NationStates

How about we propose a bill to ban commendations and denouncements? They are the only kinds of bills that come up in the Security Council. They're pointless and do nothing. I don't care about commending or condemning nations. How about we get rid of these cheap, worthless bills and start proposing real issues for the Security Council!

Your suggestion is more appropriate for Technical, that is where suggestions to change the game goes.

Additionally, I will note that the Security Council can and does pass Liberations.

Commendations, condemnations, and liberations are the extent of what the Security Council can do. If you want to suggest another type of resolution, that should be in Technical.

“How dare you suggest Commendations and Condemnations are worthless,” exclaims Ambassador Greyjoy, polishing the Commendation plaque awarded to SkyDip.

Have you anything to replace it with?

SkyDip wrote:“How dare you suggest Commendations and Condemnations are worthless,” exclaims Ambassador Greyjoy, polishing the Commendation plaque awarded to SkyDip.

OOC: isn't it kinda hypocritical since you submitted a proposal to repeal that?

Mathuvan Union wrote:

SkyDip wrote:“How dare you suggest Commendations and Condemnations are worthless,” exclaims Ambassador Greyjoy, polishing the Commendation plaque awarded to SkyDip.

OOC: isn't it kinda hypocritical since you submitted a proposal to repeal that?

OOC: issa joke, my guy

But yes.

SkyDip wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:OOC: isn't it kinda hypocritical since you submitted a proposal to repeal that?

OOC: issa joke, my guy

But yes.

OOC: it’s my thing. I knew it was a joke

Praeceps wrote:Your suggestion is more appropriate for Technical, that is where suggestions to change the game goes.

Additionally, I will note that the Security Council can and does pass Liberations.

Commendations, condemnations, and liberations are the extent of what the Security Council can do. If you want to suggest another type of resolution, that should be in Technical.

OOC: Fair enough. I did not know about the Technical forum but I will definitely look into proposing something there. I just feel like the Security Council gets overshadowed by the General Assembly in terms of original ideas and creativity. I stopped voting in the Security Council long ago cause it's always to commend or condemn a nation I've never heard of. Thank you!

-Astoria- wrote:Have you anything to replace it with?

Actual security measures and diplomatic measures.

OOC: Examples such as laying an embargo against a certain region. International bans on certain weapons. Regulating the amount of nuclear weapons nations are allowed to have. The roleplay options are limitless beyond the current commend/condemn we see ad nauseam.

Upcrus wrote:
OOC: Examples such as laying an embargo against a certain region. International bans on certain weapons. Regulating the amount of nuclear weapons nations are allowed to have. The roleplay options are limitless beyond the current commend/condemn we see ad nauseam.

The General Assembly can do all but the first suggestion.

Plus, what would an embargo even do?

Upcrus wrote:

-Astoria- wrote:Have you anything to replace it with?

Actual security measures and diplomatic measures.

OOC: Examples such as laying an embargo against a certain region. International bans on certain weapons. Regulating the amount of nuclear weapons nations are allowed to have. The roleplay options are limitless beyond the current commend/condemn we see ad nauseam.

We have the GA for roleplay. The SC focuses on the practical aspect of the game.

Noahs Second County
I see I see. I guess my idea is to move any such ideas that would pop up in the GA to the SC if they fit the SC better. I mean, the motions passed in the GA don't truly affect my nation. It's just for fun at the end of the day.

Cor Cada
I did not realize the divide. But, may I ask, how are commendations and condemnations more practical? Do the actual accounts get rewarded or suffer or is just roleplay brownie/naughty points in the community?

I guess at the end of the day, I would just like to see the SC used in a better way. In its current state, I completely ignore it cause it is always the same thing.

GA and SC are two different institutions. GA is for passing international legislation like you're looking for. SC is for recognition of notable players or regions. Don't think about it like its real-life equivalent.

Morover
Has it always been this way?

The only statement of purpose for the SC I can find is: A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Upcrus wrote:Morover
Has it always been this way?

The only statement of purpose for the SC I can find is: A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Yes. Since it's inception.

"the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill" is a reference towards the recognition of those who further or suppress it, and the "via force if necessary" is a reference to liberations, which do have an actual effect on regions but are somewhat less common - mostly because they are only needed in exceptional circumstances that don't arise very often.

At least, that's my take of it. I think the biggest point of confusion here is a misunderstanding of the word "dissemination."

Morover
Fair enough. I personally wish it were different, but I suppose if it's been this way since its inception, I as one nation probably won't cause it to change. I guess I'll just continue to ignore it then.

Cheers!