NationStates

OOC: As I only just realised Mikeswill's delegacy turns 15 in 2 days, I'm submitting this right now, but ofc here's the thread:

The Security Council,

Recognising unequivocally the nation of Mikeswill, NationStates' longest serving World Assembly Delegate.

Celebrating Mikeswill's 'crystal anniversary'; that is, its 15th year as World Assembly Delegate of NationStates.

Lauding Mikeswill for its exceptional dedication to the rigorous administration of NationStates' government, with NationStates itself acknowledged as a region of sizeable and cultural significance.

Appreciating Mikeswill's daily "Today's Featured Nation" announcement on NationStates' Regional Message Board (duly noted in SCR#55), a practise Mikeswill has continued consistently for the greater half of eight years.

Not at all ignorant to the controversies surrounding Mikeswill; addressing those controversies now:

• Rebuking the concern that Mikeswill was previously commended by this Security Council in SCR#55 but that commendation was repealed by SCR#72:
  
  
  • SCR#72 reads more as an attack against Mikeswill. It had the audacity to label Mikeswill's extended World Assembly Delegacy as "somewhat impressive" and called into question the nation's dedication. Nearly seven years later, Mikeswill has undoubtedly shattered the - effectively - jealous rhetoric of SCR#72.
  • SCR#55 commended Mikeswill for six years of service as NationStates' World Assembly Delegate. The nation's tenure in that position has now more than doubled and reached fifteen years. Needless, then, is it to alert this Security Council to the most misjudged slanders levelled against Mikeswill in SCR#72.
• Also aware that Mikeswill stands in proud defiance of this Security Council and has spoken critically of it on numerous occasions; believing this Security Council should honour Mikeswill anyway, as:
  
  
  • the nation boasts a World Assembly Delegacy of unprecedented, and arguably untouchable, length;
  • this Security Council is itself capable of drawing distinction between action and attitude; and
  • this Security Council has honoured nations for far lesser feats (with this being a general, objective fact, perchance disputed by only the most cantankerous of ambassadors).
• Finally, understanding relationships between Mikeswill and various raiding and defending organisations to be fractured; again, reminding this Security Council that it has a duty to commemorate outstanding accomplishments free of prejudice.

Thus, in a time marred by friction and depopulation, declaring Mikeswill an unfaltering bastion of hope and commitment to nations all across NationStates.

Once more, insisting that the nation's extraordinary achievements transcend any political squabbling, material fascinations and past contentions.

Therefore, this Security Council, with great mirth and jubilant fanfare, hereby commends Mikeswill.

I'm less familiar with the rules on this side of the dimensional barrier, but isn't describing something as "an ad hominem attack" against a country or nation a rule violation? Something about discussing a player of a nation simulator game, instead of the nation being simulated?

<actually looks at rules>

Ah, yes. 4(b).

OOC: I dont think a nation can be ad hominem attacked. If this is legal then I shall be supporting this.

I am going back and forth with whether the proposal is legal, so will not rule at this time. I'm curious to see what Ransium thinks.

No drafting, this author, no support.

Mike does not want this.

Kuriko wrote:No drafting, this author, no support.

Sums it up for me.

After some consideration and Latin translation I have to agree the ad homenium is an R4b violation since it explicitly states they are directed at mikeswill. The simple addition of “attacks that are ad homenium fallacies directed at Mikeswill” or something would be fine.

Edit: actually better to just take out the words ad homenium

The lack of drafting and the author aside, I'm fairly sure Mikeswill would genuinely want nothing to do with a Security Council commendation.

Jocospor wrote:The Security Council,

Recognising unequivocally the nation of Mikeswill, NationStates' longest serving World Assembly Delegate.

Is this clause referring to NationStates the region or NationStates the multiverse? While both are technically true, the latter is much more important than the former, and those unfamiliar with Mikeswill will likely assume you are referring to the region.

Celebrating Mikeswill's 'crystal anniversary'; that is, its 15th year as World Assembly Delegate of NationStates.

I'm not sure if "crystal anniversary" is an official name or something, but I'm pretty sure that saying only applies to wedding anniversaries.

Lauding Mikeswill for its exceptional dedication to the rigorous administration of NationStates' government, with NationStates itself acknowledged as a region of sizeable and cultural significance.

Appreciating Mikeswill's daily "Today's Featured Nation" announcement on NationStates' Regional Message Board (duly noted in SCR#55), a practise Mikeswill has continued consistently for the greater half of eight years.

Not at all ignorant to the controversies surrounding Mikeswill; addressing those controversies now:

Semi-colons are supposed to separate two complete thoughts, and that second half of the sentence is not complete since it is introducing other thoughts. Plus, that semi-colon and colon are uncomfortably close together. You could change it to ", and addressing..." and it would declutter things.

Rebuking the concern that Mikeswill was previously commended by this Security Council in SCR#55 but that commendation was repealed by SCR#72:

SCR#72 reads more as an ad hominem attack against Mikeswill. It had the audacity to label Mikeswill's extended World Assembly Delegacy as "somewhat impressive" and called into question the nation's dedication. Nearly seven years later, Mikeswill has undoubtedly shattered the - effectively - jealous rhetoric of SCR#72.

I have been unable to find relevant precedent regarding the legality of "ad hominem". If moderation choses to follow a strict definition of that term, then it likely would be an R4 violation as it means "to the person" in Latin. However it is possible to interpret "ad hominem" as applicable to attacks on an institution. An ad hominem fallacy is launching a personal attack (typically in the form of criticizing motive, associations, attributes, etc.) instead of addressing a position, so as long as the institution in question holds a unified position on some issue and someone seeking to respond to said position chooses to attack the institution's motives, or in this case belittle the accomplishments, of the institution then it would be at least functionally the same as an ad hominem. Honestly, it's up to Moderation.
Pre-submission edit: My opinion was ninja'd by Ransium.

Legality aside, I think that the way this section of the proposal is written is hurting it persuasiveness. Taking such an accusatory tone against something that happened over half a decade ago comes off as a bit petty. Reading through the repeal I do not find that it sounds any more or less insulting than any other repeal of a Commendation. The clause you seem to be referring to ("FURTHER BELIEVING that calling Mikeswill "one of the most dedicated nations in the world" is a nice gesture, but when such a grand claim is barely backed up by a resolution's text the World Assembly must disregard the claim and not allow such vague ideas to influence the WA's collective opinion"), which is admittedly one of the more condescending areas of the repeal, is more critical of the phrasing of the Commendation than of Mikeswill. Personally, I think that the Commendation was incredibly vague, to the point where I was confused it had passed. This is not to say that Mikeswill does not deserve to be commended (which I do not have a position on), however much more is needed beyond the two or three arguments provided in either the original commendation or this draft.

SCR#55 commended Mikeswill for six years of service as NationStates' World Assembly Delegate. The nation's tenure in that position has now more than doubled and reached fifteen years. Needless, then, is it to alert this Security Council to the most misjudged slanders levelled against Mikeswill in SCR#72.

While I think that Mikeswill's streak as delegate is extremely impressive, I do not see how it is commendable. This is not my concrete position mind you, I am simply unconvinced by the lack of elaboration on this argument.

Also aware that Mikeswill stands in proud defiance of this Security Council and has spoken critically of it on numerous occasions; believing this Security Council should honour Mikeswill anyway, as:

• the nation boasts a World Assembly Delegacy of unprecedented, and arguably untouchable, length;
• this Security Council is itself capable of drawing distinction between action and attitude; and
• this Security Council has honoured nations for far lesser feats (with this being a general, objective fact, perchance disputed by only the most cantankerous of ambassadors).

Up until that last point I agree with this sentiment, although perhaps I am simply being cantankerous.

• A) If you are going to make a claim like that at least have the guts to be specific about whom you are insulting,
• B) it is unnecessary and unprofessional to try to build up a commendation candidate by tearing down others, and
• C) I have to point out, at risk of engaging in an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy, that it is pretty hypocritical that in the same proposal in which you complain about ad hominem attacks you defend your own subjective position by calling anyone who disagrees with you cantankerous.

Finally, understanding relationships between Mikeswill and various raiding and defending organisations to be fractured; again, reminding this Security Council that it has a duty to commemorate outstanding accomplishments free of prejudice.

Again, I agree with this sentiment.

Thus, in a time marred by friction and depopulation, declaring Mikeswill an unfaltering bastion of hope and commitment to nations all across NationStates.

Once more, insisting that the nation's extraordinary achievements transcend any political squabbling, material fascinations, and past contentions.

-Insert complaint about people who don't use Oxford Commas here-

Also, I do not know if you did this on purpose or not, but there are random spaces after certain clauses. I bring it up here because there are two here instead of one.

Overall I do not have a particularly strong opinion regarding whether or not the target nation is deserving of a commendation, however while I have never had any sort of personal correspondence or interaction with Mikeswill I feel that the sentiment expressed by others that he would not be interested in being commended is likely true. Merit is besides the point, however, because I find this proposal lacking in arguments for commendation, even if it is bursting with rebuttals against the repeal of the original commendation. One of the biggest overarching problems is that this proposal does not adequately explained how Mikeswill has contributed to the international community, beyond a vague explanation that he is a symbol of hope and commitment.

Eumaeus wrote:

Jocospor wrote:The Security Council,

Recognising unequivocally the nation of Mikeswill, NationStates' longest serving World Assembly Delegate.

Is this clause referring to NationStates the region or NationStates the multiverse? While both are technically true, the latter is much more important than the former, and those unfamiliar with Mikeswill will likely assume you are referring to the region.

OOC: If he isn't referring to the region that would be metagaming though.

Mike hates the SC. Don't do this. Stop badge hunting, Joc.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Eumaeus wrote:Is this clause referring to NationStates the region or NationStates the multiverse? While both are technically true, the latter is much more important than the former, and those unfamiliar with Mikeswill will likely assume you are referring to the region.

OOC: If he isn't referring to the region that would be metagaming though.

Meta-gaming is only illegal in the General Assembly. In the Security Council the corresponding rule (at least in this case, since R2c and R3 could also be applied to certain instances of meta-gaming) is Rule 4c, which states "(c) You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game." As per the ruling here, "NationStates" is canonically the name of the multiverse in which the game and all of its IC and OOC interactions take place, and thus is not automatically a Rule 4c violation. Thus, saying "NationStates' longest serving World Assembly Delegate" is the equivalent of saying "the world's longest serving World Assembly Delegate".

Kaboomlandia wrote:Mike hates the SC. Don't do this. Stop badge hunting, Joc.

Seconded. Stop badge hunting.

OOC: Okay, I see about ad hominem. I suppose I was more just personifying Mikeswill rather than referring to the player. I'll just take it out, as Ransium recommends.

Some other things in here I would like to respond to, but given lacking time that might be hard. Just generally I would say that anyone who has been a delegate or at least served a region in a government capacity would have to be extremely "cantankerous" to diminish 15yrs worth of what has been daily NationStates involvement in Mike's behalf.

Whether Mike wants this or not, I'm not sure that's relevant. Throughout time, people have been awarded things they didn't want. Not bestowing this honour upon Mikeswill based off his stance would only prove the point he's been making for years: that this Security Council is indeed unable to objectly weigh the facts. And the facts are that, for something like NS, 15yrs is no short achievement. Not by any count.

(There were also a couple of unjust criticisms about grammar but that's fine I can get over that (maybe (not)))

Will upload a new draft soon (few hours) as I want to get this out in time for the big tick over to 15!

OOC: I strongly suggest you add some other achievements beside his delegacy and maybe elaborate more on what he did during his delegacy. You still have at least two more days before the delegacy turns 15.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:The lack of drafting and the author aside, I'm fairly sure Mikeswill would genuinely want nothing to do with a Security Council commendation.

Didn't he support the last one?

That said, I do have to (unfortunately) agree that acquiescence by the target isn't strictly needed when passing a C&C in my view.


I do however oppose this largely in principle, unless there's been some big thing Mikeswill has been doing that I haven't heard of before.

OOC: New proposal going up now with some changes. Won't be doing any more on this today. When it's ruled legal, I'll send a campaign, and hopefully if it reaches quorum quick enough, it'll go to vote when Mike clocks 15. Some further responses:

Kaboomlandia wrote:Mike hates the SC. Don't do this. Stop badge hunting, Joc.

The commendation of NationStates' longest serving WA Delegate of 15yrs is a hell of a lot less edgier than some one-liner GA resolution. I'll say no more on this badge-hunting front.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Eumaeus wrote:Is this clause referring to NationStates the region or NationStates the multiverse? While both are technically true, the latter is much more important than the former, and those unfamiliar with Mikeswill will likely assume you are referring to the region.

OOC: If he isn't referring to the region that would be metagaming though.

The region is always hyperlinked, the site is always not. Re "metagaming", it has been previously ruled by moderation that references to NationStates (the "world" rather than the "game") are acceptable. Unless the mods have reversed their position on this, I'm pretty sure it's fine.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I strongly suggest you add some other achievements beside his delegacy and maybe elaborate more on what he did during his delegacy. You still have at least two more days before the delegacy turns 15.

I disagree with this, but I understand why you might make the recommendation. Let me clarify my position. Mikeswill's capacity as the longest serving WA Delegate is what's being commended here. I feel that a) a large insertion of other achievements would overshadow this and b) when someone serves in a position of power for 15yrs (at least in a general, NationStates capacity lol) it's generally (emphasis) safe to assume that their tenure has been successful for multiple reasons. I am sure there are specifics that could be elaborated on, but all are underscored by the sheer length of Mike's reign.

Jocospor wrote:Whether Mike wants this or not, I'm not sure that's relevant.

It called common courtesy. Mike and his region stand against the Security Council. He has enough pull with the major delegates to have this stomped into a fine paste only a few atoms thick. Perhaps you should maybe listen to people instead of plugging your ears, but hey it's your money and I'm sure Max won't mind a little more in the coffers.

Jocospor wrote:

Kaboomlandia wrote:Mike hates the SC. Don't do this. Stop badge hunting, Joc.

The commendation of NationStates' longest serving WA Delegate of 15yrs is a hell of a lot less edgier than some one-liner GA resolution. I'll say no more on this badge-hunting front.

I honestly can't tell if you've actually done your research beyond just "reading his last commendation and the repeal", because if you had looked beneath the surface, you'd realize how much Mike openly opposes the SC as an entity, which he has mentioned himself.

Commending someone against their wishes is low. Don't do this. Mike has enough contacts to get this crushed, and your previous rep isn't going to help get this through either.

OOC:

Kaboomlandia wrote:

Jocospor wrote:
The commendation of NationStates' longest serving WA Delegate of 15yrs is a hell of a lot less edgier than some one-liner GA resolution. I'll say no more on this badge-hunting front.

I honestly can't tell if you've actually done your research beyond just "reading his last commendation and the repeal", because if you had looked beneath the surface, you'd realize how much Mike openly opposes the SC as an entity, which he has mentioned himself.

Commending someone against their wishes is low. Don't do this. Mike has enough contacts to get this crushed, and your previous rep isn't going to help get this through either.

Are you threatening me, Master Jedi? God, lol.

Wayneactia wrote:

Jocospor wrote:Whether Mike wants this or not, I'm not sure that's relevant.

It called common courtesy. Mike and his region stand against the Security Council. He has enough pull with the major delegates to have this stomped into a fine paste only a few atoms thick. Perhaps you should maybe listen to people instead of plugging your ears, but hey it's your money and I'm sure Max won't mind a little more in the coffers.

Neither you nor I am Mike. And it's been previously implied that associating Max Barry with the revenue generated by NationStates is, in itself, discourteous. Food for thought.

Wayneactia wrote:

Jocospor wrote:Whether Mike wants this or not, I'm not sure that's relevant.

It called common courtesy. Mike and his region stand against the Security Council. He has enough pull with the major delegates to have this stomped into a fine paste only a few atoms thick. Perhaps you should maybe listen to people instead of plugging your ears, but hey it's your money and I'm sure Max won't mind a little more in the coffers.

Neither you nor I am Mike. And it's been previously implied that associating Max Barry with the revenue generated by NationStates is, in itself, discourteous. Food for thought.[/quote]

Fine, stick your fingers in your ears and do what you want. I would have thought being a pariah would be enough for you, but it seems you are out to top it. I look forward to seeing this go down as one of the biggest failures yet.

Wayneactia wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:
It called common courtesy. Mike and his region stand against the Security Council. He has enough pull with the major delegates to have this stomped into a fine paste only a few atoms thick. Perhaps you should maybe listen to people instead of plugging your ears, but hey it's your money and I'm sure Max won't mind a little more in the coffers.

Neither you nor I am Mike. And it's been previously implied that associating Max Barry with the revenue generated by NationStates is, in itself, discourteous. Food for thought.

Wayneactia wrote:Fine, stick your fingers in your ears and do what you want. I would have thought being a pariah would be enough for you, but it seems you are out to top it. I look forward to seeing this go down as one of the biggest failures yet.

We hope you realise resorting to condescending, personalised attacks only weakens your argument. For now, enjoy a glass of Monet & Chardin - it's on the house as we celebrate NationStates' first fifteen year delegacy! Cheers! *chink*

Jocospor wrote:Whether Mike wants this or not, I'm not sure that's relevant.

The fact that you don't really give a shit whether or not the target of this commend wants it in the first place just shows that this entire thing is a badge hunt on your part.

This is not a sentence. It is lacking a subject.