NationStates

I recently went through a few re-writings of this proposal but has been deemed LEAGAL and is now awaiting approvals.

The proposal reads as follows,

As time has passed, we should take this time to look back and reassess some of our previous resolutions,

The Security Council,

Recognizing that years ago the region of Allied States Of EuroIslanders was responsible for actions that led to the initial condemnation,

Understanding that due to the the region's steady decline in nations, almost all of the nations that were part of Allied States Of EuroIslanders when the resolution was passed have either left the region and/or ceased to exist,

Remembering that there once was a time when Allied States of EuroIslanders was one of the largest democratic regions and due to bad decisions made by nations no longer in the region that led to the condemnation, the region has lost almost all of it's influence,

Noting that the one remaining nation, Isla Pena, has been responsible in following all rules laid out by the condemnation and the region has been singlehandedly run by Isla Pena for far too long,

Herby repeals Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders

This proposal will be up for debate if it fails to receive the sufficient amount of approvals.

Green Days and Equality wrote:This proposal will be up for debate if it fails to receive the sufficient amount of approvals.

Its up for debate now, regardless whether or not it reaches queue. Welcome to the SC, btw! First off, you should really draft here first before submitting because old timers like me hate it when people don't. Secondly, if you had cone here first you would've seen that Lord Dominator had already started a proposal to do this and it's bad sportsmanship to not give everyone the chance to debate your drafts equally. I'm not sure if I'll support this with the way you want about it.

Herby not hereby. Also very borderline whether this actually address the contents of the original resolution.

Don't think there's enough work gone into this to make it a viable repeal. Please learn the difference between "its" and "it's".

Also Herby.

Dont how much clearer I have to make it. English is not my first language and I understand that there are mistakes but please it is my first time and already have 30+ approvals

And if that many approved they clearly understood

Green Days and Equality wrote:Dont how much clearer I have to make it. English is not my first language and I understand that there are mistakes but please it is my first time and already have 30+ approvals

This is why we draft here on the forum first, to avoid mistakes like this. You're going to have to pull the proposal and make it legal I'm afraid.

Green Days and Equality wrote:And if that many approved they clearly understood

Them understanding doesn't matter in the instance of a rules violation.

The mods talked it over and we decided to rule the operative clause as legal. We try to be as consistent as possible and follow previous precedent. Sedge made us aware of an older ruling made in a similar situation to this that can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=20306474#p20306474

Jakker wrote:The mods talked it over and we decided to rule the operative clause as legal. We try to be as consistent as possible and follow previous precedent. Sedge made us aware of an older ruling made in a similar situation to this that can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=20306474#p20306474

Thanks for the ruling mods. I guess we as voters will just need to take misspelling into account if it reaches vote.

It has been 24 hours since this proposal has been out there and there has been tremendous progress, even if it was a bumpy road to legality. Thank you.

Jakker wrote:The mods talked it over and we decided to rule the operative clause as legal. We try to be as consistent as possible and follow previous precedent. Sedge made us aware of an older ruling made in a similar situation to this that can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=20306474#p20306474

A more recent ruling differs if we're going to be following previous precedent...

I know it’s frustrating when mods are inconsistent about these things, and for the past few years I’ve strived for consistency with past precedent (or my understanding of it) most of all, which is why I ruled it illegal initially. But I think we now have enough moderators interested in the SC again that we can start thinking about if precedent is wise. I was persuaded to rule this legal not due to even older precedent, but because I don’t think having super persnickety rules about the operative clause are in keeping with what’s best for the SC. Moderators should not be a grammar/spelling check, the delegates and WA voters should. I don’t think there’s any real possible confusion about what the author meant here, short of linking to Herby’s nation profile directly. I would still rule an operative clause that misspelled the targets name or misspelled the operative verb to another actual word (condones, for example) as illegal.

Ransium wrote:Herby not hereby.

Ehhhh what?

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Also Herby.

Also ehhhh what?

Herby repeals Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders

Oh I see. Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........... nope!

It has been a bumpy road but it is now ready to vote in a few hours

Green Days and Equality wrote:It has been a bumpy road but it is now ready to vote in a few hours

In my experience it’s one of the worst proposals to make quorum. I shall be voting against.

Ransium wrote:I know it’s frustrating when mods are inconsistent about these things, and for the past few years I’ve strived for consistency with past precedent (or my understanding of it) most of all, which is why I ruled it illegal initially. But I think we now have enough moderators interested in the SC again that we can start thinking about if precedent is wise. I was persuaded to rule this legal not due to even older precedent, but because I don’t think having super persnickety rules about the operative clause are in keeping with what’s best for the SC. Moderators should not be a grammar/spelling check, the delegates and WA voters should. I don’t think there’s any real possible confusion about what the author meant here, short of linking to Herby’s nation profile directly. I would still rule an operative clause that misspelled the targets name or misspelled the operative verb to another actual word (condones, for example) as illegal.

There's another dimension to this discussion too: "Hereby" is not require in a resolution to satisfy Rule III. Many resolutions, especially the earlier resolutions, would skip 'Hereby' in the operative clause. An author might just write "Commends _____." (Mousebumples, Topid were common users of this style). I made the "Hereby ____" standard (although Goobergunchia did use it first).

For the purposes of Rule III, it's the Commend/Liberate/Condemn/Repeals that makes a clause operative. And even then there is some freedom to say 'free' / 'resigns' etc. can be allowed in the place of commend/liberate/condemn/repeal if the meaning is clear. The principle of general interpretableness is paramount.

This is all to say that the real issue with "Herby commends" is whether it violates Rule IV (by confusing who the resolution is addressed from) not whether it violates Rule III. I don't think it would violate Rule IV because the resolution begins in its preamble with "The Security Council" and the 'Herby' is an obvious spelling mistake.

The proposal in question has reached quorum. I am opposed in principle but will vote in favour if it does hold on for the next eight hours - primarily for the lulzies, and partially because the very first clause is both nice-looking and almost never seen in proposals

AS OF 2100 GMT ON THURSDAY: Approvals: 65 out of 65 needed (Mikeswill, Arrstotzka, The Federal Government of Iowa, Norlyndis, Medoynia, Western Cape, Baophenx Dynasty, The Flyin, Smiley Bob, Kaystein, Zicona, Boku no Pica, New Luciannova, The Fre Rust, Scardinius, Jew Man, Takaar, Marrabuk, Briarberg, SFR Philippines, Skyrim And Nordic Peoples, Shauntopia, Lexgod, Besmenien, Kento Kelsey Fan Club, Versylle, Amblibahdesh, Malvator, Kadinatia, Krispy Kremes, Tzedeck, Aqun-Athlok, Sylvai, Ashaie, Spartakoi, Ladiass, Kvasheim, Nox Ithum, Byrdonia, Zombiedolphins, Holleynaga, Gopniks Union, Kuriko, Denathor, Comackia, War Unkown, Torchland, Cantanasia, The glorious state of Corbyn, Southern and Northern Caledonia, Independent Alignments, Garbanzony, Foreignaid, Mekt, South Krimelski, Omaha Utopia, Thornid, Magnum Exitium, Orennica, Harmonic Empire, Evonidiche, KhanGang, Refuge Isle, Amerinos, The Liberal Fascist Union of Fronk)

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Green Days and Equality wrote:It has been a bumpy road but it is now ready to vote in a few hours

In my experience it’s one of the worst proposals to make quorum. I shall be voting against.

I welcome criticism

Green Days and Equality wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:In my experience it’s one of the worst proposals to make quorum. I shall be voting against.

I welcome criticism

It's a waste of our time as you submitted this proposal without drafting it here first.

Praeceps wrote:

Green Days and Equality wrote:
I welcome criticism

It's a waste of our time as you submitted this proposal without drafting it here first.

I appreciate the kind words. But it doesn't say anywhere that it is a requirement.

What time does voting start?

Green Days and Equality wrote:

Praeceps wrote:It's a waste of our time as you submitted this proposal without drafting it here first.

I appreciate the kind words. But it doesn't say anywhere that it is a requirement.

What time does voting start?

12:00 EST

Green Days and Equality wrote:

Praeceps wrote:It's a waste of our time as you submitted this proposal without drafting it here first.

I appreciate the kind words. But it doesn't say anywhere that it is a requirement.

It doesn't say it, but if you don't all the large delegate of this game will crush your proposal. Spelling errors and no drafting are extremely frowned upon.

I would suggest getting it pulled to draft it properly.

The Stalker wrote:

Green Days and Equality wrote:
I appreciate the kind words. But it doesn't say anywhere that it is a requirement.

It doesn't say it, but if you don't all the large delegate of this game will crush your proposal. Spelling errors and no drafting are extremely frowned upon.

I would suggest getting it pulled to draft it properly.

I mean it likely will not pass but so do a lot of things

Green Days and Equality wrote:

The Stalker wrote:
It doesn't say it, but if you don't all the large delegate of this game will crush your proposal. Spelling errors and no drafting are extremely frowned upon.

I would suggest getting it pulled to draft it properly.

I mean it likely will not pass but so do a lot of things

I mean it likely will be defeated by 90% or more as it is, but it's your proposal do as you like.

The Stalker wrote:

Green Days and Equality wrote:
I mean it likely will not pass but so do a lot of things

I mean it likely will be defeated by 90% or more as it is, but it's your proposal do as you like.

Yeah it's my first time and am excited to have even gotten this far. That being said next time will be more formal.