[Draft] Condemn Consular

[Old Hope]

The Security Council,

Enraged by the heinous actions of Consular, namely:
- The willful generation of a libelous statement accusing a region of using illegal methods,
- The attempt to deceive this Security Council to proliferate and legitimize this libelous statement in a Security Council Resolution,

Wishing to inform all states who are considering diplomatic contact with Consular of the dangers arising from this diplomatic contact,

Condemns Consular.

[Lord Dominator]

How about no

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

How about trying harder than just tit for tat.

[Old Hope]

How about trying harder than just tit for tat.

tit for tat? The proposal does not contain libelous statements.
I am also definitely not a member of the Land of Kings and Emperors(nor someone who likes them).

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

How about trying harder than just tit for tat.

tit for tat? The proposal does not contain libelous statements.
I am also definitely not a member of the Land of Kings and Emperors(nor someone who likes them).

I think there have already been two illegal attempts to condemn Consular ruled as tit-for-tat. Neither author was a member of LKE, so your argument there falls flat.

[RiderSyl]

This is blatant badge hunting.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

This is blatant badge hunting.

Agreed and also “look a passing bandwagon, let’s jump on it”.

[Old Hope]

Updated.

[Sebenica]

I don't see the point in this.

Just jumping on a bandwagon of baseless claims.

[Jakker]

Opining that, to prevent potential further harm to nations and regions, no region and no nation should interact with Consular, except by the termination of all relations,

I would probably regard that clause as a violation as it seems to dictate for others to not interact with Consular.

[Old Hope]

Opining that, to prevent potential further harm to nations and regions, no region and no nation should interact with Consular, except by the termination of all relations,

I would probably regard that clause as a violation as it seems to dictate for others to not interact with Consular.

It recommends (not dictates) others not to interact with Consular. That's what a Condemnation is supposed to do - to mark the recipient state as an international pariah.
Edit: But fine, I changed it a bit - is it now ok?

[Eumaeus]

The Security Council,

Enraged by the heinous actions of Consular, namely:
- The willful generation of a libelous statement accusing a region of using illegal methods,

Forgot the comma at the end.

- The attempt to deceive this Security Council to proliferate and legitimize this libelous statement in a Security Council Resolution,

Regarding "deceive": i before e, except after c.

Btw, here is the bbcode for a list:

Code: Select all

[list][*]The willful generation of a libelous statement accusing a region of using illegal methods,
[*] The attempt to deceive this Security Council to proliferate and legitimize this libelous statement in a Security Council Resolution,[/list]

Which becomes:

• The willful generation of a libelous statement accusing a region of using illegal methods,
• The attempt to deceive this Security Council to proliferate and legitimize this libelous statement in a Security Council Resolution,

Wishing to inform all states who are considering diplomatic contact with Consular or its allies of the dangers arising from this diplomatic contact,

Condemns Consular.

I criticized one of the other drafts a few minutes ago for lacking specifics and the research required to include them, but I think this one may actually be worse. Doesn't even mention the false evidence, which is technically a separate offense from the false accusation. Or which region was the victim. Or, you know, anything from more than a week ago.

[Old Hope]

I criticized one of the other drafts a few minutes ago for lacking specifics and the research required to include them, but I think this one may actually be worse. Doesn't even mention the false evidence, which is technically a separate offense from the false accusation. Or which region was the victim. Or, you know, anything from more than a week ago.

Why should I include anything from more than a week ago?
This is supposed to be a real condemnation, not a listing of achievements.
It doesn't matter who the victim was.
Mentioning the usage of false evidence in detail and discussing it would only distract from the main point of this proposal, and negate it:
Consular made a deliberately libelous statement on a region and tried to make the SC pass a resolution including this statement.
This is condemnable on its own, irrespective of any other factors(who the region targeted was, if they lied even more).

[Eumaeus]

I criticized one of the other drafts a few minutes ago for lacking specifics and the research required to include them, but I think this one may actually be worse. Doesn't even mention the false evidence, which is technically a separate offense from the false accusation. Or which region was the victim. Or, you know, anything from more than a week ago.

Why should I include anything from more than a week ago?
This is supposed to be a real condemnation, not a listing of achievements.
It doesn't matter who the victim was.
Mentioning the usage of false evidence in detail and discussing it would only distract from the main point of this proposal, and negate it:
Consular made a deliberately libelous statement on a region and tried to make the SC pass a resolution including this statement.
This is condemnable on its own, irrespective of any other factors(who the region targeted was, if they lied even more).

I suppose we simply have differing definitions of what constitutes a "real" Condemnation. I far prefer fleshed out overviews of repeated infractions that illustrate an ongoing pattern of maligned behavior, rather than reactionary overviews of a single maligned act. I'm sure I am not alone in this preference, but nonetheless we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Old Hope]

Why should I include anything from more than a week ago?
This is supposed to be a real condemnation, not a listing of achievements.
It doesn't matter who the victim was.
Mentioning the usage of false evidence in detail and discussing it would only distract from the main point of this proposal, and negate it:
Consular made a deliberately libelous statement on a region and tried to make the SC pass a resolution including this statement.
This is condemnable on its own, irrespective of any other factors(who the region targeted was, if they lied even more).

I suppose we simply have differing definitions of what constitutes a "real" Condemnation. I far prefer fleshed out overviews of repeated infractions that illustrate an ongoing pattern of maligned behavior, rather than reactionary overviews of a single maligned act. I'm sure I am not alone in this preference, but nonetheless we are all entitled to our own opinions.

There are two possibilities for someone being condemnable. The first is the ongoing pattern you spoke of.
The second possibility is behaviour that is so horrible that it should be instantly condemned, and, ideally, cause the nation to lose all diplomatic contact forever.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I’m not sure which is worse; the absolute fuck-up Consular made of their Condemnation or the stench of self-righteousness from those now trying to condemn him.

[Lord Dominator]

I suppose we simply have differing definitions of what constitutes a "real" Condemnation. I far prefer fleshed out overviews of repeated infractions that illustrate an ongoing pattern of maligned behavior, rather than reactionary overviews of a single maligned act. I'm sure I am not alone in this preference, but nonetheless we are all entitled to our own opinions.

There are two possibilities for someone being condemnable. The first is the ongoing pattern you spoke of.
The second possibility is behaviour that is so horrible that it should be instantly condemned, and, ideally, cause the nation to lose all diplomatic contact forever.

Consular's actions, while deplorable, don't exactly rise to the level of the second possibility.

[Eumaeus]

I suppose we simply have differing definitions of what constitutes a "real" Condemnation. I far prefer fleshed out overviews of repeated infractions that illustrate an ongoing pattern of maligned behavior, rather than reactionary overviews of a single maligned act. I'm sure I am not alone in this preference, but nonetheless we are all entitled to our own opinions.

There are two possibilities for someone being condemnable. The first is the ongoing pattern you spoke of.
The second possibility is behaviour that is so horrible that it should be instantly condemned, and, ideally, cause the nation to lose all diplomatic contact forever.

As Lord Dominator so succinctly stated, while there is a class of actions that are immediately condemnable, Consular's recent actions are not one of them. I have intended to write out the full framework of my theory of how individual acts should be interpreted in the context of condemnation, and I may do so sometime in the future, but here is a rundown: I consider individual actions on the basis of several interconnecting factors, combine my interpretations of the act regarding the factors collectively, then decide where I stand on it. These factors include Motive (what the objective goal of the action was), Intention (the subjective nature of the goal; malicious, innocent, dispassionate, etc.), Action (the specific acts that the actor committed), Demeanor (the manner in which the actor went about pursuing the goal and committing the action), and Outcome (the effects of the action; I also consider the potential effects that may have been avoided).

While his Intentions, Demeanor, and likely his Motives were all leaning towards condemnable, Consular's Actions and their Outcome (the two most important factors) are what kill that possibility for me.

First, in regards to Actions, Consular A) made completely unnecessary libelous statements about LKE in a Condemnation that otherwise almost certainly would have passed without much fuss aside from that of LKE and their allies, and B) was caught red-handed using staged evidence to support one of those claims. While deplorable, for a Condemnation these are relatively tame even by ancillary clause standards. While it is true that there are passed Resolutions that include similar actions, these actions do not rise to their level because of...

Second, the Outcome of these actions. In short, nothing. In length, when I say that nothing happened, I mean that LKE has not suffered any permanent tangible harm to their region or their community. It could be argued that LKE's image has been tarnished, but I would counter that LKE has, in fact, come out of this looking like a victim. I suppose this is besides the point though, since it doesn't matter who the victim was. While I suspect that LKE's days without a shiny badge on their nation page are numbered, I think that because of this incident they will be safe from further SC action for at least a little while, whether that is a few weeks or a few months. Regarding the potential outcome, the worst case scenario (had the false evidence not been noticed) was that this proposal would have been enacted. I do not see this as a problem, for two reasons. First, I have no doubts that it would have been promptly repealed. In my opinion, the clause about Predator alone was grounds for a repeal. Second, while I understand why LKE does not want to be Condemned and respect their desire to resist, I'm fairly confident that the repercussions would not be as damaging as they seem to think they would be.

As for the outcome regarding the World Assembly, this incident has shown that the Security Council is capable of recognizing and addressing wrongdoing by those involved in its processes. Someone in another thread has raised a concern regarding WA members who continued to vote for the proposal after the revelation of Consular's fabrications came to light, noting that:

If one removes the delegates, one gets an entirely different picture; the "For" side would be ahead with approximately 1.5 k votes(!)

Personally, I see this as an absolute win for the World Assembly: it proves that the delegate system indeed serves a gatekeeper function, working to further the goals and values that the WA is principled on.

(Edit: After thinking about it, this may raise questions about the lack of a SC rule regarding false information, but that's an issue that I doubt the Mods will feel the need to address.)

The only permanent and tangible damage that Consular's actions have wrought have been on his own career in the World Assembly. NationStates never forgives, but more importantly it never forgets.

So, to conclude, I do not find the Condemn LKE incident to be a severe enough infraction to fall into your second category of condemnable possibilities. As I have previously observed, this draft fails to identify an ongoing pattern of behavior satisfying the first category of condemnable possibilities. And I also believe that the any actions that will ostracize Consular from the international community, what I would classify as your Motive in this proposal, were his own, with no Security Council action required to accomplish it.