[DORMANT] Repeal “Commend SkyDip”

by **SkyDip** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:19 am

Please be gentle - it’s been a while since I wrote one of these.

Repeal "Commend SkyDip"

A resolution to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC#118| Proposed by: SkyDip

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #118: Commend SkyDip shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Security Council,

ACKNOWLEDGING that SkyDip and their World Assembly ambassador, Elias Greyjoy, have made many contributions to the Security Council, authoring multiple resolutions,

APPLAUDING the intent of SC#118,

CONCERNED that SC#118 includes multiple action points that do not meet the benchmark of the Security Council, including nation rankings and regional Delegate status,

DECLARING that SC#118 contains few examples of exceptionalism that go above and beyond the normal activities of many nations in the world,

CRITICIZING the interchangeable use of SkyDip and Skydip, an improper nomenclature for the nation in question, in SC#118,

ADMITTING that the WA Delegation of SkyDip believes their own nation falls short of the lofty standards of a Security Council Commendation,

BELIEVING that SkyDip is not worthy of a Security Council Commendation based on the merits presented in SC#118,

HEREBY REPEALS SC#118

by **Jakker** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:47 am

Welcome back SkyDip!

Quite a way to announce your return to the SC lol

by **Mathuvan Union** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:58 am

Jakker wrote:Welcome back SkyDip!

Quite a way to announce your return to the SC lol

what I need to know is why someone is repealing a commendation of themselves.

by **SkyDip** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:12 am

Jakker wrote:Welcome back SkyDip!

Quite a way to announce your return to the SC lol

Thanks, Jakker. Looks like you got a promotion since the last time I was around here - shocked they allow you near the control panels for the forums!

Mathuvan Union wrote:
Jakker wrote:Welcome back SkyDip!

Quite a way to announce your return to the SC lol

what I need to know is why someone is repealing a commendation of themselves.

Boredom, mostly. Need to get back into the swing of things if I want to be an active member again. Also, that proposal is rather poorly written.

by **Outer Sparta** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:14 am

Interesting self-repeal of a commendation. This'll definitely be something to watch.

by **SkyDip** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:18 am

Outer Sparta wrote:Interesting self-repeal of a commendation. This'll definitely be something to watch.

Back when I actually had a handle on how the SC worked, self-commendation/condemnation was frowned up pretty universally, so a self repeal should be universally accepted, right?

by **Bhang Bhang Duc** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:19 am

Welcome back SkyDip, good to see you around here again.

Interesting way to announce your return. Full support by the way if you want to go for the repeal.

by **Outer Sparta** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:42 am

SkyDip wrote:
Outer Sparta wrote:Interesting self-repeal of a commendation. This'll definitely be something to watch.

Back when I actually had a handle on how the SC worked, self-commendation/condemnation was frowned up pretty universally, so a self repeal should be universally accepted, right?

I haven't seen many self-repeals done, but this proposal has a lot of potential. Full support.

by **Bormiar** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:58 pm

I don't really know you, but seeing you back is very cool. Is this just a brief nostalgia trip, or are you actually coming back to the SC?

Are you looking for a better commendation or something?

by **SkyDip** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:04 pm

Bormiar wrote:I don't really know you, but seeing you back is very cool. Is this just a brief nostalgia trip, or are you actually coming back to the SC?

Who can say? I’ll play it by ear. But looks like this place is...blows dust off of stack of books...rather empty. Might need to be filled again!

Bormiar wrote: Are you looking for a better commendation or something?

Not at this time. Was never really a fan of this one, to be honest. It’s...sloppy.

by **Praeceps** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:08 pm

Seems a bit of a strange length to go to in order to get another SC authorship badge, but hey, it'll get the job done.

/s

by **SkyDip** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:45 am

Praeceps wrote:Seems a bit of a strange length to go to in order to get another SC authorship badge, but hey, it'll get the job done.

/s

I can see the signature addition now - “Only nation to repeal their own Commendation!” Salivating just thinking about it!

by **Mathuvan Union** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:48 am

SkyDip wrote:
Praeceps wrote:Seems a bit of a strange length to go to in order to get another SC authorship badge, but hey, it'll get the job done.

/s

I can see the signature addition now - “Only nation to repeal their own Commendation!” Salivating just thinking about it!

now thats why you repeal a commendation

by **SkyDip** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:57 am

Mathuvan Union wrote:
SkyDip wrote:I can see the signature addition now - “Only nation to repeal their own Commendation!” Salivating just thinking about it!

now thats why you repeal a commendation

“In our nation,” says Ambassador Greyjoy, “There’s a saying that goes ‘true altruism is a veil of deceit.’”

by **Benevolent Thomas** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:11 am

Praeceps wrote:Seems a bit of a strange length to go to in order to get another SC authorship badge, but hey, it'll get the job done.

/s

Shit, beat me to it.

Welcome back, SkyDip.

by **Wrapper** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:21 pm

SkyDip, don't you know it's poor form to comment on your own commendation?

by **Ransium** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:53 pm

ADMITTING that SkyDip believes their own nation falls short of the lofty standards of a Security Council Commendation,

I think think should be attributed to SkyDip’s WA delegation or the leader of SkyDip rather than the entire nation. It seems to push R4b to say an entire nation believes something.

by **SkyDip** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:01 pm

Ransium wrote:
ADMITTING that SkyDip believes their own nation falls short of the lofty standards of a Security Council Commendation,

I think think should be attributed to SkyDip’s WA delegation or the leader of SkyDip rather than the entire nation. It seems to push R4b to say an entire nation believes something.

Noted, and changed accordingly. Thank you.

by **Heidgaudr** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:37 am

A couple of minor nitpicks:

SkyDip wrote:APPLAUDING the intent of SC#118,

What intent? This line seems a bit out of place considering the structure of the other clauses where you expand and explain on your reasoning. This one doesn't.

SkyDip wrote:ADMITTING that the WA Delegation of SkyDip believes their own nation falls short of the lofty standards of a Security Council Commendation,

This is the second time you've used "lofty standards". Is there another way to phrase it to get rid of the repetition?

Otherwise, full support.

by **SkyDip** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:46 am

Heidgaudr wrote:What intent? This line seems a bit out of place considering the structure of the other clauses where you expand and explain on your reasoning. This one doesn't.

I am open to revisiting this if I hear more of the same.

Heidgaudr wrote: This is the second time you've used "lofty standards". Is there another way to phrase it to get rid of the repetition?

Changed the first instance of the phrase - good catch. Thank you for the feedback!

by **RiderSyl** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:43 am

OH MY GOD SKYDIP <3

I missed you and your repeals :hug:

by **SkyDip** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:23 pm

RiderSyl wrote:OH MY GOD SKYDIP <3

I missed you and your repeals

Hello!

by **Honeydewistania** » Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:56 am

ADMITTING that the WA Delegation of SkyDip believes their own nation falls short of the lofty standards of a Security Council Commendation,

Is this in general or based on 118?

by **SkyDip** » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:04 am

Honeydewistania wrote:
ADMITTING that the WA Delegation of SkyDip believes their own nation falls short of the lofty standards of a Security Council Commendation,

Is this in general or based on 118?

The next clause should rectify any confusion in that regard.

by **Honeydewistania** » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:10 am

SkyDip wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:
Is this in general or based on 118?

The next clause should rectify any confusion in that regard.

It doesn't really. It reads as if you don't think you deserve a commendation at all, while the next clause reads as the SC should not commend you based on what's in 118. Although maybe I'm just being pedantic.

[DORMANT] Repeal “Commend SkyDip”

[DORMANT] Repeal “Commend SkyDip”

Who is online