions include the titles of Chief Justice of the High Court, Governor, Senator, Regent, and Emperor...
Admittedly, it could be debated that these are just titles given to nations. A better example is this quote from Commend Severisen:
Understanding that, as a native of the region of Catholic, they were a long-term resident for those fourteen years.
Or, from Condemn Darkesia:
Surprised by the fact that Darkesia... served as a spy for the first Invaders region.
The last time I checked, an entire country can't be a spy.
New rulings do not apply to old resolutions, so a ruling that this phrasing violates Rule 4b would not require repealing any of the previous resolutions I have cited. However, my point is that this would be a massive change in how authors can legally speak about a nation, and in my opinion would require more explicit warning in the Security Council rules.
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:40 pmConsidering this only concerns the GCRs, and at least four of the GCR Delegates have voted against, I don't think I can support it.
It makes a nice read though and I wish you the best of luck.
It makes a nice read though and I wish you the best of luck.
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:26 amAnyway it’s passed so congrats MMF on a well written resolution.
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:52 pmPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:57 pmCondemn Durkadurkiranistan II was passed 8,459 votes to 5,594.
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:36 pmCongrats to Manson on another well-written C&C. Now let's liberate Durk too.