WITHDREW Condemn Davelands VOID

[Joeyist Union]

Dear Security Council..

Davelands is being condemned for the following reasons....

Aggravating that a nation would waste our god earned time by proposing Jokes instead of real action.

Irritating that the proposal was not even thought through when written.

Result I hope that the Security Council would be inspired to write a separate proposal to stop foolish proposals that irritate members so much.

Result I hope that we learn from all of this and vote in agreeance. Thanks Joeyist Union

[Fauxia]

Not close to enough.

Against.

[Praeceps]

You have a couple of rules violation: tit-for-tat and lack of an operative clause.

Proposing a bad SC resolution does not rise to the level of condemnation. Otherwise the CCD would have about half a dozen.

[The Gilded Star]

It's not entirely Davelands' fault since enough people supported it for it to reach quorum.

Ergo I feel a more encompassing proposal may be something along the lines of, "Condemn Nations Supporting Condemning Nations Creating Regions for SC Props for Condemnation".

[Bormiar]

Tit-for-tat is probably illegal because it's spam.

It's not entirely Davelands' fault since enough people supported it for it to reach quorum.

Everyone knows almost anything can reach vote. Davelands also tged the whole WA essentially begging people to vote for.

[The Gilded Star]

Everyone knows almost anything can reach vote. Davelands also tged the whole WA essentially begging people to vote for.

But Shrew said that tactic normally doesn't work!

[Mallorea and Riva]

You have a couple of rules violation: tit-for-tat and lack of an operative clause.

Proposing a bad SC resolution does not rise to the level of condemnation. Otherwise the CCD would have about half a dozen.

It's not tit-for-tat, that was designed to prevent "I condemn you because you condemn me" proposals. Not "you do dumb thing, I condemn you." Lack of an operative clause is spot on though.

[Praeceps]

You have a couple of rules violation: tit-for-tat and lack of an operative clause.

Proposing a bad SC resolution does not rise to the level of condemnation. Otherwise the CCD would have about half a dozen.

It's not tit-for-tat, that was designed to prevent "I condemn you because you condemn me" proposals. Not "you do dumb thing, I condemn you." Lack of an operative clause is spot on though.

Thanks for the information—to be clear, I condemn X because X condemn Y is legal?

[Mallorea and Riva]

It's not tit-for-tat, that was designed to prevent "I condemn you because you condemn me" proposals. Not "you do dumb thing, I condemn you." Lack of an operative clause is spot on though.

Thanks for the information—to be clear, I condemn X because X condemn Y is legal?

It's a fair question, I think the answer is "it depends?" based on the rule. The rule probably is outdated to some extent, which is a personal opinion. I think the intention was that you shouldn't have a proposal that says "I condemn you because you condemned so-and-so" because such a resolution lacks any meaningful substance. That having been said, in the SC mods are reluctant to delete a proposal for tit-for-tat when there is any semblance of substance to preserve it. In this case, we have an argument that it is not what Davelands did, but rather, the reasons he did it which are condemn-worthy.

All of that having been said, I'm not a mod. So take it all as you will from a player with some degree of experience, but without definitive judgment

[Praeceps]

You're better of a source than me. Answer noted and appreciated.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Aggravating that a nation would waste our god earned time by proposing Jokes instead of real action.
Irritating that the proposal was not even thought through when written.

Pot, kettle, black?

Anyway there are a couple of R4 illegalities in the complete draft as well as the already noted R3.

[Sedgistan]

Very funny, but I think it's time to put an end to this. Don't submit this in any way, shape or form.