[ABANDONED] Condemn the northern light

by **Montrandec** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:23 pm

Edit: This is a blatantly wrong and petty proposal. I see why.

by **East Meranopirus** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:35 pm

If you're talking about why it's illegal, it's because it violates rule 4 of the Security Council Rules by using the word "personally".
If you're talking about why it's wrong to write this proposal, it's because getting your embassy request rejected because your region is not important enough isn't a good enough reason to write a condemnation.
Also are you aware that The Northern Light is actually a puppet maintained by TNP's government?

by **Praeceps** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:44 pm

I'm sure Eumaeus or someone else will wander by to point out grammatical and spelling errors so I'll stick to focusing on the content.

Montrandec wrote:The Security Council,

Acknowledging:
The existence of more than five hundred puppets existing just to expand The Northern Light's card collection.

Wrong. The puppets exist to run the card programs run by The North Pacific government.

Disturbed that:
The Northern Light is taking advantage personally of The North Pacific's card giveaway.

How? TNL runs the Card Giveaway. How is TNL taking advantage of it? You need to provide evidence for this claim.

Aware that:
The North Pacific's card giveaway is made to help the citizens of The North Pacific' not The North Pacific's officers.

Wrong again. The Card Giveaway is to help Keepers of the North and members of the North Pacific Army. Citizenry has nothing to do with it.

Noting that:
the injustice caused by The Northern Light and The North Pacific's officers is unacceptable.

Source is required. You are not expanding that condemnable behaviour to not only TNL but to other TNP officers. Which ones and why?

Disgusted that:
The sole point of The Northern Light's office is to help The North Pacific's citizens.

First off, how is this a bad thing? Second off all, you're still wrong. The point of TNL is to help the entire region; not just citizens.

Aware that:
The Northern Light's attitude is centralizing card ownership to a few select nations.

Hereby condemns The Northern Light.

Source is required for this. Addtionally please explain how this is a bad thing.

What am I doing wrong here?

An awful lot. I have no idea where you got all of these incredibly wrong ideas from. It looks to me like you made them up; might I suggest you try RP? That's usually where made up stuff goes.

by **Bhang Bhang Duc** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:16 am

Montrandec wrote:What am I doing wrong here?

Well you you haven’t read the SC rules for a start. It’s a poorly researched, poorly written attempt at a Condemnation.

Not only is it illegal for the reason that Ransium and East Meranopirus pointed out, but it may also be a non-starter for mentioning cards directly c.f. the first draft of Condemn Koem Kab - viewtopic.php?f=24&t=466074.

by **BlackLight Covenant** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:13 am

If you really want to continue this idea, I'd first of all suggest that you familiarize yourself with the rules related to SC proposals, and perhaps take a look at examples of legal and illegal SC proposals as well, especially the recently-passed condemnation of Koem Kab ~~I think that was their name, anyway~~, seeing how that resolution deals with cards as well. Doing that will most likely save you a whole ton of legality-related issues,

That, however, is only to prevent your proposal from being labeled as illegal. If you want this to actually have a chance of reaching quorum, let alone actually pass, you'll need to do some actual research, and present examples to support your statements and clauses. And yes, it is true that part of that research is done by posting a draft and examining the information other people provide you with in response to said draft, but apparently not doing any research (to the extent where you have examples) at all is usually not a good way of going about things, unless your goal is to massively increase the chance of people just gunning your draft out of the sky instead of actually helping you improve it.

If people think you're lazy and relying on them to write your proposal for you, regardless of whether that's actually the case, then said proposal will usually just run out of steam incredibly quickly.

by **Montrandec** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:22 pm

[snip]

by **Bormiar** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:56 pm

Montrandec wrote:
First off, how is this a bad thing? Second off all, you're still wrong. The point of TNL is to help the entire region; not just citizens.

By citizens I meAn members
And concluding with the apparent doctrine as it seems you think my proposal is it's disgusted that it's job is to help and from my point of view well I'll get my evidence!

Are you going to fix your draft, or are you gonna just do nothing?

by **WayNeacTia** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:56 pm

Montrandec wrote:
First off, how is this a bad thing? Second off all, you're still wrong. The point of TNL is to help the entire region; not just citizens.

By citizens I meAn members
And concluding with the apparent doctrine as it seems you think my proposal is it's disgusted that it's job is to help and from my point of view well I'll get my evidence!

This should go swimmingly.

by **Ransium** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:43 pm

As others have said I marked this proposal illegal for violating Rule 4(b)

It says:

(b) You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they".

You said:

Montrandec wrote:
The Northern Light is taking advantage personally of The North Pacific's card giveaway.

There is no ambiguity about the word personally not referring to the nation, but rather the player behind them. You have to remove the word personally for the proposal to be legal. You can withdraw your current proposal and resubmit it if you want.

As for "cards", moderation hasn't been clear about this because I haven't made up my mind. I think the litmus test for Rule 4(c) compliance isn't the greatest and I'm not sure if I always follow Ard's reasoning or her need to create so much ambiguity. Regardless, we will proceed forward unafraid. I think referencing cards or the concept that nations (or leaders or whatever) own cards that have other nations on them is legal. Cards is both found on the nation page and can be made sense of in the real world. Referencing that nations trade cards and gift cards is also okay in my book as it seems to be a logical real life extension of nations having cards. Most other concepts related to cards however would not be legal as they too clearly refer to cards as a mini-game. Referencing purchasing cards for bank, or using bank in anyway that doesn't have a real world meaning is not legal. Referencing that nations need to have numerous puppets to farm card is not legal. Referencing bidding on cards is legal, etc. Condemn Koem Kab provides a nice template for legally referencing more advance aspects of cards. In practice, if you want to reference cards in any depth referring to them as works of art or whatever likely provides a more practical way of handling things. BTW, for anyone who wants to call out the usage of bank in Koem Kab we did find a (perhaps post-hoc) justification for it since it could have a real world interpretation. I will add a link to this post in the rules compendium.

Anyhow, for the purposes of this proposal, the first line is illegal.

Montrandec wrote:Acknowledging:
The existence of more than five hundred puppets existing just to expand The Northern Light's card collection.

The rest is fine.

by **Lord Dominator** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:57 pm

So essentially, basic buying/selling/gifting is okay legality-wise, but auctions aren't (agreed on the farming aspect)? I'm not sure I can follow the logic here, since the auction system is the method of buying/selling, and it's entirely reasonable in context (by NS standards) that the only way to buy/sell them is by auctioning, rather than as mention to a mini-game.

by **Ransium** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:12 pm

Lord Dominator wrote:So essentially, basic buying/selling/gifting is okay legality-wise, but auctions aren't (agreed on the farming aspect)? I'm not sure I can follow the logic here, since the auction system is the method of buying/selling, and it's entirely reasonable in context (by NS standards) that the only way to buy/sell them is by auctioning, rather than as mention to a mini-game.

My wife was doing yoga when I wrote that up and I got distracted. I meant for it to be legal. I will edit the post.

by **Kuriko** » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:27 am

Ransium wrote:As others have said I marked this proposal illegal for violating Rule 4(b)

It says:
(b) You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they".

You said:

Montrandec wrote:
The Northern Light is taking advantage personally of The North Pacific's card giveaway.

There is no ambiguity about the word personally not referring to the nation, but rather the player behind them. You have to remove the word personally for the proposal to be legal. You can withdraw your current proposal and resubmit it if you want.

As for "cards", moderation hasn't been clear about this because I haven't made up my mind. I think the litmus test for Rule 4(c) compliance isn't the greatest and I'm not sure if I always follow Ard's reasoning or her need to create so much ambiguity. Regardless, we will proceed forward unafraid. I think referencing cards or the concept that nations (or leaders or whatever) own cards that have other nations on them is legal. Cards is both found on the nation page and can be made sense of in the real world. Referencing that nations trade cards and gift cards is also okay in my book as it seems to be a logical real life extension of nations having cards. Most other concepts related to cards however would not be legal as they too clearly refer to cards as a mini-game. Referencing purchasing cards for bank, or using bank in anyway that doesn't have a real world meaning is not legal. Referencing that nations need to have numerous puppets to farm card is not legal. Referencing bidding on cards is legal, etc. Condemn Koem Kab provides a nice template for legally referencing more advance aspects of cards. In practice, if you want to reference cards in any depth referring to them as works of art or whatever likely provides a more practical way of handling things. BTW, for anyone who wants to call out the usage of bank in Koem Kab we did find a (perhaps post-hoc) justification for it since it could have a real world interpretation. I will add a link to this post in the rules compendium.

Anyhow, for the purposes of this proposal, the first line is illegal.

Montrandec wrote:Acknowledging:
The existence of more than five hundred puppets existing just to expand The Northern Light's card collection.

The rest is fine.

At least we finally have a ruling. Thanks Ransium

by **Lord Dominator** » Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:03 am

Ransium wrote:
Lord Dominator wrote:So essentially, basic buying/selling/gifting is okay legality-wise, but auctions aren't (agreed on the farming aspect)? I'm not sure I can follow the logic here, since the auction system is the method of buying/selling, and it's entirely reasonable in context (by NS standards) that the only way to buy/sell them is by auctioning, rather than as mention to a mini-game.

My wife was doing yoga when I wrote that up and I got distracted. I meant for it to be legal. I will edit the post.

Fair enough, carry on

by **Montrandec** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:42 am

[snip]

by **East Meranopirus** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:57 am

Montrandec wrote:
East Meranopirus wrote:Also are you aware that The Northern Light is actually a puppet maintained by TNP's government?

WOW

If you're trying to act sarcastic, remember to put some sort of hint to let us know, like "/s"
If you're not, then you're very welcome.

by **Johanneslanden** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:04 pm

I'm slightly confused as to why TNL deserves this condemnation.
The points in the condemnation would appear to me to contradict each other.

by **Kaboomlandia** » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:42 pm

how is this almost at quorum

by **Marxist Germany** » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:04 pm

Kaboomlandia wrote:how is this almost at quorum

OOC: I have no words :clap:

by **Tinhampton** » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:11 pm

Kaboomlandia wrote:how is this almost at quorum

(I am in favour of both proposals alluded to by Montrandec, primarily FUR TEH LULZIES.)

by **Concrete Slab** » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:42 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Kaboomlandia wrote:how is this almost at quorum

(I am in favour of both proposals alluded to by Montrandec, primarily FUR TEH LULZIES.)

Just shows what the WA has come to. If you’re gonna waste money, you might as well read IA’s guide first, include some arguments, or get feedback...

by **Opstan** » Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:51 pm

Wait, i'm confused. Is the author for or against regional card giveaways...

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=147833

I feel as if a mistake has been made... Please correct me if i'm wrong. <->

by **McMasterdonia** » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:00 pm

Opstan wrote:Wait, i'm confused. Is the author for or against regional card giveaways...

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=147833

(Image)

I feel as if a mistake has been made... Please correct me if i'm wrong. <->

The author is only motivated to do this as we rejected his embassy request. So he’s targeting a nation managed by the government >_>

This is despite the fact that both my predecessor and myself responded to dozens of his telegrams asking for help to set up his region.

by **Montrandec** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:01 am

[snip]

by **Montrandec** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:04 am

[snip]

by **Montrandec** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:08 am

[snip]

[ABANDONED] Condemn the northern light

[ABANDONED] Condemn the northern light

Who is online