NationStates

The Security Council,

ACKNOWLEDGING the positive contributions made by Trotterdam to the international community,

UNDERSTANDING that the "international database managed by Trotterdammer scholars" is censored in an effort to force other nations to respond to these problems in a way that pleases the Trotterdamer government,

ALARMED by the precedent a commendation that ignores this sets,

Hereby repeals Commend Trotterdam.

You have not fully addressed the contents of the original commendation. Like the earlier scrapped attempt this is just lazy.

Suggest you read the rules and do some research.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:You have not fully addressed the contents of the original commendation. Like the earlier scrapped attempt this is just lazy.

Suggest you read the rules and do some research.

Sure, I'll add an "ACKNOWLEDGING the positive contributions made by Trotterdam to the international community".

...that’s it?

That's not enough to cover the basis of a proper repeal. Add some more to your draft.

There is nothing in this repeal that would actually convince me that such a resolution was in need of a repeal. Therefore, against

I don't see any reason within the current proposal why a repeal is necessary. The proposal in its current form has little to no worthwhile content or argumentation that is of a convincing nature. There's only two lines without any effective substance.

If you're serious about it, you need to include a lot more information, argumentation, and above all, have done the proper research to back up your arguments with evidence.

Daarwyrth wrote:I don't see any reason within the current proposal why a repeal is necessary. The proposal in its current form has little to no worthwhile content or argumentation that is of a convincing nature. There's only two lines without any effective substance.

If you're serious about it, you need to include a lot more information, argumentation, and above all, have done the proper research to back up your arguments with evidence.

Because that is the reason to repeal it. Everything in the commendation is perfectly commendable if not for the fact that the "international database" is censored because of an implementation dispute from years back, which alone is a reason for appeal.

In my opinion. You're welcome to oppose this if you disagree.

Monkchester wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:I don't see any reason within the current proposal why a repeal is necessary. The proposal in its current form has little to no worthwhile content or argumentation that is of a convincing nature. There's only two lines without any effective substance.

If you're serious about it, you need to include a lot more information, argumentation, and above all, have done the proper research to back up your arguments with evidence.

Because that is the reason to repeal it. Everything in the commendation is perfectly commendable if not for the fact that the "international database" is censored because of an implementation dispute from years back, which alone is a reason for appeal.

In my opinion. You're welcome to oppose this if you disagree.

That's really not enough to get me to support this one. If you provide more than that I might change my mind, but that's pushing it.

Monkchester wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:I don't see any reason within the current proposal why a repeal is necessary. The proposal in its current form has little to no worthwhile content or argumentation that is of a convincing nature. There's only two lines without any effective substance.

If you're serious about it, you need to include a lot more information, argumentation, and above all, have done the proper research to back up your arguments with evidence.

Because that is the reason to repeal it. Everything in the commendation is perfectly commendable if not for the fact that the "international database" is censored because of an implementation dispute from years back, which alone is a reason for appeal.

In my opinion. You're welcome to oppose this if you disagree.

Still doesn't take away from the fact that the proposal is very thin and comes across as a very lazy repeal. You really want that SC Author badge? Work for it, put in the effort to make the repeal convincing and actually solid and worthwhile. Because your proposed draft isn't any of that yet.

I strongly advice you to do proper research and put the work into this. I am not in favour of the repeal anyway, but if you want to do something like this, do it properly.

I would have thought we'd covered this...

Candensia wrote:Ridiculous. So this one censor outweighs the entirety of the benefit Trotterdam’s completely free, detailed, and updated database provides? Cmon now, certainly that isn’t the case.

Fauxia wrote:I’m sorry, but what the fuck is this position supposed to be? So you’d rather have the results of no options than all but one? Like there’s some inherent need for the options to be treated equally? Makes no sense.

SherpDaWerp wrote:I don't think one (1) censored option outweighs the 5,100 other options (to be precise, I counted 5,111) that the stat archive includes. That's less than 0.02% of all the options. It's not worth refusing to commend over such an incredibly small negative.

Christ Triumphant wrote:That particular argument is quite poor. It seems quite obvious to be done for humor purposes. And the one who is making that claim, there, is somewhat lacking in credibility...

Noahs Second Country wrote:As for the censorship thing, as mentioned it's an incredibly minor detail, it's not serving to mislead anyone, nor is it particularly harmful.

Given that the only person that's ever brought this up is you (Monkchester, Munkcestrian Republic, close enough)... what's the deal? Do you want to pick #544.3 but can't be bothered to actually read the option and figure out stat changes? Do you have some sort of a grudge against Trotterdam for some reason?

SherpDaWerp wrote:I would have thought we'd covered this...

Candensia wrote:Ridiculous. So this one censor outweighs the entirety of the benefit Trotterdam’s completely free, detailed, and updated database provides? Cmon now, certainly that isn’t the case.

Fauxia wrote:I’m sorry, but what the fuck is this position supposed to be? So you’d rather have the results of no options than all but one? Like there’s some inherent need for the options to be treated equally? Makes no sense.

SherpDaWerp wrote:I don't think one (1) censored option outweighs the 5,100 other options (to be precise, I counted 5,111) that the stat archive includes. That's less than 0.02% of all the options. It's not worth refusing to commend over such an incredibly small negative.

Christ Triumphant wrote:That particular argument is quite poor. It seems quite obvious to be done for humor purposes. And the one who is making that claim, there, is somewhat lacking in credibility...

Noahs Second Country wrote:As for the censorship thing, as mentioned it's an incredibly minor detail, it's not serving to mislead anyone, nor is it particularly harmful.

Given that the only person that's ever brought this up is you (Monkchester, Munkcestrian Republic, close enough)... what's the deal? Do you want to pick #544.3 but can't be bothered to actually read the option and figure out stat changes? Do you have some sort of a grudge against Trotterdam for some reason?

I just have principles on this issue.

And yes, we did cover this. The censorship does outweigh everything else. You are welcome to disagree; that is my view and you will have yours.

SherpDaWerp wrote:I would have thought we'd covered this...

Candensia wrote:Ridiculous. So this one censor outweighs the entirety of the benefit Trotterdam’s completely free, detailed, and updated database provides? Cmon now, certainly that isn’t the case.

Fauxia wrote:I’m sorry, but what the fuck is this position supposed to be? So you’d rather have the results of no options than all but one? Like there’s some inherent need for the options to be treated equally? Makes no sense.

SherpDaWerp wrote:I don't think one (1) censored option outweighs the 5,100 other options (to be precise, I counted 5,111) that the stat archive includes. That's less than 0.02% of all the options. It's not worth refusing to commend over such an incredibly small negative.

Christ Triumphant wrote:That particular argument is quite poor. It seems quite obvious to be done for humor purposes. And the one who is making that claim, there, is somewhat lacking in credibility...

Noahs Second Country wrote:As for the censorship thing, as mentioned it's an incredibly minor detail, it's not serving to mislead anyone, nor is it particularly harmful.

Given that the only person that's ever brought this up is you (Monkchester, Munkcestrian Republic, close enough)... what's the deal? Do you want to pick #544.3 but can't be bothered to actually read the option and figure out stat changes? Do you have some sort of a grudge against Trotterdam for some reason?

They probably do have a grudge given they seem to really cherry-pick that one to the bone.

Monkchester wrote:The Security Council,

ACKNOWLEDGING the positive contributions made by Trotterdam to the international community,

UNDERSTANDING that the "international database managed by Trotterdammer scholars" is censored in an effort to force other nations to respond to these problems in a way that pleases the Trotterdamer government,

ALARMED by the precedent a commendation that ignores this sets,

Hereby repeals Commend Trotterdam.

Cry about it.

Honeydewistania wrote:

Monkchester wrote:The Security Council,

ACKNOWLEDGING the positive contributions made by Trotterdam to the international community,

UNDERSTANDING that the "international database managed by Trotterdammer scholars" is censored in an effort to force other nations to respond to these problems in a way that pleases the Trotterdamer government,

ALARMED by the precedent a commendation that ignores this sets,

Hereby repeals Commend Trotterdam.

Cry about it.

You'll have to try harder than that.